Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Will Due]

Just now, stereologist said:

There is no design.

 

Nature does allow for blindness, you see?

 

 

[stereologist]

Just now, Will Due said:

Nature does allow for blindness, you see?

Nature does not have to allow anything. It happens. Most organisms are blind.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

That might be because you were designed to have a choice in believing that the design of life isn't real.

This fact, choice, is proof of how free will was designed, right?

If free will wasn't designed, how did you come to posses it?

 

 

Hi Will

This comment is made from a position of authority which you cannot prove other than to yourself. What you believe you know is only relative to you and not necessarily what is how we see things. You project that we are in denial and that is a false conclusion and irrelevant as to how others view your argument.

jmccr8

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, Illyrius said:

You can keep banging with your cute bias whatever you like. He is a scientist and that is a fact. Look up for the definition of scientist. A person educated in science and active in scientific investigation. He is educated in sceince and has his articles published in scientific peer reviewed journals.

And please continue this little biased talk. It's fun.

Is this the guy ( Sheldrake) who came up with dogs are psychic?

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Is this the guy ( Sheldrake) who came up with dogs are psychic?

One and the same.

cormac

[Illyrius]

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Is this the guy ( Sheldrake) who came up with dogs are psychic?

Yes.

[+Sherapy]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

One and the same.

cormac

Oh geez, 

I personally couldn't take this guy seriously at all. 

 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

This is a simple denial without arguments. What i meant is do you think that design means something is made in a certain shape and doesn't change, or it changes in time?

Hi Illyrius

If something was designed why was it not designed to it's full potential at the onset of it's inception? 

jmccr8

[I'mConvinced]

52 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

What you are saying is that what we percieve as order, structure and organized complexity of the universe is a result of a mere chance of blind forces. Have i understood this correctly?

I can buy into the idea of a designer, but not on a personal basis. What I mean by this is perhaps best summed up like this:

Imagine a cauldron full of inky black liquid. This is the universe before the creator. 'God', use whatever image you wish to impose on the word, then dips and quickly withdraws a finger, randomly, into the cauldron. God then sits back to observe the pattern formed by the ripples.

The act is random, the result is a pattern. What is the deeper meaning? Who knows.

If evolution is guided it is at a more fundamental (universal) level than we are aware of. The evidence I've seen points to evolution not having a designer on any level meaningful to humans. For example I can't see a designer forgetting to remove; our tailbone, the hind leg bones in sperm whales or any other vestigial organ you care to mention.

I can see that the initial processes in the universe could have been 'initiated' by a creator but from that point forwards it seems to just be emergent properties. Saying that we just don't know enough about the exact method by which life arrived here on Earth so other possibilities can't be excluded.

 

[stereologist]

In the case of eyes, why are reptiles off color sensitive, but mammals color blind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

Quote

Reptiles and amphibians also have four cone types (occasionally five), and probably see at least the same number of colors that humans do, or perhaps more. In addition, some nocturnal geckos have the capability of seeing color in dim light.[37]

In the evolution of mammals, segments of color vision were lost, then for a few species of primates, regained by gene duplication. Eutherian mammals other than primates (for example, dogs, mammalian farm animals) generally have less-effective two-receptor (dichromatic) color perception systems, which distinguish blue, green, and yellow—but cannot distinguish oranges and reds. There is some evidence that a few mammals, such as cats, have redeveloped the ability to distinguish longer wavelength colors, in at least a limited way, via one-amino-acid mutations in opsin genes.

Seems like no design there.

[Illyrius]

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

If something was designed why was it not designed to it's full potential at the onset of it's inception? 

jmccr8

Because the purpose of evolution is free will and acheiving ever more perfection through time. If everything is perfect at inception it would be static and without any development through free will. Now the question arises what about animals plants and minerals in that respect. Well i say they have not achieved the human level of consciousness and are not self aware.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Illyrius

[jmccr8]

24 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The design of nature infers it. 

 

 

Hi Will

That is speculation that there is design involved on your part because you have no evidence other than you personal faith.

jmccr8

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Oh geez, 

I personally couldn't take this guy seriously at all. 

 

Unfortunately some do, another example of why this thread is stagnating, they don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t support their belief. 

cormac

[I'mConvinced]

4 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Well i say they have not achieved the human level of consciousness and are not self aware.

We must define self-aware . Some animals are demonstrably aware of self.  All Corvids for example (Crows, Ravens, Jackdaws and so on) can identify themselves in a mirror and use their reflection to clean places they can't normally see.

I can even show you a chimp with abilities far beyond human capabilities in pattern recognition and short term visual memory.

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Because the purpose of evolution is free will and acheiving ever more perfection through time. If everything is perfect at inception it would be static and without any development through free will. Now the question arises what about animals plants and minerals in that respect. Well i say they have not achieved the human level of consciousness and are not self aware.

But there is no goal of perfection. In fact, there is no goal. Look at the eyes issue. Color vision is lost and regained.

 

[Illyrius]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

We must define self-aware . Some animals are demonstrably aware of self.  All Corvids for example (Crows, Ravens, Jackdaws and so on) can identify themselves in a mirror and use their reflection to clean places they can't normally see.

I can even show you a chimp with abilities far beyond human capabilities in pattern recognition and short term visual memory.

Yes i knew this will come up as a question. I would call that more of a rudiments of self awareness. But a good point.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, I'mConvinced said:

We must define self-aware . Some animals are demonstrably aware of self.  All Corvids for example (Crows, Ravens, Jackdaws and so on) can identify themselves in a mirror and use their reflection to clean places they can't normally see.

I can even show you a chimp with abilities far beyond human capabilities in pattern recognition and short term visual memory.

I was not aware of corvids being self aware. Cheers

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

But there is no goal of perfection. In fact, there is no goal. Look at the eyes issue. Color vision is lost and regained.

 

I would say certainly universe has a purpose. Final purpose is a great question, but i see an order but also imperfectoin inside this great design, so i am satisfied with an explanation of advancement of soul through imperfections and free will. Makes most sense to me.

[jmccr8]

11 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Because the purpose of evolution is free will and acheiving ever more perfection through time. If everything is perfect at inception it would be static and without any development through free will. Now the question arises what about animals plants and minerals in that respect. Well i say they have not achieved the human level of consciousness and are not self aware.

Hi Illyrius

If the physical form was created like Adam and Eve physically there would be less need for adaptation, bit that does not mean that intelligence would be static and this is where(for the most part theoretically) we continue to grow or evolve(although this at times is not evident consistently on all populations).

There are in my opinion there are aspects of illusionary delusions of intellect that are more restrictive than productive.

jmccr8

 

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

If the physical form was created like Adam and Eve physically there would be less need for adaptation, bit that does not mean that intelligence would be static and this is where(for the most part theoretically) we continue to grow or evolve(although this at times is not evident consistently on all populations).

There are in my opinion there are aspects of illusionary delusions of intellect that are more restrictive than productive.

jmccr8

 

About Adam and Eve... I don't know exactly what this story is about, i think it is highly symbolical and not literal. Science and religion are not at odds, what is at odds is outdated nature of religious texts which are taken literaly and are not in accordance to a way a modern man thinks. So i don't know what to say about it more than this.

Yes man is highly self-deceptive, it is a defense mechanism but also something that works against him, it is a double edge sword like all things in life.

[jmccr8]

24 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Because the purpose of evolution is free will and acheiving ever more perfection through time. If everything is perfect at inception it would be static and without any development through free will. Now the question arises what about animals plants and minerals in that respect. Well i say they have not achieved the human level of consciousness and are not self aware.

Hi Illyrius

Self aware hmm that is a different nut to crack, do you think that animals cannot differentiate between other like animals and who their parents or siblings are? If they got hurt or were in danger do you think that they would not be aware of themselves?

jmccr8

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

Self aware hmm that is a different nut to crack, do you think that animals cannot differentiate between other like animals and who their parents or siblings are? If they got hurt or were in danger do you think that they would not be aware of themselves?

jmccr8

They are more a beings of instincts and habits, i have 3 cats for example and they are highly intuitive beings, and also a beings of habit. I wouldn't call them self aware.. though like in case of some animals mentioned above i consider them superior in some respect to humans.. but self awareness... i think not.. they act instintively.. fell pain and emotions.. and are different from each other, but there is no element of ego.. no self reflection. Maybe only slightly because they are advanced mammals.. some birds have this also.

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

About Adam and Eve... I don't know exactly what this story is about, i think it is highly symbolical and not literal. Science and religion are not at odds, what is at odds is outdated nature of religious texts which are taken literaly and are not in accordance to a way a modern man thinks. So i don't know what to say about it more than this.

Yes man is highly self-deceptive, it is a defense mechanism but also something that works against him, it is a double edge sword like all things in life.

Hi Illyrius

I was using Adam and Eve as a demonstration of an intelligent design to illustrate a point that If we were an intelligent design that would be that starting point not the end of millions of years of evolution which seems to be for some more real than what is documented.

jmccr8

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

I was using Adam and Eve as a demonstration of an intelligent design to illustrate a point that If we were an intelligent design that would be that starting point not the end of millions of years of evolution which seems to be for some more real than what is documented.

jmccr8

Yes.. now i get what you mean. I don't know exactly what is the starting point. We differ from animals clearly in many respects. We are able to think and self reflect, i would say that evolution is showing advancement of forms through time, at what point and how we bacame human and able to self reflect and became conscious on this level.. i don't know. You are asking tough questions

Intelligent design is evident to me only when i look at the complexity and order of the universe, these details of how and why are what we are are pretty tough.

What do you think about it?

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

They are more a beings of instincts and habits, i have 3 cats for example and they are highly intuitive beings, and also a beings of habit. I wouldn't call them self aware.. though like in case of some animals mentioned above i consider them superior in some respect to humans.. but self awareness... i think not.. they act instintively.. fell pain and emotions.. and are different from each other, but there is no element of ego.. no self reflection. Maybe only slightly because they are advanced mammals.. some birds have this also.

Hi Illyrius

I am likely more dependent on my animal instincts then many others and am thankful for it.

I had a cat that would steal bread out of the cupboard and at one point needed to have a right front leg removed due to an infection. He taught on of the kittens to do it for him and when I caught them he played the duck trying to look innocent and when I spoke to him about it he expressed guilt.

jmccr8