On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:22:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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?

Because for any improvement to be gauged as effective, there has to be
a means of feedback. One mutated frog with poisonous skin will
eventually die of it's own accord. So what determines whether this
mutation is worthy of being carried on?


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?

But random mutations occur frequently. Many of them could conceivably
reproduce. What decided which ones are beneficial, and which are
merely "different"? Some new traits (like flight for instance) require
more than one mutation to fully accomplish. What are the chances that
each necessary mutation would occur in the same species randomly and
at the same time to facilitate these new traits?

What force drove water borne life to crawl out onto the shore? How
could random mutations know the precise mutation to give those
creatures the ability to breath air? Do you understand the nature of
randomness? Randomness is exactly that. Things which occur for no
reason. You may need lungs, but you might get a third eye, or longer
fins. The minute you start looking into purpose driven mutations, you
(however unwittingly) are accepting intelligent guidance.



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.

Yes, and some people may spend their whole lives looking for a
"scientific" answer that will forever elude them, rather than admit
that there are forces and events out there that we cannot explain.


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?

No, but neither should we discard it.


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.

That's great if the facts are there to find. We can tell, for instance
that dinosaurs roamed the earth, that there were big climatic and
geological changes over the years. But we cannot factually answer the
question of why these things all happened, and what precipitated it
all. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that it all started as a random
happenstance. There are far too many variables and too much random
chaos for this level of intricate sophistication to have occurred and
evolved by any other means than intelligent design and guidance.

We can argue about the definition of "god", or whether such cosmic
intelligence warrants the label of "god", but as far as I'm concerned,
such a force exists. The evidence is all around us.





-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.

Is that the excuse you use to try to turn chaos into order? Do you see
pictures in TV snow too?



Weather was once thought to be random and/or
chaotic.

And to some degree it still is. Despite the modern level of technology
that meteorologists have, they still cannot get a weather forecast
right in most cases

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.

We can determine within a certain level of error, what SHOULD happen.
But despite computer models, the weather often makes unpredicted
shifts. Which is why we sit here expecting a foot of snow, and get a
dusting, or a rogue storm develops out of thin air and levels a
block's worth of trees.


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.

How do you know there was no guidance if you cannot identify it?


It happens all the time. You can
duplicate the process yourself with a child's science experiment:
growing crystals.

There is nothing orderly about that. No two crystals grows exactly the
same.


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).

No, I believe what makes the most sense based on the facts known and
the principle of Occam's Razor.


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.

Let's hope for your sake that you're right.


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.

It was a joke son! Adams writes humor.



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

No, that's Twisty. He talks to the Saucer men. I merely believe that
considering the vastness of the universe, that it statistically
improbable that life only exists here.


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.

Projecting again Frank? Where is your "logic"? You mock my "faith"
with little more than your own "counterfaith".


Yet you
continue to put on your facade that you are somehow outsmarting me at
every turn

And only your own narcissistic arrogance continues to push you into
coming back to get smacked down again and again.


o 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.

Frank, you are merely a diversion from my otherwise challenging work
schedule. You provide me with comic relief. You are so rigid and
pompous, I can now totally understand why you "chose" to be a loner.
Your "people skills" are seriously lacking.


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,

Based on what factual evidence?


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.

It doesn't work that way. Intelligent design does not mean that we
command magical powers.


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

I see how you spin your "facts". Because the cosmic intelligence chose
not to respond to my "request", that means that it does not exist?

I have a similar experiment for you Frank. Stand out in the middle of
a field until you get hit by an asteroid. How long will you stand
there until you conclude that asteroids don't exist?



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.

When reduced to the nuts and bolts of reality, this is all you can
usually respond with.

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?

I was referring to God.


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.

Now, I suppose, you'll dazzle us with your theory of how Python is
the humor of the intellectual?


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?

Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the
internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those
books.


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.

Sometimes a mutation does not do anything to improve survivability. Do
those not regenerate as well?


Variations that are useless aren't regenerated because
they hinder survivability; i.e, they are excess baggage.

Perhaps not. Mutations such as a 3rd eye may not make any difference
at all in survivability.


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.

Lacking a logical and reasoned answer, Frank predictably falls back on
his tried and true tactic of insult.



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.

I've been there and done all that Frank. Haven't you figured it out
yet? I was where you are now. I asked the same questions, made the
same observations, believed the same thing. I once believed that there
wasn't a question out there that (if given enough time) science
couldn't answer. Why do you think I keep giving you questions which
you cannot answer other than to theorize? I chuckle watching you
stumble, postulate, and then attack me while trying.

I had a series of life changing events which then put other similar
events into perspective. Since I am not one to believe in random
coincidences, these occurrences, taken together, spelled out a
specific and seemingly deliberate series of events which appeared to
have a purpose.

Every event that you undertake in life has specific consequences. Most
people do not ponder such things, unless they have a reason to do so.
But to put it simply, an event happened to me, which caused me to do
something, which led to something else, and so on down the chain. Had
those significant events not happened, I would be in a totally
different place and situation right now.

It all started with my premonition of my father's death the night
before it happened when I was 9 years old. What science can explain
E.S.P. and similar phenomena? What about ghosts? If life is simply
random and meaningless? What explains short glimpses into the "great
beyond"? Are all witnesses of ghosts mentally "out there"? What about
people with accurate ESP predictions? The military was impressed
enough with this that they had programs to develop "remote viewers" to
spy on enemies. But for some reason, traditional "nuts and bolts"
scientists stray away from such study, and, in fact, try to discredit
those who do. Are you one of those close minded people who deal only
with those subjects that you can touch and discount anything else?




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?

You once again are assuming that it all happened at random.




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.


A few million years are but a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of
things. But without purposeful guidance, there's about as much chance
of our complex ecosystem developing totally at random, as there is
that a bunch of monkeys can randomly type the complete works of
Shakespeare.

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 have. You would rather believe unproven, and bordering on
ridiculous theories rather than accept the possibility of an
intelligent force.

You,
OTOH, have done exactly that -- you conclude that God is responsible
for certain things -before- you have all the facts.

Sometimes, there are forces at work that preclude the need for hard
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.

That is totally wrong. Besides, what is a "natural process" anyway? If
there is a God, then he can make any number of "natural processes" at
his will.


Statistically, religion is dying. And
it's too bad that people don't see that as a good thing

Why should that be a good thing? Religion has helped to rein in many
primitive barbaric behaviors and helped civilization become refined
and productive. Without such guidance, we wouldn't be much more than
our animal cousins, living only for ourselves, and doing what we
needed to do just to survive.


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".

A different bigger picture.


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.


So you believe that animals possess some analytical skills? Maybe so.
One could also argue that animals were simply "Version 1.0, 2.05, and
3.01" of the species experiment. The sobering conclusion to that is
that we humans are likely not the end result either.

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'?

Not at all. The concept of a soul transcends traditional nuts and
bolts science, and bridges such things as philosophy with
parapsychology and spirituality, and yes, religion.

Some people believe in reincarnation. The idea that our "souls"
recycle our bodies and assume physical form here more than once. And
some also theorize that these souls could be placed into animals as
well. Hence the Hindu tradition of animal worship, the so-called
"sacred cow".

Before you totally poo-poo such a concept, you should research it a
bit. There have been compelling studies of people who, under deep
hypnosis, have recounted a past life with remarkable detail, which
could not have been obtained through present day observation or
research. If nothing else, it leaves one with more questions than
answers.



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.

So concert musicians, renowned painters and sculptors, and even Martha
Stewart are just looking to get laid?


Those who philosophize?

Ever read "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"?

No, did you?


Those who teach?

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

Hillary Clinton? Please.... There is more to teaching than
procreation.


Those who excel at physical
activity?


Demonstrations of physical prowness, rutting, etc.

Again, the purpose of such is not necessarily a function of sexual
need.


Those to seek answers to larger questions?

Isn't that the same as philosophy?

No, not always. Some are "scientists".


Those who achieve
greatness in any number of fields?


Like politics?

Great leaders.


But you do seem to have some sort of deep rooted sexual issues. I'd
check them out if I were you. Living alone has you fixating on sex.



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.

People with depressive negative psychological issues.

Which brings up another biological point. We know that our lifespan is
controlled by our genetics. Who determined what the optimal lifespan
for a human should be?


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.

I'm still waiting to see your "facts". So far all you have given is
counter faith and hypotheses.




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 understand that they exist. I do not know their exact definitions.
But I don't need to.


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.

Which is just as wrong as your "growing crystal" analogy. Each
specimen is unique in its virgin state. Jewelers cut and polish to
some semblance of uniformity.


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.

Does it really matter?




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.

So what? Even if every link is found, that only proves that evolution
occurred, but not what drives it.


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.

Like I said, a stalemate. Glad you finally understand.

Dave
"Sandbagger"