Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

@Aqueous

The implications when taken free of the emotional hubris you bring to it are quite correctly stated IMO.
However where you fail to realise is that "any forcing of an opinion or morality" upon someone else against their will and freedom to choose will amount to war. [ rebelion or even terrorism]

In the case of the post you where referring to:

The poster has a belief system, that appears to serve him in a way that affords him joy and happiness. It is true from a more "aware" point of view this is tantamount to wrapping yourself up in the warm blanket of self delusion.
It is not deliberate dishonesty, it is not a lie, or a state of laziness, it is not something that can be correctly and morally denigrated to foolishness. It is simply a person exercising his freedom to believe as he chooses to believe.
Why this is happening is another completely different issue.
IMO Most of the time it is because the education and social systems are attempting to force people to think and believe something and it is in the forcing that creates the problem.

Instead of teaching and training proper critical thinking to facilitate the development of proper and self informed belief systems the "state" is polarised towards indoctrination. And it is that indoctrination that leads to the confrontaton seen in this thread. [whether scientific or religious indoctrination is irrelevant IMO]
The education systems generally and globally, I believe, are gradually "evolving" so that the art of critical and clear thinking is held as paramount in the teaching of our children. The removal of indoctrination towards any systemic bias to allow our children to be the best thinkers they can be.

The answer to claim that theory is fact is in itself a form of indoctrination because for all we know those evidencial claims may be very misleading due to the blinding effect that our own indoctrination has created to our perception.

One of the the keys to all this is to demonstrated by this statement:

Humility​

"The day I realised I was blind was the first day I could see"​

The "blinding" effect of ego nacassism [ vanity ] that we all suffer from to various degress, me included, needs to be addressed somehow. So it is always beneficial to presume self-blindness to the truth before making any strong committment to a personal belief.
"The most immoral act one can perform is to attempt to force a morality or belief upon someone else" ~ thus the fundamental cause for all wars, all conflict and a loss of mutual respect.


Regarding Darwins Finches:

You ask whether the resultant theory Darwin proposed is well founded.
Imo Absolutely, it is well founded and quite rational but it is definitely not fact and it is definitely not the only factor at play in evolution.
It is merely the result of a rather extraordinary insight of a man working with in the limitations of his own mind and creativity.
The same applies to Albert Eintien or any "heroic" thinker.
Who knows tomorrrow someone will come up with a better view...

There appears no doubt though that the logic of natural selection is a significant logic and certainly worthy of all to seriously consider but only if they choose to do so.

As mentioned in an earlier post all these conflicts can be resolved if one redefines the subjects of the arguement properly.
And ask: Does the conflict or arguement match what is actually observed? Are we arguing from incorrect definitions to begin with. and so on...
and there is more than enough evidence of intelligent evolution [ by natural design ] to keep looking for better answers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To clarify the difference between theory and fact:

A theory doesn't somehow "become" a fact. A theory explains a fact.

Evolution is a fact. It happens. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution happens.

It is true that Darwin's contribution isn't the sum total of the Theory of Evolution. The past 150 years has added a lot to the Theory of Evolution, making it a much more detailed and complete explanation of the fact of evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but only some of the facts that have been observed... the point being to differentiate between when factual based theory ends and speculation premised on that theory begins.

It is pretty obvious that evolution is indeed occuring but can one say conclusively that it is not occuring over the top of a more comprehensive "motivation". The question I feel is similar to that often asked about the notion of "freewill".

Is the act of freewill merely humans evolving over the top of a set of predetermined factors, a sort of "improvisation" by natural selection [choices] over the top of both internal and external predetermining structures?
Of course this does not require a "Classical God" like influence and can still be reconciled with out a call to classical versions of divinity.

However years ago I was writing about the issue of "Objectively Premised Morality" which then extended to the notion of "Goal Focussed Evolution". This seem to make apparent that for some unknown reasons evolution is goal focussed not only towards success but most importantly, sustainable success. [Human morality is also evolving with the same goal of sustainability involved.]

For humans it appears to be focussed on man aspiring to become "God like" in his influence over the universe. [God complex - narcasssim] To find a way to be the master of his own destiny.

This is apparent as a "goal focussed evolution" under way, and that indicates a more fundamental and intelligent background influence is at work, abeit completely naturally derived and evolved and evolving in itself.

There are many unanswerable questions about observed evolution that could possibly provide clues as to this natural and intelligent influence that appears to be operating in the back ground. That influence has been intuitively interpreted over thousands of years in the form of classical divinities.

Example:

• What is the evolutionary logic or rational as to why is it that all self animated organisms have to sleep at regular intervals to maintain a state of survival and comfort? [no sleep = certain death]
• Why have as humans always struggled with notions of divinity? What is the evolutionary rational behind this common and intrinsic human trait?
• What is the evolutionary advantage of "death"? Why evolve an act of dying?

And so on...

There are many material attributes that defy explanation using the basic criteria or motivations as suggested by evolutionists.
Another:

• Why did the Human genome evolve the way it did?
• Is it possible to have a "partial" genome and still have an organism that functions?

etc etc

To me the only solutions is to consider that there is an innate intelligence at work that functions purely at an instinctive and sometimes intuitive level. That intelligence does not need to be defined as "God" but as we have seen historically it has certainly manifested in human imagination and conceptualisations as God of some sort.

The only key that is missing to reveal this as a solid hypothesis is the science [Physics] that describes the "entanglement" of all things in this universe by way of a universal constant. [ acka gravity ]
Once this link is revealed and accepted suddenly ideas of collective universal intelligence makes perfect sense. However we already know this link is present, we just don't know the mechanism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How would you observe that motivation?

 

These questions are hardly revolutionary. Not all animals sleep, some humans do not sleep, and in any case, there could be a biological mechanism at work.

Divinity. There is a theory that young primates require a period of strong "gullibility" for lack of a better word, in which to absorb the teaching of their parents. Furthermore, as hunters, we evolved to look for agency in events. This knowledge would lead us to prey, but misapplied leads us to believe in a deity for explaining the unexplained. Also, divinities are not universal in human culture.

Death happens for several reasons. For one thing, there is no advantage to a gene that has already reproduced to leave the parent living. In some cases, as with primates, there is a small advantage in the realm of childcare. But, since we are biological machines, we can't repair ourselves forever, as there are limits to how many times a cell can split.

The human genome: The details are still mysterious, but there is no reason to believe we didn't just evolve as a specialized species of ape.

Partial genome: Depends which parts are left out.

 

Are you sure that is correct? That is counter to almost everything I've experienced personally or seen/listened to/read about.

 

Please note, I am not advocating that a God of the religious or theosophical type is necessary for the universe to evolve. I am advocating that a naturally derived and evolved collective instinctive intelligence may very well be involved. This does not ascribe abilities akin to a God as classically presented.

Show me a human that can survive with out sleep [unconsciousness] and I will "eat my shorts" [ current world record is 18 days I think before they banned the issue for the Guinnees book of records due to potential health risks.]
The question, though was why evolve sleep as a fundamental survival mechanism...when in fact whilst an animal is asleep it is most at risk from predators? [ sleep is counter to survival due to the vulnerability that it creates for the sleeper. IMO]

the question though is an over view sort of question.
Why has humanity throughout it's history, with a very few exceptions, been strongly preoccupied with the question of divinity as an evolutionary requirment? [even athiesm is a preoccupation with divinity issues]

The rational is one of necessity, like that of a marketing advertisment or a painting of art, nothing is included on a whim, every thing is there because it needs to be. Evolution by necessity, is a fundamental premise of natural selection is it not?

So what is the evolutionary need for over 8 thousand years of some sort of worship even if it is only to oneself [contemporary existentialism- athiesm etc]?

So why is the gene the sole motivator in your opinion? Why has the gene been considered as the main driver behid human evolution? [Just because of the desire for propagation? or to improve the gene diversity or improve the genome beyond what it is today?] Why evolve something that appears to be almost perfect any way?
A finch as discussed earlier seems to be quite complete and perfect in it's own right, Why seek to improve on something already at it's prime? When did a finch beccome a finch? How long ago? and what was it before it was a finch? [ maybe we can call it a Funch instead of a Finch?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

Why evolve death as a fundamental of life?

Unless you wish to allude to the notion that the genome is somehow has a transcendental intelligence? That it would seek to evolve the death of it's own manifestation so that some other manifestation of the genome would have a better chance of survival? That the genome has a social or community survivorship goal or requirement beyond the immediate existential needs of it's manifestation? [ which would support the notion of a collective instinctive intelligence at work, would it not?]

oh I agree entirely, however there may be a very small genetic difference between ape and man but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two species for such a small genetic difference. Thsi is very suggestive that the genome functions as a "complete system" that can not be considered in isolated bits.... [ the problems with genetic engineering when a single gene may very well be incrediby important to the function of the entire system, both collectively as a community and individually]

The point I was attemptng to make with this was immaturely put .. sorry.
The issue is that to make a quantum leap from let's say Ape to man there has to be a transitional phase of probably miliions if not bilions of years, even the transition from the proposed Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien probably took 100's of thousands of years. It is the lacking of evidence of the transitions that is puzzling...Partial Genome that demonstrates transition from one genome structure to another.
sort of like from FUNCH to FINCH... scenario...
example:
The human endocrine system relies heavilly on a feedback information loop. If an humanl was ever evolved to function it would require an entire system not just parts of it. Now we also know that it is not just the endocrine system in isolation. The entire body must function as a complete system and can not function propery with bits missing or added. A transitional phase from one level to another would have to be very awkward in deed. IMO.
Not impossible ... but very awkward....

 

If evolution was only focussed towards success of an individual organism [ not species, but an individual independant organism ] then the life as we know it would not be existant. IMO
The primary motivation that appears to be existing [ as per observation] is not just survival of the individual but survival and the sustainability of the universal or global community of organisms in to a future that "it" (evolution) some how seems to seek or crave for.

If the evolutionary process was purely as thought, then how and why would evolution seek the future for survival and also sustainability of the collective?
Survival of the individual [ including death] for the benefit of collective sustainability?

Why would the genome for example be concerned about a fantasy future? [tomorrow]

The primary motivation appears to be that of sustainability. Yet this requires a future that hasn't come to be yet [ a pure fantasy ]
Not unlike what the global population at the present moment is contending with, where our consumption of resources is in excess of availability.
I guess we as a race are about to learn the hard lessons involved in sustainable existance.. re: climate change, use of Nuclear energy etc..

 

QQ: I was asking you to drop all of this and turn just to the real issue: how did the finches get to Galapagos? it wasn't a rhetorical question. I mean: how did they actually get there? Any ideas?

 

Ok this is my answer:
There will always be a way to explain their existance on the isolated islands, whether that be by flying there or swiming, or scuba diving, it's doesn't matter. The most logical will be accepted regardless of whether it is correct or the truth or not.
So my answer is what ever solution you come up with will do fine .. thank you very much....
There was another case I think that was similar, to do with primates and mutiple islands... can't recall the details... same thing... if it can be explained using a favoured theory then that becomes the truth of the time... but not the truth persee. simply a theory...

 

It has nothing to do with desire and everything to do with success. Bacteria desire nothing yet have been among the most successful of species for perhaps 3.5 billion years. Sponges practically ceased evolving, they were so successful. They obviously can't crave anything either. And the list goes on.

Evolution doesn't seek. Creatures either live or die. If they live long enough to reproduce, they will contribute to the gene pool. If they die young, then those traits are removed from the pool. This is how the population genetics undergoes drift.

Better to think as an accountant: Add To or Subtract From the gene pool.

The genes drift over time as certain traits favor survival. It's as simple as that.

It's not motivation. It's an accounting. A running average of all the traits as they continuously drift.

It's no fantasy for a brightly colored insect to be noticed and eaten by a bird, while the one that's suited to the color of its environment tends to escape detection. This is how natural selection works. It's a result, nothing more.

That's all behavioral and not the direct consequence of biological success. The ability to destroy timber and burn it no doubt gave proto-humans an edge over their ancestors, merely because they could sustain themselves by the happenstance introduction of a slightly larger, somewhat more intelligent brain. Surviving one freezing night with a fire could have been the factor that altered that gene pool. Certainly the ability to figure out primitive tools could have made huge difference as well. We can make an endless list of the advantages of a larger brain, but initially they had no relevance to preserving the environment. This is a very late development, millions of years later and it seems likely that most of the destruction has taken place since the beginning of the Industrial Age, long, long after the latest of our evolutionary stages was complete.

 

OK, back up. These finches exist no where else. How did they get there?

From Darwin's notes:

The natural history of this archipelago is very remarkable: it seems to be a little world within itself; the greater number of its inhabitants, both vegetable and animal, being found nowhere else. As I shall refer to this subject again, I will only here remark, as forming a striking character on first landing, that the birds are strangers to man. So tame and unsuspecting were they, that they did not even understand what was meant by stones being thrown at them; and quite regardless of us, they approached so close that any number might have been killed with a stick.

 

ok ok, I'll do a bit of research and find out why you are persisting with it... back later

 

Now this is an interesting example, and possibly off topic but can't resist.
You mention gene pool.
I take it you are referring to the collective gene pool and not the gene "pool" of an individual.
Now what I am about to propose will innitially be seen as rather radical but I shall any way.

the questions that come to mind are:
Why is it that an individuals genetics has evolved to serve the collective?
What mechanism is involved so that the imperitive to further the collectve gene pool is essential to the species.
Why would the individual evolve to do that?

Given that every individual is unconnected, why would it evolve and ultimately die to "serve beyond self"? [ quote from The Internatinal Rotary volunteer organisation "service beyond self"

 

Also as an interesting aside:
The Indigenous Australian, the aboriginal, has apparently co-existed in Australia for over 50,000 years with out any noticable change. It is theorised they arrived in Australia with their dingo dogs by crossing an exposed land bridge between Papua and possibly Indonesia.
They appear very distinct in physical appearance to all Asiatic, African, European races and Pacific island groups. [quite unique]
They had no industry, nomadic and no agriculture.
Over 70 different pseudo languages. [ apparently they could not communicate very well across tribes. ]
They stand out in the evolutionary scheme of things.
How did they come to be?
A similar question to the finches yes?
Please excuse if my post is not entirely factually correct... all from misty recall...

 

It hasn't. There is no notion of "serving" with regard evolution.

We have "evolved" for the same reason that a puddle forms in depressions in the ground when it rains... not because the world was designed to allow those puddles to form, but because that is what puddles are and do.

Similarly we have "evolved" because that is what life that survives a changing environment over millions of years does.
Evolution is merely the pattern we see of life changing form as the environment changes.
We see the pattern, but the pattern is natural.

There is no imperative. There is no "essential". Again you are begging the question by your choice of words. Either evolution happens or it doesn't. There is no imperative. Only if the species changes and remains fit for the changing environment can we look back and gauge what was "essential to the species"... but that is a subjective viewpoint from the perspective of survival being the "goal" rather than merely something that happens.

The problem with your view of evolution, by only looking at the creatures that have evolved, is that you ignore all the species that haven't, and that have died out. Or even worse you put those that have survived, adapated, evolved on a pedestal as if that was the goal of the species, rather than merely something that some species did, others didn't.

There is no "why" as we do not "serve". If the species survives, it survives. If it doesn't then it doesn't. It is a non-intelligent process.

 

hmmm but why would an individual genome be interested in the species survival? Is what I am pondering I guess. Why not just interested in it's own?
the key here is the fact that death has evolved in all organisms. Surely it would be logical to assume that the individual would evolve to not die...? [ if survival of the organism was a priority over species ]
Why is the priority of survival biased towards the collective? and most importantly how could this be so if each organism is unconnected?


hmmmm...
btw I have read the rest of your thoughtful post and will consider in time...

 

if this is the case then why would there be any interest in diversity of the genome... why strive to survive at all...if just mere puddles doing what puddles do. why evolve at all...

 

Not all organisms die. Some indeed have evolved not to - such as the Turritopsis Nutricula, a jellyfish that cycles between juvenile and adult forms, but could theoretically live eternally within a consistent environment.

As to why we have evolved to die, possibly because those species that went through a birth / death cycle were able to more quickly go through adaptations with new genetic material, and as a result outlived and were more successful than those species that did not.

The answer, though, will never be known for sure, only speculated upon.

But I think you are still looking at the whole issue as one of "purpose" - which implies intent, intelligence - rather than just a mechanism at work which, to us, might give the semblance of purpose, but isn't.

The simple answer is that there is no conscious "priority"... and that those species that survive have been the ones that, for one reason or another, have been more successful at whatever is needed to keep the species going.
I do not see any intelligence guiding them, just a mechanism or two, or three, or more, which lead to evolution.
That they have succeeded is by default, not by intelligence.

If you pick a card at random from a deck, it's easy to say after the event that the card you picked was the one you meant to pick, even if there was no intelligence behind the picking.

 

It is called extrapolation; the difference being that it must still coply with observations.

Why do you assume a background intelligence? Why can it not be a direct property of our intelligence? After all, it is a direct extension of the unconscious forces of evolution: Once we understand these, we will be motivated to consciously pusue our survival, both as individuals, and as species.

How can you conclude that they are unanswerable?

I assume you are attempting to (partly) falsify evolution here, but you are really just arguing from ignorance. Some answers have been attempted here, but a perfectly valid answer would be: I haven't the foggiest idea. Just because we don't currently know the answer you cannot conclude that it doesn't exist.

To me that is not the only solution.

No, we don't know that this link is present. The general laws of physics, as gravity, cannot explain how a background intelligence, should it exist, is able to manipulate things, e.g. humans. This is a basic weakness of all attempts to build a 'rational god hypothesis': Eventually, you need to introduce magic.

Hans