Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 140 - 151 of 6,170
Posts 140 - 151 of 6,170
Yes; all that suggests genes can be informed, and that genetic changes can be responsive to an environment, rather than purely random. We're still looking for the mechanisms by which genes are informed. We do have some clues, though, and are particularly advanced in the areas of post-conception genetic switches.
Right, it's not that there's empty space out there, it's that there is nothing out there because there *is* no out there. I think Eugene was about to mention things that potentially take place outside of this closed universe, but I don't think including those changes the question or the solution.
It's not the randomness that bothers me. If you make the universe old enough, there's enought time for anything to happen if it's actually possible. But I don't believe evolution is possible.
Eh? Explain yourself. You don't think it's possible, say, that lions and tigers share a common ancestor?
Lions and tigers, probably. Lions and bears, no. Horizontal evolution happens. Vertical evolution is a myth.
Still, I'm confused. If lions and tigers, why not lions and bears?
Your theory would seem to require that either life sprang into being from non-life many, many times at many different points in time and with a huge degree of initial complexity, or that life never sprang into being from non-life at all.
Your theory would seem to require that either life sprang into being from non-life many, many times at many different points in time and with a huge degree of initial complexity, or that life never sprang into being from non-life at all.
Lions and tigers are both cats. Bears aren't.
Actually, I believe that life was created from non-life during a six day period just after the creation of the earth. You can read all about it in the beginning of Genesis.
Actually, I believe that life was created from non-life during a six day period just after the creation of the earth. You can read all about it in the beginning of Genesis.
But the only things that make lions and tigers both cats are similarities we observe and the fact that we draw the line somewhere and call it "felis". Lions and bears are also in a same classification, just not genus. Bears share a great many things in common with lions, nearly as many as tigers do.
I would understand if you believed that idea of creation as a religious tenet (i.e. on faith) but not if you said it had more explanatory power than the theories of evolution.
I would understand if you believed that idea of creation as a religious tenet (i.e. on faith) but not if you said it had more explanatory power than the theories of evolution.
Seriously though, I think I've mentioned before that some scientists these days take a kind of middle ground stance. On the one hand they don't dismiss evolution, on the other they suggest that it must in some way be guided to produce the kinds of results it does. Whether by God or something else, it's hard to see how an animal can get from having one skin cell which is sensitive to light evolve that into an eye unless someone had the notion that the end result would be useful, because the beginning cell would not have been.
Right, but once you introduce the concept of an omnipotent God, evolution is no longer necessary. It might still be true of course, but God could just as easily have done things in a different way. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for evolution, and I do believe that God has revealed His actual method.
In answer to Mr. Crab, on a biological level evolution, if true, would have sufficient explanatory power. It fails when you come to questions of morality, consciousness, and so forth.
In a related but separate question, I have yet to hear a non-theistic system with a sound philosophy of ultimate origins.
In answer to Mr. Crab, on a biological level evolution, if true, would have sufficient explanatory power. It fails when you come to questions of morality, consciousness, and so forth.
In a related but separate question, I have yet to hear a non-theistic system with a sound philosophy of ultimate origins.
That may be because "ultimate origins" is a fallacy. Without faith, the notion of an omnipotent God does no better a job of explaining ultimate origins (where did God come from?).
I understand your perspective, but it does nothing for my understanding of the universe, since it has no explanatory power unless you accept the premise of an omnipotent God on faith. If I were prepared to accept an explanation for things that happen in the world entirely on faith, though, then I'd have no need of an omnipotent God -- I could, on faith, just as well accept the notion that the world and turns of events in it are actually generated by my own subconscious mind.
But I don't imagine you disagree with me about all that. What's interesting to me is, are you saying you think any theory explaining life or the emergence of our species biologically must also explain the emergence of morality?
To a certain extent, morality and consciousness are explained by evolution. Consciousness is a little harder because we have a hard time understanding just what it is. But the bases of morality are surely to be found in those societal behaviors that lent themselves to tribal survival -- which explains the various moral systems in evidence around the world, both their commonalities and interesting localities. As for consciousness, without getting into just what consciousness is, we at least have some evolutionary clues as to why we have such enlarged cerebral cortexes (enabling higher-brain function) and a limbic system (enabling emotions).
Am I missing your point?
I understand your perspective, but it does nothing for my understanding of the universe, since it has no explanatory power unless you accept the premise of an omnipotent God on faith. If I were prepared to accept an explanation for things that happen in the world entirely on faith, though, then I'd have no need of an omnipotent God -- I could, on faith, just as well accept the notion that the world and turns of events in it are actually generated by my own subconscious mind.
But I don't imagine you disagree with me about all that. What's interesting to me is, are you saying you think any theory explaining life or the emergence of our species biologically must also explain the emergence of morality?
To a certain extent, morality and consciousness are explained by evolution. Consciousness is a little harder because we have a hard time understanding just what it is. But the bases of morality are surely to be found in those societal behaviors that lent themselves to tribal survival -- which explains the various moral systems in evidence around the world, both their commonalities and interesting localities. As for consciousness, without getting into just what consciousness is, we at least have some evolutionary clues as to why we have such enlarged cerebral cortexes (enabling higher-brain function) and a limbic system (enabling emotions).
Am I missing your point?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar