Take it to another thread, please. Provide your sources and images.
Last edited:
Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Take it to another thread, please. Provide your sources and images.
Azur
The Living Force
I can tell you this:
I will find, in the "after time", the sonofabitch that invented mosquitoes.
I'm being funny, but serious with the above.
That question about spiritual development makes me thoughtful. If we consider 1 in 10 000 to be probable, has it ever been different on our plane of existence and does it ever change with the cyclical nature of our world? Maybe the potential is already present whatever the conditions. I don't think the environment changes much to it. Everybody goes through suffering and discomfort at one point or another but few learn from it. Geniuses are exceptional in that regard.
To quote Laura:
If we are in a 3DSTS world, then this proportion is akin to that little Yang spot in a Yin world. The proportion seems fair, the environment has always been designed to suppress any potential for evolution, but cannot erase it all. And it certainly is supposed to be that way, or we would then shift to a STO World, where there has to be some STS potential, if not, we wouldn't have fallen, Lucifer.
To quote Laura:
If we are in a 3DSTS world, then this proportion is akin to that little Yang spot in a Yin world. The proportion seems fair, the environment has always been designed to suppress any potential for evolution, but cannot erase it all. And it certainly is supposed to be that way, or we would then shift to a STO World, where there has to be some STS potential, if not, we wouldn't have fallen, Lucifer.
Yeah, I don't think we should throw the whole evolution thing out. Obviously the environment does impact sentient lifeforms, and they respond to those impacts. Heat, cold, electricity, those kinds of primary elements are likely to force a response from sentient lifeforms, albeit perhaps only after repeated applications or a long period of time. I mean, is anyone going to suggest that bears living in snowy areas did not "evolve" white fur in order to blend in with their environment? Then again, the 'intuitive' way we'd look at this is that, yes they obviously did, but neo-darwinists don't even allow that if it implies some kind of conscious awareness on the part of the polar bear, as if it looked around it 'decided' it would be a good idea to blend in with its environment. No, that had to happen (according to neo-darwinists) as a result of 'random mutation' that produced all sorts of different colors until finally the color white proved to be the best adaptation.
The vulgar Darwinians certainly don't allow for any "active adaptation", that's pure poison to their worldview. There are "3rd way" Darwinians nowadays, because at this point you really need to be ignorant not to see the many problems in Darwinism if you look into molecular biology, and these guys argue that the cells and various systems themselves have some kind of intelligence and "reprogram" their DNA as a reaction to stimuli from the environment. These people kind of want to "save" evolutionary theory from the Intelligent Design folks.
The problem though (and the reason why the "vulgar" Darwinians hate that idea) is that it opens a Pandora's box: what, intelligence in cells? And of that magnitude? We thought mind=brain! We want it that way! Also, any such "active adaptations" (think your polar bear example) would obviously be unconscious. What, a vast unconscious intelligence engineering stuff!? I think that makes people uneasy as well.
Basically, I think the minute you leave the "random mutation + natural selection" nonsense, you smash the door open for a radically different view of the Cosmos. It kills materialism. That's why so many people, scientists etc., not to mention public education, still believe in the original neo-Darwinian theory with such irrational conviction. It's what anchors their materialist view of a universe consisting of dead matter floating around, and nothing more.
I think you nailed it here. And the important word is "respond". The environment doesn't just blindly shape organisms. Organisms respond to the information they take in from the environment, and like you said it's possible that this is sometimes a long-term process (though other times, perhaps it is not). Basically, the organism, in changed conditions, experiences a 'need' for something new. Just as there is an organism-environment interaction, I think there is probably an organism-information interaction - information on a higher level. The 'need' of the organism 'connects' it with the required forms, perhaps aided by hyperdimensional intelligences, and acting as an 'attractor'. The organism then incorporates that new, beneficial form into their physical being, which presents to an external observer as a DNA change. And something similar might be going on when a new species is born.Yeah, I don't think we should throw the whole evolution thing out. Obviously the environment does impact sentient lifeforms, and they respond to those impacts. Heat, cold, electricity, those kinds of primary elements are likely to force a response from sentient lifeforms, albeit perhaps only after repeated applications or a long period of time. I mean, is anyone going to suggest that bears living in snowy areas did not "evolve" white fur in order to blend in with their environment? Then again, the 'intuitive' way we'd look at this is that, yes they obviously did, but neo-darwinists don't even allow that if it implies some kind of conscious awareness on the part of the polar bear, as if it looked around it 'decided' it would be a good idea to blend in with its environment. No, that had to happen (according to neo-darwinists) as a result of 'random mutation' that produced all sorts of different colors until finally the color white proved to be the best adaptation.
I'd guess that the only randomness is in the conditions which the organism experiences, and for which its existing traits are more or less designed. E.g., an organism can tolerate a certain temperature rate. The environment is unpredictable, though. It might "randomly" get too hot or too cold. This and other dynamics like it might prompt DNA to scramble into action in order to adapt. Some changes will damage DNA (in the Darwin Devolves manner described by Behe) that can result in an advantage for the given situation. I'm looking forward to Behe's new book coming out this month, because I think he'll touch on this stuff.
But seriously, these polar bears are starting to annoy me (sorry Al Gore). Can anyone see polar bears in the Arctic going through dozens or hundreds of random, unconscious color/hue changes before accidentally hitting on white and it being kept because it meant that they were able to catch seals better and therefore be more successful? Surely they would have died out before then, being easily spottable by the seals?
Or maybe the neo-Darwinists would say that there were a bunch of bears around the world that were different colors, ranging from black to white and other colors in between, and when the ice age came, the white bears were the ones that did best in the snow? But why would there be a white bear to begin with in a non white colored landscape before an ice age, surely it would have died out soon enough being very visible to prey? Or maybe the Arctic caps were always here, going back millions of years, and polar bears just evolved there and 'random selection' hit on the color white fairly early on?
From wikipedia:
So how do you avoid the conclusion that the polar bear was either put there because it fit the landscape, or the bear had some conscious ability to adapt to/respond to its environment? Just trying to think like a neo-darwinist here.
Or maybe the neo-Darwinists would say that there were a bunch of bears around the world that were different colors, ranging from black to white and other colors in between, and when the ice age came, the white bears were the ones that did best in the snow? But why would there be a white bear to begin with in a non white colored landscape before an ice age, surely it would have died out soon enough being very visible to prey? Or maybe the Arctic caps were always here, going back millions of years, and polar bears just evolved there and 'random selection' hit on the color white fairly early on?
From wikipedia:
So how do you avoid the conclusion that the polar bear was either put there because it fit the landscape, or the bear had some conscious ability to adapt to/respond to its environment? Just trying to think like a neo-darwinist here.
Last edited:
Well that's probably an exercise in futility. There's some form of adaptation of species to environments, but there's probably not any uniform progression of evolution across species. We're kind of like the blind men feeling one small part of a large elephant trying to figure out how this all works. Maybe we can use the carnivore's approach to diet which has been referred to as the elimination diet by Phil Escott and just rule out all the highly improbable stuff and work with what's left. Personally I would guess that the designer of a species, whoever that might be, has included code for 'bug fixes' to adjust for environmental changes.
Behe pretty much puts a period to the moths on tree trunks "adaptation". The more I read, starting with "Genetic Entropy" to Behe, to Leisola, and now Stove, the more it seems to me that material evolution is simply dead on arrival. There is no material evolution; there is only engineering and planting.
I don't think white bears or brown bears are simply variations in a population that "selected out" because of the environment; I think they were put there because they suited the environment. I don't think that Black, White, Brown, or Yellow people were originally "variations" that selected themselves because of more or less sunlight, I think they were engineered and planted. Yes, they can mix up and hybridize because their types were all engineered from the same basic materials and plan, and there was some genetic drift due to some variations in the genotype, but not a whole lot. Just imagine how different dog breeds are "created" by selective breeding. And if you stop "controlling" the breeding, they all revert back to some basic type. People can do this to themselves in various ways; and they do.
There is some response to the environment, mainly epigenetic, but that in no way creates new genes. There may have been some "mutations" or changes, thanks to virii, but overall, it looks like the genome is highly, HIGHLY resistant to change and mutation. Those experiments with trillions of iterations of bacteria tell a LOT. "Random mutations" break things. That's pretty much it. And if, by some change, one of them does help survival, it only does so at a cost because something is broken.
It's funny, I just finished Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales" and I don't think I've ever been so appalled and even disgusted at a "conspiracy" in my life, mainly because it has taken over a cognitive style that purports to seek TRUTH. It's all a pack of lies, from the foundations up.
Stove doesn't suggest or appear to support some other idea for what could replace Darwinian evolution, or some kind of evolution; he gives lip service to it being reasonable and looks like it is true for animals, but human beings must be excepted. I don't think that is the proper approach. Yes, human beings are exceptional, but only in degree, not necessarily kind; they are still occupying bodies that have strong ties to the entire animal kingdom.
The only thing that is left, when you finish Stove, is an invisible structure of Intelligent Design that Stove never verbally advocates or even suggests to advocate, but his failure to go in any other direction pretty much leaves that as the default. Heck, when he was writing, Behe's book had not been published so he was actually not aware, as far as I can see, of those utterly compelling, deep level, foundational, data that leave ID as the only explanation.
I don't think white bears or brown bears are simply variations in a population that "selected out" because of the environment; I think they were put there because they suited the environment. I don't think that Black, White, Brown, or Yellow people were originally "variations" that selected themselves because of more or less sunlight, I think they were engineered and planted. Yes, they can mix up and hybridize because their types were all engineered from the same basic materials and plan, and there was some genetic drift due to some variations in the genotype, but not a whole lot. Just imagine how different dog breeds are "created" by selective breeding. And if you stop "controlling" the breeding, they all revert back to some basic type. People can do this to themselves in various ways; and they do.
There is some response to the environment, mainly epigenetic, but that in no way creates new genes. There may have been some "mutations" or changes, thanks to virii, but overall, it looks like the genome is highly, HIGHLY resistant to change and mutation. Those experiments with trillions of iterations of bacteria tell a LOT. "Random mutations" break things. That's pretty much it. And if, by some change, one of them does help survival, it only does so at a cost because something is broken.
It's funny, I just finished Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales" and I don't think I've ever been so appalled and even disgusted at a "conspiracy" in my life, mainly because it has taken over a cognitive style that purports to seek TRUTH. It's all a pack of lies, from the foundations up.
Stove doesn't suggest or appear to support some other idea for what could replace Darwinian evolution, or some kind of evolution; he gives lip service to it being reasonable and looks like it is true for animals, but human beings must be excepted. I don't think that is the proper approach. Yes, human beings are exceptional, but only in degree, not necessarily kind; they are still occupying bodies that have strong ties to the entire animal kingdom.
The only thing that is left, when you finish Stove, is an invisible structure of Intelligent Design that Stove never verbally advocates or even suggests to advocate, but his failure to go in any other direction pretty much leaves that as the default. Heck, when he was writing, Behe's book had not been published so he was actually not aware, as far as I can see, of those utterly compelling, deep level, foundational, data that leave ID as the only explanation.
I think neo-Darwinists would argue something along those lines. They give the example of some moths which lived in a forest; most were light colored and a few were darker. But one day they built a coal plant nearby and the smoke turned the barks of the trees darker, so then the darker ones became the predominant moths. (Or maybe they were all light, but one happy day a couple mutated into a darker color and had offspring - not sure how the argument goes exactly.)
However, one big problem with this - and this is related to what Laura said above about not being evolution beyond what is already in the genotype - is that such a change is not really an evolutionary step, but mere adaptation based on the info that was already in the DNA of the moths or polar bears. That's as much as natural selection can plausibly explain, if any, but not much else. Irreducibly complex systems are impossible to explain this way, for example.
And sometimes such adaptation comes in the form of devolution. In one or more of the books discussed here they mentioned how scientists were trying to replicate evolution by bombarding fruit flies with radiation, thus accelerating random mutations, and in theory making them evolve faster. After several years and thousands of generations, the fruit flies did not evolve at all, and even developed some horrible mutations like legs instead of antlers and so on. Later, they tried the experiment again, but this time with a less aggressive dose of radiation, and what they got was some fruit flies immune to that amount of radiation. They said that was proof of evolution via random mutation, but in reality the genome of the fruit fly did not gain any new information. On the contrary, it devolved into a simpler state that also made it less vulnerable to radiation (in the same way that cocroaches are less affected by radiation than humans, I suppose).
So the problem remains that new information never appears by chance.
To me, there is yet another problem with the scenarios above: That even if the adaptive changes in those examples did not happen due to any addition of new information, they were indeed happy coincidences, which implies some sort of intelligence at play at some level. What are the chances that bears with white fur happened to be born when needed, or that some moths were darker when the smoke came, or that precisely the genes that made the fruit flies more vulnerable happened to be the ones disabled?
Added: Just read Laura's post above - looks like she beat me to it. :)
Last edited:
Slight tangent. This video is a great example of the product of design in action:
Darwinian Fairytales is really a fitting title, instead of conceding that they haven't got a clue how life originated or how evolution is possible, they simply make stuff up, pure and simple. Having read several of the recommended books on the topic, the Darwinian theory and various offshoots have no basis in reality (i.e. fossil records, irreducibly complex biological systems, or philosophical inconsistency as shown by Stove), they have stories that they tell, and that's basically it.
Two books that take the main "proofs" of evolution and examine them closely: "Icons of Evolution" and "Zombie Science" by Jonathan Wells. Again, both well worth reading! He completely demolishes the evolutionist's claim that the human eye is flawed and does it with hard research.
caballero reyes
The Living Force
I apologize for having left the main topic of this thread, I did it because I thought there could be some relationship in the topics covered.
