On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:32:45 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:43 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
somehow responsible for guiding it.


There's nothing "random" about it

Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the
development of life.


Why?

Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of
unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an
"improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on.




Something has to make the decision whether 2 legs
are better than four, and whether a fifth finger makes for a more
effective tool, yet 6 fingers is overkill etc.


Why must it be decided? Why can't it just evolve that way because
that's what happens to work best?

What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in
evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it
were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to
determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other
species, or even descendants of the same species?


Do you think that rain must come
from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait
a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you
think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that
one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth
orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God
because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how
about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did
birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example......

Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being
discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for
Michael Jackson.

So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated,
that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance?



-- when you consider that the bell
curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that
occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly
-ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention.

You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to
consider the possibility.


Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean
it's inhabited with monsters.

Doesn't mean that it isn't either.


-You- are too hung up on religion to
realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term
used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are
either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be
isolated and identified.

Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern
or forethought.

That doesn't mean a seemingly random process
-doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the
process is as yet unidentified.

But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some
intelligence guiding it.


And if you can't understand that much
then you probably still check under your bed every night for the
boogie man.

Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine
that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to
discount the existence of "God".


And if
there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far
more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI.

Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split
second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"?


ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little
grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty!

Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we
consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this
planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)?


May the
force be with you, Dave!

It always has been.


OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must
know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me
after she lost two other paternity suits.

Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical
impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that
you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem
to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a
stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case.


snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".

But what motivates natural evolution?


Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment.

Based on what criteria? There has to be a purpose for life.


Why? Because you say so? Because you can't figure out what to do with
your life? Or did you adopt that idea as part of a twelve-step
program?

More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and
chose instead to mock me.

You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure
faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is
that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". You tell
yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there
are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether
life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence.
You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts
are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this
is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the
answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear.


What
drives that purpose?


When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded,
"I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself.

Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of,
to make a point. Of course the irony of that position was not lost on
me.

For us
mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating
ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many
females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love
'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything
that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is
more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the
larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why
some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme).

That is a hopelessly jaded position to take. You basically stated that
all males have an intrinsic excuse for infidelity, in that they are
instinctively hard wired for such behavior. The fact that was can
transcend instinctive behavior plays no part in this I guess....



Ironically, monogomy isn't common with humans, their behavior being
more like some species of birds.

And many mammals.


The female chooses a mate that is a
'provider', one she feels is also competent in a nurturing role. Yet
she seeks a different male for breeding, looking for characteristics
such as aggressiveness and healthiness, and other attributes that are
carried genetically and will give her offspring a better chance at
survival. With two 'mates' she gets the best of both worlds, since one
male with all those traits is nearly impossible to find. Meanwhile,
the males are just trying to dip their wicks anywhere they can.

BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human
behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies.

I know all too well. The Learning Channel had an very interesting
series on human behavior and covered this topic and the parallels in
the animal world. I also used this information in a debate once with a
hard core feminist, who was forwarding the " all men are pigs" notion,
and defended their behavior as instinctive programming. Of course, I
did it just for the reaction. I believe that using primitive
instinctive traits to justify unacceptable social behavior is simply a
lame excuse for those who have a weak will.


But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try
the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a
"purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to
some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to
overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being.

Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union.


Flip the coin and you have people that think you should live hard and
die young. It's doubtful that they have any regrets since they don't
have much time to think about such things.

No, I guess not.


Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I
think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live.

I was never that much of a Python fan.


And what else is important is what goes through your mind in your
final moments of life.

What lies next.


Did you make the right choices? Could you have
done any better? Will anyone remember you for who you really are? And
are you sure they really -do- know who you are? But that's assuming,
of course, that anyone cares if you are on your death bed. If you ever
visit a nursing home you will find that it's more common for people to
die alone, especially if they don't have money or property to pass on
in their will. Will that be the case with you? Or will your "loved
ones" view your life more intrinsically? And will you have doubts
about life after death, or will you resign yourself to lies that you
used to convince yourself one way or the other so you wouldn't have to
worry about it? Which brings me to my own philosophy regarding the
matter:

It's hard to evaluate life until you have something to compare it to.
Most people who have come close to death consider it a life-altering
experience, and their lives are improved afterwards. It's not a good
idea to die just so you can live better, but at least you can explore
the ideas and perspectives of some of the best minds on the subject.
For that line of philosophy I would recommend yet another good book:
"Thinking Through Death" by Dr. Scott Kramer. If you want a copy just
drop me an email, I have a couple spares.

See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you
unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds
with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever.



Who decides whether a mutation
is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
"better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
version of the ape?


Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would
die out", which is not necessarily the case.

If not, then that's negates much of the evolutionary theory.


I don't recall that being part of the theory at all. The theory is
that variations which can adapt to a changing environment will survive
-irrespective- of their origins.

But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the
environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough
to become incorporated into the mainstream?


If the
purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the
"old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new".


That's only an assumption on your part because you have never studied
the subject. If you -had- studied the subject you would know better
than to make such an ignorant remark.

I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical
and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the
species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is
actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species?


There can be many
circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources
as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of
birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And
so are many species of primates.

This explains subtle variations within a specific species, but that
doesn't explain how a bird came to be in the first place. Are you
proposing that a winged creature suddenly appeared by accident, as a
mutation from a land-based critter, and it proliferated all by itself.
What taught it to fly in the first place? How could a genetic anomaly
take into consideration the dynamics of flight?


I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a
"flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to
another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved
because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species
with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the
falls.

Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from
trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined
whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels
who don't?


Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of
their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of
time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where
muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a
few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will
probably be a squirrel that can really fly.

Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need
to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over
non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its
bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain
sustained flight?


But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured
and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave.

Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's
exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize
than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species.


Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.

No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle.

This is true. There are very few facts and a whole host of theories
which cropped up to try to explain the facts.


Such is science. Some theories will be dismissed while others will be
proven as fact. And it's doubtful that divine providence will be a
factor in any scientific theory.

Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the
likely notion of intelligent design and guidance.




The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea
that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco
system, totally at random.


You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved
"totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true.

The someone had to "plant" it.


......Why
do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?


Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical.

Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture.


Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS
doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand
unified theory".

Who is "Skippy"?



So you have noticed that animals are different and have different
characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the
same is true within the human species.

Yea some are good and other not -so. But none can fly on their own.

Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are
pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is
purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are
different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those
"crude" tools.

Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams?


Did you know that dolphins have sex just for fun?

They are one of only two so far that seem to. Although I don't know
how we can determine what passes for "fun" in the mind of a dolphin,
since we cannot directly communicate with them.

They
also seem to learn things faster and easier than most teenage humans.

Most animals learn to walk long before a human child. At age 1, many
animals are much more intelligent and self sustaining than an
equivalent aged human. So what's your point?


And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just
dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees
communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and
smelling each others butts, etc, etc.

Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved.


But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is
anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do
somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing,
sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two
characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom
is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy.

Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do
revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create?
Those who philosophize? Those who teach? Those who excel at physical
activity? Those to seek answers to larger questions? Those who achieve
greatness in any number of fields?


But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and
the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a
divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and
frequently proves that to be a fact.

So what you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually
die, what's the point of living?


So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in
thinking he is something more than just another product of nature.

I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine
intelligence.

It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.


The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of
variations that can occur in the processes of evolution.

I understand them perfectly. I just do not accept that complexity can
result from randomness.


I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a
cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every
great piece of literary works.


I don't either. Whose theory was that?

http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html

There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of
knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this
before.


They might type out every letter that
is contained within those works, but they will not get the order
correct. Such is the nature of chaos and randomness. It lacks
structure, direction, and order, and those elements are required for
meaningful results to occur.


Again, who suggested that such a thing was possible?

Look and see.


Neither do
the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into
the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other
factors and they usually find them.

There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the
theory of intelligent design.


Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that
conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can.

I conclude nothing of the sort. But I have an especially hard time
accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to
believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force.

We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and
without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other
than from a purely philosophical perspective.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj