Evolution LOOKS Like Intelligent Design

[turtle]

I still think it looks like intelligent design.
I don't personally believe there is some supernatural thing at work. I just can't prove that intelligent design is wrong. I don't think the natural evolution guys can effectively counter the thinking that what we see is super. I think that a scientist needs to say it doesn't look like intelligent design because they don't want to be accused of believing in a god. I am not a scientist so I can still be stupid.

[fuse]

What is all this prostration before science? Evolution is evolution whether God initiated it or not. What you want to ask is: did a supernatural being initiate evolution? I don't know why you want some big daddy scientist to give you the answer. They don't know. The answer, since no one knows for sure, is whatever you prefer.

[turtle]

What is all this prostration before science? Evolution is evolution whether God initiated it or not. What you want to ask is: did a supernatural being initiate evolution? I don't know why you want some big daddy scientist to give you the answer. They don't know. The answer, since no one knows for sure, is whatever you prefer.

fffffffuuuuuuuu---I am not concerned about a god.
I believe that evolution is a natural process.
I prefer the truth. What I am concerned about------
science being so arrogant that they turn their backs on some wild theories like reverse translation. I really don't like scientists being so sure of everything. It pisses me off.

[fuse]

t --

I think I misread you. I don't know anything about reverse translation so I will bow out.

[miosim]

The theory of life I am advocating in essence marries the Darwinian theory of evolution with the theory of Intelligent Design. However, this is a tough marriage and requires concession from both sides; the Darwinian theory of evolution needs to divorce from the mechanism of random mutation and the theory of Intelligent Design needs to divorce from the external intelligence (God or god-like entity) and accept internal intelligence instead. In this new synthesis, the evolution of living nature, in the most general terms, is the goal directed process of searching for adaptation and simplicity, yet developing towards increasing complexity….

[turtle]

We need a theory that can be tested.

[turtle]

How about unintelligent design.
Maybe even stupid.

[miosim]

Turtle,

I also believe that mechanism similar to reverse translation exists.

I agree with you that the perception of intelligent design should be given proper consideration. For disclosure, I don’t believe in God or in supernatural.

I also have reason to believe that foundation of Neo-Darwinism –specifically the roll of random mutations—is covered not by convincing evidence or computations, but by a transparent tissue of ideology.

According to Neo-Darwinism evolution is a blend of a chance and selection. These days, very few scientists argue against the role of natural selection, but there are many who don’t agree that random mutations are ‘creative enough’ to provide material for this selection. This argument is a central to the opposition to Neo-Darwinism, and is based on the theory of probability that prohibits the single point mutation to create complex adaptive features. The attempts to defend the mechanism of random mutation utilize computer-based algorithms in order to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection. The most sophisticated attempt to defend this mechanism published in Nature

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20Nature,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf

was widely reported to shed light on the biggest unanswered questions of biological evolution. However the result of this study (if one would pay attention to details) does not collaborate well with the initial claim, but rather confirms the argument of the opponent to Neo-Darwinism. Unfortunately, the discussions of biological evolution are often tainted by ideology and there is unwillingness on part of the scientific community openly acknowledge the gaps in this theory.

The alternative to the mechanism of random mutations is the theory of Intelligent Design that views life as a creation by external intelligence. The attempts to prove this theory are often outside of acceptable scientific methods and most of the time their proponents just point to the gaps of Neo-Darwinism.

[Xunzian]

Since reverse transcription is a perfectly accepted process, I'm not sure where you think that scientists don't accept it. Reverse translation is a lot trickier and I've never seen any evidence for it.

[miosim]

Turtle,

Sorry that I omitted your comment about testability of my proposition.
I don’t have an immediate and direct test that would refute my claim about evolution that is a result of goal-directed mind driven process. This claim is rather derivative from my overreaching concept about nature of life phenomena.

In nutshell I am proposing the theory of life that (unfortunately) is in conflict with known interpretations of QM. I claim that my interpretation is compatible with mathematical model of QM and offers the realistic interpretation of quantum events. I believe that this interpretation also offers the new opportunity to resolve wave/particle duality, explain wave function collapse, two slits experiment and predict superlunary speed. At least I tried to show that this isn’t an unconceivable proposition.
I actually have a shallow background in physics and the reason I sighed recently for this forum because I am looking for help from scientist or science enthusiast who would evaluate the compatibility between my views on quantum reality and physical facts, but non necessarily with their interpretation within QM paradigm (see my post Physical phenomena in terms of mental properties). I read your very interesting discussion “Quantum Entanglement”. The issue you discussed was a bit above my head but I noticed that we have a similar concern about head-twisting interpretation provided by QM theory.

I am not sure if you want to immerse yourself in the overarching concept I mentioned above. You probably prefer focusing on ID using tweet like arguments. I actually never used tweeter nor texted. This may be my opportunity to learn the communication protocol of the 21 century.

How about unintelligent design.
Maybe even stupid.

No I think it is inteligent, at least the way I define inteligence as abilty to do somthing. For example if someone mentions that ‘Mr. Smith is very intelligent man,’ you may want to clarify: ‘Intelligent, to do what?’

[turtle]

Turtle,

I also believe that mechanism similar to reverse translation exists.

I agree with you that the perception of intelligent design should be given proper consideration. For disclosure, I don’t believe in God or in supernatural.

I also have reason to believe that foundation of Neo-Darwinism –specifically the roll of random mutations—is covered not by convincing evidence or computations, but by a transparent tissue of ideology.

According to Neo-Darwinism evolution is a blend of a chance and selection. These days, very few scientists argue against the role of natural selection, but there are many who don’t agree that random mutations are ‘creative enough’ to provide material for this selection. This argument is a central to the opposition to Neo-Darwinism, and is based on the theory of probability that prohibits the single point mutation to create complex adaptive features. The attempts to defend the mechanism of random mutation utilize computer-based algorithms in order to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection. The most sophisticated attempt to defend this mechanism published in Nature

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20Nature,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf

was widely reported to shed light on the biggest unanswered questions of biological evolution. However the result of this study (if one would pay attention to details) does not collaborate well with the initial claim, but rather confirms the argument of the opponent to Neo-Darwinism. Unfortunately, the discussions of biological evolution are often tainted by ideology and there is unwillingness on part of the scientific community openly acknowledge the gaps in this theory.

The alternative to the mechanism of random mutations is the theory of Intelligent Design that views life as a creation by external intelligence. The attempts to prove this theory are often outside of acceptable scientific methods and most of the time their proponents just point to the gaps of Neo-Darwinism.

M--interesting post.
I think we see the same problem.

[turtle]

Since reverse transcription is a perfectly accepted process, I'm not sure where you think that scientists don't accept it. Reverse translation is a lot trickier and I've never seen any evidence for it.

thanks X---i think reverse transcription makes sense and there is evidence. i also have not found any evidence for reverse translation. i wonder if anyone is testing for it.

[turtle]

Turtle,

Sorry that I omitted your comment about testability of my proposition.
I don’t have an immediate and direct test that would refute my claim about evolution that is a result of goal-directed mind driven process. This claim is rather derivative from my overreaching concept about nature of life phenomena.

In nutshell I am proposing the theory of life that (unfortunately) is in conflict with known interpretations of QM. I claim that my interpretation is compatible with mathematical model of QM and offers the realistic interpretation of quantum events. I believe that this interpretation also offers the new opportunity to resolve wave/particle duality, explain wave function collapse, two slits experiment and predict superlunary speed. At least I tried to show that this isn’t an unconceivable proposition.
I actually have a shallow background in physics and the reason I sighed recently for this forum because I am looking for help from scientist or science enthusiast who would evaluate the compatibility between my views on quantum reality and physical facts, but non necessarily with their interpretation within QM paradigm (see my post Physical phenomena in terms of mental properties). I read your very interesting discussion “Quantum Entanglement”. The issue you discussed was a bit above my head but I noticed that we have a similar concern about head-twisting interpretation provided by QM theory.

I am not sure if you want to immerse yourself in the overarching concept I mentioned above. You probably prefer focusing on ID using tweet like arguments. I actually never used tweeter nor texted. This may be my opportunity to learn the communication protocol of the 21 century.

How about unintelligent design.
Maybe even stupid.

No I think it is inteligent, at least the way I define inteligence as abilty to do somthing. For example if someone mentions that ‘Mr. Smith is very intelligent man,’ you may want to clarify: ‘Intelligent, to do what?’

M---i like your ability to explore. you may find something. i dont know much but i like to keep track of the big picture. you mentioned wave/particle duality. i like that one.

[miosim]

I am pretty sure that the mechanism of reverse translation isn’t known. Even if it would be discovered it wouldn’t help us in better understanding neither evolution nor processes inside living cell. It would generate more research grants but eventually would just ad more confusing about how much we know and how little we understand

[Xunzian]

Reverse translation hasn't been observed.

[miosim]

Reverse translation hasn't been observed.

This what I ment.

[nameta9]

On Intelligent Design ...

You want there to be god. Do you need some other Free Will that is observing you all the time and judging you ? Do you need to be constantly accompanied by this metaphysical entity ? Do you think the "design" of ourselves or the universe and its laws of physics require "an intelligence" ? What makes a totally arbitrary set of causes and effects, that practically don't really follow any laws whatsoever (remember the three body problem has no solution, go on and figure the four, oh, but wait: the universe is made up of 10^100 bodies, or is that particles, or is that waves ?), aside from those large scale generic laws that the differential equations of most physical phenomena describe (but very, very rarely have an exact solution, just this makes the basis of some kind of "intelligent" design very shaky) intelligent ?

Get used to long complex sentences, it exercises your little minds...

Is god, by the way intelligent ? seems to me that he is a simple one transistor circuit, you do some "bad" action = sin, some good action "ok", like all the basis of our existence, a one transistor circuit, on = pleasure, off = pain. Sure doesn't seem to require much intelligence to me.

And who or exactly what is deciding, evaluating, assigning that very meaning of the word "intelligence" ? Oh, I see, some kind of circular reasoning, the thing that is intelligent is assigning and evaluating the intelligence of the things that it is not. Wow, really interesting. Like a software program that discovers that its own instructions are made up of lower level instructions that are themselves a program. But the program could only possibly distinguish another program, it is not outside of itself, just like we, and our intelligence is not outside of itself, it is simply seeing things through its own eyes (nay, deforming them by decomposing them into the distinct categories, entities and delimitations it has already decided to decompose the world in) and pretending to be "objective".


Check out:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?t=150714


http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4&t=167276

[miosim]

nameta9,

You are way too angry to have reasonable discussion.
Please cool off first and than in the few cohesive sentences describe what you exactly disagree with me.

Talk to you later.

P.S.
For full disclosure, I don’t belief in God, but the more I witness the arrogance of atheists on the various discussion forums the more I want to turn a table 180 degree and to help ID supporters fighting back.

[Exdividual]

Say I pray to a god every day for benefits and safety in my life.
Something does or doesn't happen, so I attribute it to the will of the god.

Say I pray to a jug every day for benefits and safety in my life.
Something does or doesn't happen, so I attribute it to the will of the jug.

There may or may not be a god. There isn't sufficient information available for me to make even an uneducated guess without contradicting my personality. But the fact remains that anyone can attribute the good and bad things in their lives to ANYTHING they want, and there is no way for anyone to show the legitimacy (or lack thereof) to their claims.

How (in)convenient.



P.S. If anyone has the link to the "Gallon of Milk" youtube video that inspired this post, I'd like to bookmark it again and would appreciate any alternative to dredging through the seemingly endless stream of videos depicting foolish college students trying to impress their friends with their lactose tolerance.

[miosim]

Exdividual,

I am not sure to whom you address this post. If it is addressed to me I have two comments.
First, I agree with you that in most instances religion faith is reduced to unconditional trust (and associated with it blindness) in the particular religious dogma. However I know few very bright, intelligent and open minded people for whom religion, as spiritual experience, is a big part of their life. I can’t judge them as delusional just because I don’t have the same experience. At the same time I read some scientific papers that one need to be delusional to write them.

I think the frustration you (or at least I) may experience is because of religion institutions that hijack and try to monopolize the spirituality.

The second comment is, what is this to do with the fact that evolution indeed often looks like intelligent design?

[nameta9]

Check out:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=150657

These issues have been essentially beaten to death. Most of the possible theories and interpretations have been provided and achieved. After reading this link and the other 2 I sent above, evolution and the origin of life will be essentially licked. The problem is solved.

What I wanted to say before, is that it looks intelligent because we are simply talking to ourselves, we are measuring what we see and perceive with our own devices, so it is a false problem or false perception. We see intelligence because we are seeing ourselves in a mirror and simply talking to ourselves, it is circular reasoning.

[HexHammer]

Never belived in this "intelligent design", it's purely due to chance, not because some intelligent ability. Look at how many extinct species there are, not what qualifyes as "intelligent".

[turtle]

Biological evolution does not reflect intelligent design.
When you use the word intelligent you are referring to life forms.
For sure there is design in life but caused by natural selection.
This should not be an area that is used to prove the existence of a god. It should remain with science.

[miosim]

Biological evolution does not reflect intelligent design.
When you use the word intelligent you are referring to life forms.
For sure there is design in life but caused by natural selection.
This should not be an area that is used to prove the existence of a god. It should remain with science.

I agree about natural selection. Howeverthe biggest question is how the material for this selection emerges. The random changes don’t explain anything, but neo-Darwinists cannot admit that this puzzle don’t have solution yet. They are afraid that this gap in our knowledge would gives ammunition to ID. Therefore this dog’s fight isn’t about science but about politics.

[turtle]

Biological evolution does not reflect intelligent design.
When you use the word intelligent you are referring to life forms.
For sure there is design in life but caused by natural selection.
This should not be an area that is used to prove the existence of a god. It should remain with science.

I agree about natural selection. Howeverthe biggest question is how the material for this selection emerges. The random changes don’t explain anything, but neo-Darwinists cannot admit that this puzzle don’t have solution yet. They are afraid that this gap in our knowledge would gives ammunition to ID. Therefore this dog’s fight isn’t about science but about politics.

Miosim-----you hit the nail on the head.