On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:09 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.


It seems pretty simple to me -- a frog with poisonous skin doesn't get
eaten, and a tiger without teeth doesn't eat. It takes about as much
intelligence to figure out which species survives as it does to figure
out why. So why can't you figure it out?


snip
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?


When a mutation survives long enough to reproduce. Or was that a trick
question?


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?


I didn't say anything of the sort. I said, but you can't understand,
that when something isn't fully understood or remains undiscovered it
isn't automatically considered to be an act of God. That process of
thought may have been the 'tradition' for several thousand years but
not any longer. At least not for most of us.


-- 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.


So because the possibility exists, we should conclude that those
monsters -must- exist? Of course not. You -believe- they exist because
that's what -you- want to believe. The rest of us hoist sail and go
discover the facts.


-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.


Haven't you been paying attention, Dave? Nothing occurs "with no
pattern". The patterns are there, they are just too numerous or
complex to identify. Weather was once thought to be random and/or
chaotic. But thanks to people that are more intelligent than you we
have learned patterns of weather well enough to predict, with some
degree of certainty, what it will do in the future.


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.


Wrong. Nature if full of examples of where order grew out of chaos
-without- intelligent guidance. It happens all the time. You can
duplicate the process yourself with a child's science experiment:
growing crystals.


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".


That's the difference between you and me, Dave: You believe what you
want to believe until it can be proven wrong (and sometimes even proof
isn't enough). I, on the other hand, need proof -before- I'll believe
in something so outlandish as an omniscient, omnipotent super-being
that 'willed' the Universe into existence.


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)?


Adams was pointing out that the Universe can't be reduced to a simple
equation. I agree, but his implication was that there must be some
divine influence, to which I don't agree. Adams is not an authority on
the subject. And for you to cite his work in a context contrary to its
meaning is proof that you are not an authority on Adams.


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.


You keep on believing that, Dave. Include it in your bedtime prayers
to the saucer men -- right after you make sure the boogie man isn't
lurking under the bed.


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


What can I say -- your arguments are illogical and repetitive, you
show no ability to think independently, your opinions are founded on
ignorance, the 'facts' you present are fabrications based on your own
assumptions, your vocabulary includes words you don't understand, and
your rhetoric is no better than that of a grade-school bully. Yet you
continue to put on your facade that you are somehow outsmarting me at
every turn and refuse to see just how profoundly stupid you sound when
you try. So how can I possibly resist? I mock you because you ask for
it, Dave. In fact, I have been mocking you for months but you are too
stupid to understand how. The difference is that now I've dumbed-down
my remarks to a level low enough that you can see them for what they
really are.


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".


Because you -are- wrong, and here's a little experiment you can do to
demonstrate just how wrong you are. First, find a wall made of brick
or concrete. Then sit you butt down, pray to the saucer men, and ask
them to turn the wall into jello. Draw upon your faith to believe that
when you perform the next step in the experiment that the wall will
most certainly be jello. Then curl up your little fist and hit the
wall just as hard as you can.

By the time the pain subsides you will understand that, even though
you can -choose- to believe anything you want, facts define reality.


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.


......oh brother.


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,


The Bible doesn't exist?


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....


I never claimed it was an excuse, nor did I suggest that we can't
overcome our instincts.


snip
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.


Where did I suggest that instinctive behavior should be used to
justify anything? Are you using that crystal ball again, Dave?


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.


If that's your choice.


snip
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.


I'm not suprised.


snip
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.


Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not?


snip
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?


Survival of the fittest. Variations that improve survivability are
regenerated. Variations that are useless aren't regenerated because
they hinder survivability; i.e, they are excess baggage.


snip
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?


Making sure that mutants like you don't reproduce.


snip
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?


Why do you need me to explain these things to you? Don't you have a
brain? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Try it. Put yourself into
a logical frame of mind, temporarily adopt my method of thought, and
try answering your own question for once.


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?


Why not? It worked with dinosaurs, didn't it?


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.


It's easier to believe in instantaneous transformation when your mind
is too small to fathom the vast amounts of time nature has had to
'play God', so to speak.


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


First of all, it's not "prejudice". I have 'prejudged' nothing. You,
OTOH, have done exactly that -- you conclude that God is responsible
for certain things -before- you have all the facts. Secondly, the idea
of divine intervention is not "likely" at all since every phenomonon
that was ever attributed to God is being discovered to have been
caused by some natural process. Statistically, religion is dying. And
it's too bad that people don't see that as a good thing -- or did you
forget the part about the Babelfish?


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.


The rooster came first, eh?


......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"?


One of the voodoo amp-techs that used to hang out in this group until
he tried to explain the operation of a grounded-grid triode with:
"it's part of a bigger picture".


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.


I didn't know that was a requirement for species diversity.


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?


Another loaded question: You are assuming that they needed to be
taught. And by "'crude' tools" I was referring to the dams, not teeth.
The fact remains that a certain amount of intelligence and ingenuity
is required of the species in order to build such structures in such a
wide variety of locations and circumstances. Which brings us back to
the pertinent question: Which came first, the intelligence or the dam?
According to -your- beliefs, the rooster came first.


snip
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.


Assuming that's correct, are you suggesting that human complexity is
what comprises a 'soul'?


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?


What makes you think that art and music are something other than
extentions of instinctual behaviors? Animals attract mates with
singing, dancing, showing their plumage, building nests, etc. It's
also a method of communication that extends beyond verbal language.


Those who philosophize?


Ever read "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"?


Those who teach?


Procreation -- "It takes a village to raise a child."


Those who excel at physical
activity?


Demonstrations of physical prowness, rutting, etc.


Those to seek answers to larger questions?


Isn't that the same as philosophy?


Those who achieve
greatness in any number of fields?


Like politics?


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?


No, but it's been suggested by others more than once.


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.


Like I said befo You can believe what you want to believe but the
facts define reality.


snip
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.


Then you have an understanding that exceeds that of the entire
scientific community.


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


I'm assuming you mean 'order from chaos', but either way you are
wrong. Just walk into any jewelry store and look at the diamonds.


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.


I have, I just didn't know who said it.


snip
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.


That's -exactly- what you claim when you say that God is responsible
for any missing evolutionary link. And you ignore the fact that those
links are gradually being found.


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.


Great. Maybe now we can get back to the original topic.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----