The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

How can natural selection filter out stuff then?

Is God controlling it directly?

You're obsessed with God!

I think evolution displays natural intelligence rather than supernatural intelligence (i.e. a designer).

The idea that the universe/nature/evolution is intelligent obviously has profound implications.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

You're obsessed with God!

I think evolution displays natural intelligence rather than supernatural intelligence (i.e. a designer).

The idea that the universe/nature/evolution is intelligent obviously has profound implications.

This is the creationist thread, and you have claimed to be a creationist before.

So then how does this intelligence direct natural selection exactly?
Please be specific in the mechanism by which it acts.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

This is the creationist thread, and you have claimed to be a creationist before.

I'm not a creationist and never claimed to be one. I did once lean towards Intelligent Design but now think natural intelligence is a better explanation.

However, ID is much closer to the truth than the atheistic view of evolution. A theory of evolution that leaves out intelligence is specious nonsense.

King Mob wrote: »

So then how does this intelligence direct natural selection exactly?
Please be specific in the mechanism by which it acts.

I've no idea of the mechanisms involved. Much of it might remain a mystery and may be unknowable.

But in science it's OK to say "I don't know" and try to figure it out.

King Mob

Intelligent design is creationism. There's no real difference.

mickrock wrote: »

I've no idea of the mechanisms involved. Much of it might remain a mystery and may be unknowable.

But in science it's OK to say "I don't know" and try to figure it out.

Sure. But then you can't say "I don't know" and also claim that it's definitely true and alternative (and much better supported) explanations are definitely false.

So since you cannot explain the mechanisms by which the intelligence acts, how do you know it exists? What direct evidence positively supports this explanation?
Please do not refer to "problems" with evolution as this would not positively prove your explanation.

smacl

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a creationist and never claimed to be one. I did once lean towards Intelligent Design but now think natural intelligence is a better explanation.

I had to google natural intelligence, and best I came up with was this page from University of Bath. Is this specifically what you're referring to, or if not, what is your reference for the term natural intelligence? As per my previous post, apparent intelligence can be observed in relatively simple organisms. e.g. slime mold solving a maze as can be seen in this short video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lls27hu03yw

What we're seeing here is a simple heuristic algorithm which can easily be replicated using cellular automata. What this shows us is that very simple goal seeking life forms can solve complex problems without any central intelligence.

However, ID is much closer to the truth than the atheistic view of evolution. A theory of evolution that leaves out intelligence is specious nonsense.

Natural selection is another example of the results of another relatively simple largely greedy heuristic algorithm at play in a constrained environment. It doesn't demand any centralised intelligence, whether natural or supernatural, merely enough time to complete enough iterations to arrive at a given level of complexity. Interesting related question and answer here.

I've no idea of the mechanisms involved. Much of it might remain a mystery and may be unknowable.

But in science it's OK to say "I don't know" and try to figure it out.

Evolution is currently our best guess as it has the most supporting evidence, as compared say to ID or Elon Musk's simulation notion which have none. And of course science can indeed change or revise its view as new evidence emerges.

Oh and referring to an 'atheistic view of evolution' is specious, as very many theists also believe in evolution.

spacecoyote

J C wrote: »

Thanks ... but my objective certainly wasn't to 'put you in your place' ... I genuinely think that Human Beings are absolutely amazing 'gizmos' ... and the only plausible explanation for their amazing design ... is an even more amazing designer.

But by extension...who designed the amazing designer that designed the amazing humans?

Presumably some uber-amazing ultra designer?

Why do you get to draw the line in the sand and say "my God is the starting point & designer"

looksee

smacl wrote: »

Oh and referring to an 'atheistic view of evolution' is specious, as very many theists also believe in evolution.

That chart does not seem to know the difference between evolution and creation.

Peregrinus

That's hardly fair; the chart doesn't mention creation.

looksee

Oh. I kinda thought that 'origin of human life on earth' was the same as creation, not evolution.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

Oh. I kinda thought that 'origin of human life on earth' was the same as creation, not evolution.

Nope. "Creation" is an answer posited to the question "why do things exist?". It's entirely possible to believe that things exist because creation and at the same time to believe that life in general/human life in particular emerged exactly as described by conventional scientific accounts of evolution. Indeed, the table suggests that either a majority or a substantial minority of all US Judeo-Christian religious groups hold precisely this combination of beliefs.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's hardly fair; the chart doesn't mention creation.

If you follow the wiki article I linked I linked it goes into more detail. The gist of it from my reading is that theists who accept evolution would posit that their God or gods simply created evolution, hence no conflict between the science and religion. Seems to be similar to the drift away from biblical literalism, where modern Christians tend to consider much of what once would have been considered literally true to be allegory and metaphors. Of course a cynical atheist might see this as pragmatic backing away from the patently ridiculous, which I'm guessing is also why ID isn't something most mainstream Christians hold to. :pac:

looksee

Merriam Webster definition of evolution

descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

The 'pre-existing' reference does not tie in with the reference to 'the origin of human life on earth'.

Merriam Webster definition of creation

the act of making or producing something that did not exist before : the act of creating something

It's entirely possible to believe that things exist because creation and at the same time to believe that life in general/human life in particular emerged developed exactly as described by conventional scientific accounts of evolution.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

If you follow the wiki article I linked I linked it goes into more detail. The gist of it from my reading is that theists who accept evolution would posit that their God or gods simply created evolution, hence no conflict between the science and religion. Seems to be similar to the drift away from biblical literalism, where modern Christians tend to consider much of what once would have been considered literally true to be allegory and metaphors. Of course a cynical atheist might see this as pragmatic backing away from the patently ridiculous, which I'm guessing is also why ID isn't something most mainstream Christians hold to. :pac:

It's a bit more complex than that. Fundamentalist biblical literalism is in fact a modern phenomenon, which comes from reading the scriptures with a modern mindset about how truth can validly be expressed/communicated. The Hebrew scriptures indicate that the world is flat (and indeed has corners) whereas in fact we've known since ancient times that the world is round. This was never a problem for pre-modern Christians, who never read scripture on the assumption that if it misdescribed the shape of the world, this somehow invalidated it. It only become a problem for a mindset in which the highest form of truth is just the facts, ma'am, and which can't accept poetry, myth or other literary genres as having the authenticity of factual exposition. Which, really, is an attitude that we only adopted in modern times.

So I think you actually have two movements; a trend towards a literalist reading of scripture, or towards insisting on a literalist reading as normative, or authoritative, or in some way superior to other readings, followed by a reaction from that a return to (in Christian terms) a more authentic approach, which doesn't preference one genre of writing as normative. The reaction may well have been driven, or partly driven, by the fact that the modernist reading forced people into absurd and obscurantist positions, but it was at the same time a restoration of the previously dominant approach to reading scripture.

nozzferrahhtoo

mickrock wrote: »

Natural selection is a filtering process and has no creative abilities

Yet there does not seem to be anything suggesting is REQUIRES any, so I am unclear what your point is here.

mickrock wrote: »

It takes intelligence to innovate

It does not have to no. If you are asserting that it must be so, then I am all ears to hear your substantiation for such a claim.

mickrock wrote: »

You're obsessed with God! I think evolution displays natural intelligence rather than supernatural intelligence (i.e. a designer).

I myself do not use the word "god" that often when I can help it, so perhaps you will find me less obsessed.

Rather, what I do say is that I find us here existing on this planet and I would like to know how this came to be. However in my years of evaluating and learning the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind the question I have yet to find ANYTHING AT ALL that suggests that the explanation(s) whatever they turn out to be, lie in the machinations of an intelligent or intentional agency.

If you are aware of any such arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that I have missed then by all means present it to me.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

The 'pre-existing' reference does not tie in with the reference to 'the origin of human life on earth'.

You need to consider abiogenesis as a precursor to evolution here.

Charmeleon

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a creationist and never claimed to be one. I did once lean towards Intelligent Design but now think natural intelligence is a better explanation.

However, ID is much closer to the truth than the atheistic view of evolution. A theory of evolution that leaves out intelligence is specious nonsense.



I've no idea of the mechanisms involved. Much of it might remain a mystery and may be unknowable.

But in science it's OK to say "I don't know" and try to figure it out.

What do you mean by intelligence? Do you mean the ability to foresee solutions to problems and take corrective steps or make modifications? If so, evolution works far too slowly and extinctions are too common to give this idea any credibility.

If you mean intelligent in that it simply reacts to the environment over many generations to generate solutions that are an improvement on the starting position then you don't need a designer or a guiding hand at all.

mickrock

smacl wrote: »

As per my previous post, apparent intelligence can be observed in relatively simple organisms. e.g. slime mold solving a maze as can be seen in this short video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lls27hu03yw

What we're seeing here is a simple heuristic algorithm which can easily be replicated using cellular automata. What this shows us is that very simple goal seeking life forms can solve complex problems without any central intelligence.

This slime mold example sort of proves my point. Problem solving is an aspect of intelligence, whether or not there is a brain or similar organ.

To call the slime mold behaviour "apparent intelligence" suggests there is a taboo against the I-word.

The following is from an article on whether there might be such a thing as plant intelligence:

'There is a consensus that plants do not have a central organ that performs the functions of a brain, and it is agreed that plants do not have the abstract reasoning skills that a human being would have. However, a number of scientists argue that such a definition of intelligence is too restrictive. They propose that plants do have intelligence, defined as “an intrinsic ability to process information from both abiotic and biotic stimuli that allows optimal decisions about future activities in a given environment.” Or more simply, says one scientist, “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.” '

https://mythoslogos.org/2014/02/17/a-living-intelligent-universe/

Samaris

J C wrote: »

... so why do Atheists then disengenuously claim that they would believe in God if he were proven to exist?
Science supposedly cannot do (I believe science can, but will not allow) investigations into the existence of God. Either way, how will God's existence be objectively proven to an Atheist ... or to anybody else, for that matter, if science is unable or unwilling to even take on the task?

Atheism does not equal science. I am talking about evolution and the attempted interference of religious convictions into a completely unrelated field. Atheists, Catholics, Muslims and Pastafarians can be scientists and can practice science with no impact on their beliefs, so long as they don't keep trying to shoehorn their beliefs into their observations.

I'd also point out that it wasn't modern scientists that came up with the notions that makes religion untestable - that is the very core of the idea of belief! This is the -religious- blockade on investigating it, the scientific blockade is merely realising that it's impossible to investigate something that cannot be seen, touched, measured or observed in some way. Some things can be implied or extrapolated, which is allowed, but proof has to wait until there is some so that part only remains an idea until someone investigates it and -can- move it forward (or dismiss it). If it was proven, it would no longer be a belief. Where goeth your faith then?

J C wrote: »

This is yet another self-serving 'convenience' that materialists and like-minded people have devised to allow them to proclaim their 'liberal open mindedness' on whether God exists, in the full knowledge that this can never be tested scientifically ... and if it is tested, they will dismiss such testing as 'pseudo-science' or 'outside science' ... or some such handwave ... and if that fails, they will go to court using 'the strict separation of church and state' idea to put their ideas legally beyond questioning ... like they do regularly in America on the origins issue and schools.
With these methods they can 'pull up the ladder' behind them ... to put their ideas beyond reach ... so that nobody is allowed question them ... and if anybody does, they will suffer career suicide and/or legal enforcement proceedings to desist.

I needed to break that somewhere.

Devise me a standard then, a reusable test that can prove the existence of God*. To be standard, the test must at the least;
- Be reproducible
- Be able to either prove or negate a hypothesis (explain how it will prove or negate God, please)
- Not be reliant on belief (or you are both reducing its reproducibility and introducing errors of preference)

Enjoy. If you succeed, you'll have done what no-one else has worked out yet. Do you see now an idea of why science doesn't play with proving the concept of a Divinity?

Not everything deserves two sides. The "Creationist" side does not prove (or disprove) anything. It really does not. It is not a case that there is "controversy"; same as with climate change, there are not two equally valid proposals, there is the evidence gathered over generations using reproducible scientific methods and then there's the Creationists. Creationism/ID concepts can be boiled down to "it's way too difficult that this came about by chance!" which is only at the hypothesis stage and Creationists won't go beyond that to actually test it. They will not raise actual valid methods, just try to pick holes in evolution (and they've not really succeeded so far) That is why it is not taught in schools as scientific fact - quite simply because it isn't.

J C wrote: »

... and if they continue questioning ... there are a whole plethora of weasel words, logical fallacies and strawmen that the materialists will utilise.
Things like saying there is no evidence for God ... while simultaneously preventing science from investigating any evidence there might be for God.
Things like setting up and maintaining the idea of the 'strict separation of church and state' ... so that Christians are stripped of their rights of access to the state and its courts, for example, on issues in relation to the origins issue, that the materialists and their institutions enjoy.

Again, you are confused between "atheism" and "science" and the two things are complete separate and I see you dragged in secularism at the end there. Neither of these are related to science.

What you are actually demanding is that Christians control "the state" (whichever state) and teach Christian ideals and notions to children in school - how dare you contemplate a seperate state, it should be a -Christian- state and that your beliefs are more important than what is observable and provable. That is also why the Creationism argument is unacceptable to the majority of scientists (some will square evolution with their own beliefs by pointing out to themselves that it's two completely separate questions - and still mostly don't agree with the "alternative facts" presented by Creationism).

Christians are hardly banned from the courtroom, that's a ridiculous arguments. Have you never heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial for a start? And I bet if I went into a courtroom in the US, Christians would still make up a majority of people in the room.

Christians are not being oppressed here. People who study evolution and the non-religious alike just wish the zealot** Creationists would stay out of stuff that they wilfully refuse to understand.

*If you actually want to think like a scientist, you will honestly open it up to "prove or disprove" rather than relying on proving the answer you want, btw.

**Yes, pushing for something being real based on no positive evidence, no negative evidence, and a belief unshaken by the lack of either is being a zealot. You cannot easily practice unbiased scientific methods and thinking while bound up in a certainty that a hypothesis that cannot be nailed down must be true because you want it to be true.

smacl

mickrock wrote: »

Or more simply, says one scientist, “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.” '

It is one broad definition for intelligence, but does not define intelligence more generally, where other definitions include the power to reason which in turn demands awareness. So for example by your definition above, any simple computer or calculator is intelligent, in that provided with the right input it can solve problems. In fact any stateful device or organism that responds to a stimulus could meet the requirement depending on how you define 'problems'. Once you add self replicating and self modifying, you've got the building blocks for life, and may observe increasingly complex and seemingly sophisticated patterns, but I'd suggest you're still along way off intelligence as most people would understand it. If you consider intelligence as a spectrum, as your linked article suggests, you need to pick a point on that spectrum above which you call something intelligent.

King Mob

Samaris wrote: »

Not everything deserves two sides. The "Creationist" side does not prove (or disprove) anything. It really does not. It is not a case that there is "controversy"; same as with climate change, there are not two equally valid proposals, there is the evidence gathered over generations using reproducible scientific methods and then there's the Creationists.

I think that a lot of the media people and organisations who are against the idea of anthropogenic climate change share a lot with creationists in their arguments and tactics. As well as a shared support by certain elements in the right wing.
One of my favourite youtubers was easily able to slide from criticising creationists into tackling climate change skeptics.
https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

It was partially how similar the dirty tactics of these two camps that convinced me about the science of climate change a while back.

mickrock

smacl wrote: »

It is one broad definition for intelligence, but does not define intelligence more generally, where other definitions include the power to reason which in turn demands awareness.

If an organism can figure something out and thus solve a problem it must have some level of awareness, however basic and primitive that awareness might be.

smacl wrote: »

So for example by your definition above, any simple computer or calculator is intelligent, in that provided with the right input it can solve problems.

A computer or calculator has no awareness and so can't be called intelligent. Its apparent intelligence comes from the hardware designers and from the people who wrote the software.

A molecular biologist at the University of Chicago by the name of James A. Shapiro wrote a book called "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" where he proposes that natural intelligence is behind what he calls Natural Genetic Engineering, where an organism can reprogram its genome in a purposeful manner in response to changed environmental conditions. Cells posses a complex “toolbox” of operations that results in DNA’s being engineered to suit needs as they arise.

In one his blogs he says:

"Recent postings have provoked numerous questions about my application of the term "cognitive" to cell regulatory processes. I base this usage on the notion that cognitive actions are knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information. It is common today for molecular, cell and developmental biologists to speak of cells "knowing" and "choosing" what to do under various conditions. While most scientists using these terms would insist they are just handy metaphors, I argue here that we should take these instinctive words more literally. Cell cognition may well prove itself a fruitful scientific concept."

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

A molecular biologist at the University of Chicago by the name of James A. Shapiro wrote a book called "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" where he proposes that natural intelligence is behind what he calls Natural Genetic Engineering, where an organism can reprogram its genome in a purposeful manner in response to changed environmental conditions. Cells posses a complex “toolbox” of operations that results in DNA’s being engineered to suit needs as they arise.

How does it do this?
How do you know that it's "purposeful"?
And where is the evidence for this happening?

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

How does it do this?
How do you know that it's "purposeful"?
And where is the evidence for this happening?

I'll direct you to the words of James A. Shapiro who coined the term Natural Genetic Engineering.

One of his blog posts is called "Purposeful, Targeted Genetic Engineering in Immune System Evolution" and starts as follows:

"Your life depends on purposeful, targeted changes to cellular DNA. Although conventional thinking says directed DNA changes are impossible, the truth is that you could not survive without them. Your immune system needs to engineer certain DNA sequences in just the right way to function properly.
Today’s blog is a tale of how cells engineer their DNA molecules for a specific purpose. It also illustrates how an evolutionary process works within the human body."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/genetic-engineering-immune-system-evolution_b_1255771.html


Another of his blog posts is called "What Natural Genetic Engineering Does and Does Not Mean":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/what-natural-genetic-engi_b_2783419.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

nozzferrahhtoo

Nice of you to ignore my last post, but yeah blog pieces are not science. And retrospectively noting the utility of an adaption in evolution does not warrant imagining those adaptions were planned, chosen, designed, or the result of a cognitive agent with a purpose.

Has he published in peer reviewed journals on this subject or is it all blog pieces? Am I, as I suspect, going to spend 30 seconds on google and INSTANTLY find out he is another one of these people who thing the "establishment" is out to get him because his views are not status quo?

Because what you have pasted so far suggests to me that 30 seconds is about all it will take for me to find he is EXACTLY one of those people who whinges that everyone's hostility to his views is born solely of biases he has imagined for them.

Samaris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro Actually, he looks pretty legit*, although I admit his ideas are unusual.

I suspect we are using words that mean a concept that we don't quite have, so "intelligent" isn't really the best word, but it's what the English language allows for. Bacteria aren't "intelligent" by any conventional terminology, but if it appears that bacteria can adjust "by plan", I wonder if it may be adjusting to previously encountered configurations (i.e. an evolutionary step that worked for a time and then was dropped, but there's still a "pathway" back to it if conditions make it neccessary).

I dunno, mind. I'm not an evolutionary biologist!


*I knew I knew the name and I think I've read one of his works, but I couldn't tell you what it was.

J C

spacecoyote wrote: »

But by extension...who designed the amazing designer that designed the amazing humans?

Presumably some uber-amazing ultra designer?

Why do you get to draw the line in the sand and say "my God is the starting point & designer"

By using the rule of the least complex available explanation given our current knowledge.

Samaris

J C wrote: »

By using the rule of the least complex available explanation given our current knowledge.

Then why not go with the -actual- least complex* current explanation and quit trying to shoehorn a god into it? That's making things more complex if you like! And it is just so unnecessary. It's like shoehorning a god into the why of disease.


*It is still somewhat complex, but sorry, thems the breaks. Not everything is simple.

nozzferrahhtoo

Samaris wrote: »

Actually, he looks pretty legit*, although I admit his ideas are unusual.

Well I was right, it took me 30 seconds to find what I said I would. In the comments of one of his opinion pieces on the blog he states "Raising questions about the central role of natural selection is a major taboo in evolutionary biology. I have violated that taboo. I think that explains their hostility."

Yep, check. Straight for the persecution card to explain why people hammer on his unsubstantiated ideas.

Samaris wrote: »

I suspect we are using words that mean a concept that we don't quite have, so "intelligent" isn't really the best word, but it's what the English language allows for.

To accept the idea that maybe a word is being used poorly, out of a good context, or in a misleading but well intentioned fashion I tend to look at the OTHER words the speaker is ALSO using.

So when I see words like cognition and engineering and Purposeful and Targetted and "specific purpose" and so on I do not think that a single word is being poorly used. The entire rhetoric being used is orbiting a core concept and words like "intelligence" are not being used in isolation.

Retrospect applied to an evolutionary pathway can certainly leave one with the impression of a "plan". But an impression seems to be all it is. Nothing more.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

I'll direct you to the words of James A. Shapiro who coined the term Natural Genetic Engineering.

One of his blog posts is called "Purposeful, Targeted Genetic Engineering in Immune System Evolution" and starts as follows:

"Your life depends on purposeful, targeted changes to cellular DNA. Although conventional thinking says directed DNA changes are impossible, the truth is that you could not survive without them. Your immune system needs to engineer certain DNA sequences in just the right way to function properly.
Today’s blog is a tale of how cells engineer their DNA molecules for a specific purpose. It also illustrates how an evolutionary process works within the human body."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/genetic-engineering-immune-system-evolution_b_1255771.html


Another of his blog posts is called "What Natural Genetic Engineering Does and Does Not Mean":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/what-natural-genetic-engi_b_2783419.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

You did not answer my questions, please try again:
How does it do this?
How do you know that it's "purposeful"?
And where is the evidence for this happening?

The Huffington Post is not a scientific journal. Neither are blogs.
Please refer to legitimate peer reviewed research. No one here is going to accept opinion fluff pieces.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

The Huffington Post is not a scientific journal. Neither are blogs.
Please refer to legitimate peer reviewed research. No one here is going to accept opinion fluff pieces.

In case you didn't notice Shapiro's blog posts have links, many to research papers.

Shapiro's book "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" has over a thousand references http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/ExtraRefs.MolecularMechanismsNaturalGeneticEngineering.shtml