|
Yeah. I thought that was wrong and went and checked, then changed it. Next time, I'll do the checking before I hit submit.Do you complain that we're still stuck on Newton's Laws of Motion? Keppler's Laws of Thermodynamics a problem?Keppler's laws are about planetary motion. (Newton's equations show that they're basically correct.)
Don't worry about it Paul, I am busy at work and 90% of what I am writing today is having the same issue. Which is why several people are getting upset with me. :)
|
That is the beauty of evolution, sometimes it tries 'crazy' things and it works. Mutation is change for change's sake.Maybe it's me and I still really don't get evolution, but that is not how I understand it at all. Change happens for a reason. It isn't our species' bodies tries something and if that doesn't work it tries something else. That is something that we do now. Not something that supports evolution. That's like saying that because I couldn't reach the cookies on the top shelf my body tried to have stronger hair. ???? I guess that luckily that mutation didn't work and so won't get passed on.
Evolution is not spontaneous. It is a process that happens over a long period of time. If it is "spontaneous", it looks like it's because of changes that happen to a creature while it is growing or maturing. If only one food source is available, the parent may survive, but it's the child that actually adapts and passes on "mutated" genes. So you're talking about a generation or two before the mutation actually manifests. As Samnell implied, our intelligence is largely learned. If that's true, then where or why did it start? From a strictly genetic point of view, it should start from the child -- but that doesn't exactly make sense either. And then there's the question, if we are not born intelligent, then that would imply that it has little to do with genetics. But then why can't we then train other creatures to think like we do?
Mutation is change for a specific sake. It doesn't roll the die to see what it needs to change to adapt to the present circumstances. It doesn't "try" something and if that doesn't work, then "try" something else.
Moff,
Actually, evolution does 'try' a lot of things, including some very wacky ones. Most of them don't work and die off. But sometimes the odd mutation proves successful and is passed on, which is what I think Courtfool is saying.Also, in your example of intelligence, not ALL of it is learned. Once you have sufficient spare mental capacity that you can learn, then as soon as one member of the family group learns something, i.e. tries something novel that is successful, they can teach it to others.
Empathy, at least within the group, is a fairly innate property based on oxytocin levels rather than a learned behaviour. Applying it outwith the group is learned, but it only takes one example that works for things like that to spread rapidly within the group and from there to the next group and then the next two groups. Learning spreads quickly. And each bit of learning adds to the bit before.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Father Mendel was still back in the 1800's. And no to another poster, just because we add knowledge does not mean we dismiss knowledge from the past.Gregor Mendel?The same. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, which is a fundamental pillar of modern evolutionary theory.
I'm not sure that supports your point. You seem to be advocating dismissing Darwin's theory. Since the time of his theory, scientific research has supported, expanded upon, and enriched his theory. It has added greater validity to it, not somehow dismissed or detracted from it.
|
I'm saying that no other animal has developed "big brains" like we have.If by "big" we're going by total mass or volume, whales and elephants have much bigger brains. If instead we're looking at a ratio of brain to body mass, I seem to recall that tree shrews have us beat by a pretty substantial margin (theirs is like 10%). Either way, we lose.
Then again, if you're basing "intelligence" on, say, written language, you're skewing the results right out the gate. A tiger would likely rate intelligence based on the success of a creature's strategies for stalking prey, for example.
Yeah. That's why I put it in quotes. There seems to be some consensus that our brains/thinking is what separates us from other animals, but what/why/how seems to be open to discussion and/or debate.
And why does the religious thread keep changing to "Science Hour"?
I believe this one started with the proposition that, since we are here, some intelligence must have put us here.
|
|
Actually, evolution does 'try' a lot of things, including some very wacky ones. Most of them don't work and die off. But sometimes the odd mutation proves successful and is passed on, which is what I think Courtfool is saying.
Is that "evolution" or random "mutation"? It seems to me that evolution is much more deliberate rather than random. Like evolution is a deliberate encoding of genes due to a response to something. To me a white tiger is a random mutation. That most (all?) cats have lost sabre teeth is a product of evolution.
And do you feel that intelligence is strictly genetic or learned? Or a combination of both? Because, regardless, it seems like we should then be able to artificially cause it to happen on another creature at some point. Right?
It is my understanding that random mutation is part of evolution. I am not the expert. The white tiger is a mutation which, does not seem any less well suited for its environment and therefore continues. Although, I would think the 'camouflage' is less effective, and given time, would die out as the tan would prove superior. So while evolution does move towards a 'superior' state, the path it takes is rather random.
I am not sure I understand how you expect us to artificially increase intelligence. Are you suggesting we should be able to selectively breed animals until they are as smart as we are? I believe there are several breeds of dogs that were bred to be more intelligent (than other dogs). Would that not be proof that intelligence could be artificially increased?
|
|
Actually, evolution does 'try' a lot of things, including some very wacky ones. Most of them don't work and die off. But sometimes the odd mutation proves successful and is passed on, which is what I think Courtfool is saying.Is that "evolution" or random "mutation"? It seems to me that evolution is much more deliberate rather than random. Like evolution is a deliberate encoding of genes due to a response to something. To me a white tiger is a random mutation. That most (all?) cats have lost sabre teeth is a product of evolution.
And do you feel that intelligence is strictly genetic or learned? Or a combination of both? Because, regardless, it seems like we should then be able to artificially cause it to happen on another creature at some point. Right?
Without random mutation, there is no evolution. I therefore regard the random mutations that produce the changes natural selection acts on to be a vital part of the evolutionary process. If you have a more narrow definition of evolution, then I can see what I said causing confusion, which I didn't intend.
As for intelligence, right this minute we haven't got clue one what it is. We can't even decide if it's one thing or dozens. That said, I would be surprised if it wasn't mostly genetic with a hefty environmental component. Regardless, whatever it turns out to be, it will be complicated genetically and we're not even at the stage of understanding how to control anything but the simplest of genetic pathways so any ability to impart it within our own species, never mind in others, will be likely outside of my lifetime.
We don't know what makes humans human. Although as our DNA is more than half virus, just what is human is a very interesting question genetically speaking. ;-)
|
|
Without random mutation, there is no evolution.
Is evolution truly "random"?
And with "intelligence" -- why would you say "hefty environmental component"? What does the environment have to do with it? There are intelligent people in the Himalayas as well as on Hawaii. Just curious what you mean there.
Is evolution truly "random"?
Wouldn't it have to be? Otherwise, there would be one species.
|
|
Without random mutation, there is no evolution.Is evolution truly "random"?
And with "intelligence" -- why would you say "hefty environmental component"? What does the environment have to do with it? There are intelligent people in the Himalayas as well as on Hawaii. Just curious what you mean there.
Evolution isn't random.* The mutations that form it's basis probably aren't truly random, either, as some would cause a foetus to abort, but they're still more random than directed.
As for intelligence and the environment, the old saying of use it or lose it applies to brains as much as muscles. There are also plenty of people who end up smarter than their parents because they push their intelligence, and the ones who are much less smart than you'd think from their family history. If it was pure genetic, this would be unlikely. Besides which, I know of no human trait that does not contain at least a small environmental component. Even your gender at birth is heavily influenced by the hormonal balance in the womb.
Think of it like your height: Your genetics provides you with a range. The environment narrows down where you fall on that range.
EDIT for clarity: Evolution is a process. It is a result of random chance that produces the differences, and natural selection that acts on those differences. Natural selection may act in different ways on different differences. That, at basic level, is how species differentiate. They have differences that push them into different ecological niches.
|
|
I am not sure I understand how you expect us to artificially increase intelligence.
I am far from an expert in this. Saw a special on dinosaurs recently and it talked about kind of the "Jurassic Park" idea of creating dinosaurs from extinct DNA. They said that it was pretty unlikely to be able to do that -- however they said that it could be possible to still create dinosaurs. Basically (as I understand it) genetics or genetic coding is essentially a lot of "on"/"off" switches. They showed that they could "create" a chicken with a tail or create a chicken with scales instead of feathers. I realize that it's a lot more complicated than simply turning something "on" or "off", but if intelligence is genetic, it (in theory) is just a matter of figuring out the right combination of switches to make it happen. If it isn't genetic, then it shouldn't matter what combination of switches we did -- it could never happen. Which would imply that intelligence comes from something else.
Father Mendel was still back in the 1800's.
Correct, as was Darwin. And later scientists' work, rather than rejecting either one out of hand (the Man is keepin' me down!") combined BOTH of them, plus other stuff, to derive the current model of evolutionary synthesis. Your assertion that "dogmatic Darwinists" forced out other theories, although it quotes Stein's inane movie nicely, is at odds with what actually happened (and continues to happen to this day).
Check out Franicis Collins, devout Christian and head of the Human Genome Project -- he's alive and well, and will attest that (a) his work isn't being "kept down" by Darwinists (on the contrary -- they're finding ways to incorporate it), and (b) ID, on the other hand, IS rejected because it contains zero scientific content.
I realize that it's a lot more complicated that simply turning something "on" or "off", but if intelligence is genetic, it (in theory) is just a matter of figuring out the right combination of switches to make it happen.
I am thinking it is just a matter of time before we find the right combination.
|
|
Is evolution truly "random"?Wouldn't it have to be? Otherwise, there would be one species.
I feel that the environment may be random -- but not our reactions to it. Also, evolution has been going on for so long already that we are never truly starting from scratch. Maybe way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way down the line, we came from the same stock genetically but we did not evolve from birds or dinosaurs or bugs.
Look at it this way -- In the beginning there were two single celled organisms in the ocean. The currents (random environment) took one to the deep cold ocean and took the other to the shore. Each one would need to learn to adapt differently. The environment was a random factor, but their reaction to it was deliberate or for a purpose. I don't feel that their reaction was random. Therefore evolution doesn't make sense to me if it is entirely random.
|
|
I realize that it's a lot more complicated that simply turning something "on" or "off", but if intelligence is genetic, it (in theory) is just a matter of figuring out the right combination of switches to make it happen.I am thinking it is just a matter of time before we find the right combination.
I don't know. Cheyenne Mountain had the Stargate for 40 years and couldn't figure out how to even "drunk dial" a usable combination until they found a magic wall with pre-defined combos.
;-)
Seriously though -- it's interesting to think about. I don't know if it really is possible or not. And I'd be surprised if anyone knew for sure. As Paul said, probably not in my lifetime, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened in a generation or two.
Without random mutation, there is no evolution.Is evolution truly "random"?
And with "intelligence" -- why would you say "hefty environmental component"? What does the environment have to do with it? There are intelligent people in the Himalayas as well as on Hawaii. Just curious what you mean there.
Evolution isn't random.* The mutations that form it's basis probably aren't truly random, either, as some would cause a foetus to abort, but they're still more random than directed.
As for intelligence and the environment, the old saying of use it or lose it applies to brains as much as muscles. There are also plenty of people who end up smarter than their parents because they push their intelligence, and the ones who are much less smart than you'd think from their family history. If it was pure genetic, this would be unlikely. Besides which, I know of no human trait that does not contain at least a small environmental component. Even your gender at birth is heavily influenced by the hormonal balance in the womb.
Think of it like your height: Your genetics provides you with a range. The environment narrows down where you fall on that range.
EDIT for clarity: Evolution is a process. It is a result of random chance that produces the differences, and natural selection that acts on those differences. Natural selection may act in different ways on different differences. That, at basic level, is how species differentiate. They have differences that push them into different ecological niches.
When you say 'pure genetic,' I think that you are talking about is phenotypic plasticity. It's not a question of whether or not something is 'genetic,' but rather a question of genetic change. 'Genetic' doesn't mean fixed or destined. To say that something is 'genetic' is simply to say that it is in some way related to genes; it is not to say (at least, not necessarily) that it is set in stone.
I realize that it's a lot more complicated that simply turning something "on" or "off", but if intelligence is genetic, it (in theory) is just a matter of figuring out the right combination of switches to make it happen.I am thinking it is just a matter of time before we find the right combination.
Close. Getting the full genome of a dinosaur would probably be Nobel-worthy if we could find a way to shoehorn it into medicine (no Nobel for pure biology) but it wouldn't in itself be enough for us to make a dino with. All the cells of our body have the same DNA, excepting gametes (half) and red blood cells (none) and barring mutations (each of us is host to probably thirty or so, most completely insignificant) and chimeras (parts of our body that do in fact have different DNA, usually from an absorbed twin). But that DNA makes different types of cells in different parts of the body through a complex series of local divergences, responses to various chemicals in the womb, etc.
Cloning isn't theoretically that complicated. Identical twins manage it without any help from us and cloning many plants is trivial but it's not so easy to create a viable, complex organism. That's why Dolly was such huge news. We get to cheat a bit with extant species since we can task all the development work off on a living member. For dinosaurs, we obviously don't have that option.
Or at least that's what I gather after having read Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish
I'm not making the claim that this is the grounds for diffentiating humans from other animals. In order to make such a claim, you would need to demonstrate that (a) thinking beyond oneself is a meaningful difference between humans and other animals and (b) that animals don't actually think beyond themselves. I'm not willing to accept (a) as the demarcation point between humans and other animals, and I don't see any need to provide the evidence requested in (b).We have evidence against b, at least in our closest relatives. Chimpanzees have been observed in the wild checking if another member of the pack is watching before doing things. Likewise they've been observed teaching their young how to fish for termites. Chimps thus have some sort of theory of other minds (they know that others exist and may observe their actions and react to them as they might themselves do the same) and at least a few different cultures (culture being the aggregate of learned behaviors passed down generations, stuff like termite fishing, other forms of tool use, or writing annoying know-it-all posts on message boards). At one point I had reporting on the studies on hand, but that seems to have gone away a few hard drives ago.
Or, to take it back to the point upthread, there is much more commonality between humans and other animals than there are differences.Nature's kind of fuzzy that way. It certainly helps taxonomists secure employment. :) We're made out of the same stuff, more or less, that makes up fish, chickens, snakes, and toads. The source code comes in different versions and is executed differently (our hands are the many-times-great grandchildren of fins, for example) and if it gets bungled at the wrong moment, we get real world Blue Screens of Death.
But being an animal isn't such a bad gig, I think. Of all the parts of my body the one I enjoy the most (I once said this in person and gave a smile and a weighty pause here) is the brain. I don't know...
Theory of Mind, as evidenced by relatively complex deception, has also been observed among other non-human primates, such as baboons (research baboons Paul and Mel for some fascinating insights).
You mean the movie that was basically a two hour Godwin?
That's probably the best review of it I've ever seen! I wish Netflix had that one...
|
|
You mean the movie that was basically a two hour Godwin?That's probably the best review of it I've ever seen! I wish Netflix had that one...
I found some of it quiet charming but many of the obvious setups to get specific answers were very poorly conceived and executed.
I have to admit I did giggle a little at Dawkins going well maybe the Aliens did it.
I have to admit I did giggle a little at Dawkins going well maybe the Aliens did it.
Yeah, that's what happens when you ask scientists with huge egos stuff that's totally outside their area of expertise -- they end up babbling incoherently. The theory of evolution, of course, has nothing to say about the origin of life -- only how it develops.
My beef is that Stein grossly misrepresents almost all of the facts in order to establish his conspiracy theories. For example, Caroline Crocker wasn't fired, she was non-tenured and not re-hired because she refused to stick to her subject matter. Marks eneded up in trouble because he was using his facilities at Baylor University as a front for the Discovery Institute (which Baylor didn't appreciate). Gonzales was let go from his post not because of his ID beliefs, but because his ID obsession apparently somehow prevented him from publishing, teaching, and otherwise doing his job. Sternberg wasn't fired at all, contrary to the film's assertions. Etc., etc.
Also, contrary to Stein's primary thesis, there is NO link between evolution and the Holocaust, except that they're both nouns.
Maybe it should have been called "Expelled: No Facts Allowed." Apparently Stein, for all his talk of God leading you to a "glorious place," never heard "Thou Shalt Not Lie" before.
What if Anti-Religious Campaigns Backfire?
Well here's the rub:
Sure, King’s work involved civil rights and humanitarian causes, rather than, say, evangelism or biblical translation. So one might argue that his work had a “secular purpose.” But then the same thing is obviously true for Mother Teresa.
No, it's not. In fact, the opposite is obviously true. The woman was no more than a shameless huckster pimping misery (and in fact sometimes creating more) to get donations to an obscenely wealthy multinational corporation, virtually all of which went not even to her own death houses but rather sat untouched in bank accounts. In the secular world, we'd call that fraud.
Just one example:
The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help. We lived a simple life, bare of all superfluities. We had three sets of clothes, which we mended until the material was too rotten to patch anymore. We washed our own clothes by hand. The never-ending piles of sheets and towels from our night shelter for the homeless we washed by hand, too. Our bathing was accomplished with only one bucket of water. Dental and medical checkups were seen as an unnecessary luxury.Mother was very concerned that we preserve our spirit of poverty. Spending money would destroy that poverty. She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. Was this in the best interests of the people we were trying to help, or were we in fact using them as a tool to advance our own "sanctity?" In Haiti, to keep the spirit of poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to procure more needles, but the sisters refused.
That ghoul isn't worthy of a stamp. She's nothing more than a particularly successful and shameless spin doctor. To put her in the same category with MLK is obscene. She belongs with Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Rick Warren, and the rest.
With due respect to all parties, on the subject of Mother Teresa, I found this to be a credible account of how the woman differed wildly from what people seem to think.
I've heard many accounts that back up what was in this book. The book is interpersonal in tone as this nun worked with her, but read other books on the subject and follow how despots were courted for their donations and and how her organization was the only one in India that the government wasn't allowed to audit... it gets ugly.
I think when you study any person who achieves greatness, it's scary what you often find. Like Ghandi's outright racist by anyone's standards articles when he lived in Africa. But I believe that goodness is within all of us and spills unsparing from so many people.
StuffActually that is a matter of opinion and yours is one I will not speak to.
I'm not sure why you brought it up if you don't want to talk about it, but ok.
|
|
With due respect to all parties, on the subject of Mother Teresa, I found this to be a credible account of how the woman differed wildly from what people seem to think.
I've heard many accounts that back up what was in this book. The book is interpersonal in tone as this nun worked with her, but read other books on the subject and follow how despots were courted for their donations and and how her organization was the only one in India that the government wasn't allowed to audit... it gets ugly.
I think when you study any person who achieves greatness, it's scary what you often find. Like Ghandi's outright racist by anyone's standards articles when he lived in Africa. But I believe that goodness is within all of us and spills unsparing from so many people.
Never said she was perfect. No one is. Arrogance is one of the few things I have no stomach for.
This is and will be my last post on this thread.
Some feel bashing is a way to have a civil discussion. I do not. I may not agree with someone but I would never speak that way of anyone with whom I disagree. Let alone about someone with whom the world and many world leaders thought was worthy of respect. So much so that they went to her funeral.
Never said she was perfect. No one is. Arrogance is one of the few things I have no stomach for.
This is and will be my last post on this thread.
Some feel bashing is a way to have a civil discussion. I do not. I may not agree with someone but I would never speak that way of anyone with whom I disagree. Let alone about someone with whom the world and many world leaders thought was worthy of respect. So much so that they went to her funeral.
But if she decided to not show up to your game that you planned all week to run, then by god, unleash the unholy hellish fury of righteous anger. ;P
A ghoul? Geez.
A ghoul? Geez.
If you saw the footage of her grinning and licking her lips as she tells a dying man in great pain that his agony is God kissing him, you'd call her a ghoul too. In the subtitles, the man informs her that he'd very much like God to stop with the tongue bath.
If you were one of her nuns that was required to abstain from getting medical care while she flew over an ocean to get pampered in the finest hospitals, you'd have yet more to say. Norman Borlaug she wasn't.
Samnell & The Jade, I would just like to thank you for the information. I did not know of these accounts of Mother Teresa (or much at all really).
Samnell & The Jade, I would just like to thank you for the information. I did not know of these accounts of Mother Teresa (or much at all really).
Most people don't, sadly.
Some feel bashing is a way to have a civil discussion. I do not. I may not agree with someone but I would never speak that way of anyone with whom I disagree.
Personally, maybe I go too far the other direction: I often feel that, as soon as any person or idea gets put on a pedestal -- and is supposedly immune from all examination, discussion, or facts -- that at that point, civil discussion has been circumvented in favor of something that almost seems creepily like idol worship.
Wow! Bashing Mother Teresa? That is, in my humble opinion, sad and pathetic.
+1. There's nothing wrong with being critical, but outright bashing shows a lack of human decency.
There's nothing wrong with being critical, but outright bashing shows a lack of human decency.
I think the problem is that there is no clear way to make a distinction between the two. To someone who wants her sainted, ANY questioning of her perfection is "bashing." To a disinterested third party, close examination of less-than-noble actions on her part is "being critical." Bashing vs. critical is completely arbitrary, and varies for each individual person.
There's nothing wrong with being critical, but outright bashing shows a lack of human decency.I think the problem is that there is no clear way to make a distinction between the two. To someone who wants her sainted, ANY questioning of her perfection is "bashing." To a disinterested third party, close examination of less-than-noble actions on her part is "being critical." Bashing vs. critical is completely arbitrary, and varies for each individual person.
Dude, Samnell called her a ghoul. Isn't that clear enough?
Dude, Samnell called her a ghoul. Isn't that clear enough?
Yeah. Sorry; I've been mentally tuning him out when he starts up with that. I was thinking more of the Jade's post, to which CJ replied, and which I didn't find to be at all "bashing."
|
|
Dude, Samnell called her a ghoul. Isn't that clear enough?There's nothing wrong with being critical, but outright bashing shows a lack of human decency.I think the problem is that there is no clear way to make a distinction between the two. To someone who wants her sainted, ANY questioning of her perfection is "bashing." To a disinterested third party, close examination of less-than-noble actions on her part is "being critical." Bashing vs. critical is completely arbitrary, and varies for each individual person.
Exactly. I perfectly understand criticism of someone who was so influential, but refer to her as a ghoul is a bit tasteless.
With due respect to all parties, on the subject of Mother Teresa, I found this to be a credible account of how the woman differed wildly from what people seem to think.
I've heard many accounts that back up what was in this book. The book is interpersonal in tone as this nun worked with her, but read other books on the subject and follow how despots were courted for their donations and and how her organization was the only one in India that the government wasn't allowed to audit... it gets ugly.
I think when you study any person who achieves greatness, it's scary what you often find. Like Ghandi's outright racist by anyone's standards articles when he lived in Africa. But I believe that goodness is within all of us and spills unsparing from so many people.
Never said she was perfect. No one is. Arrogance is one of the few things I have no stomach for.
This is and will be my last post on this thread.
Some feel bashing is a way to have a civil discussion. I do not. I may not agree with someone but I would never speak that way of anyone with whom I disagree. Let alone about someone with whom the world and many world leaders thought was worthy of respect. So much so that they went to her funeral.
This is the exchange I was referencing, not Samnell's unfortunate Tourette's-like choice of phrase.
Dude, Samnell called her a ghoul. Isn't that clear enough?Yeah. Sorry; I've been tuning him out when he starts up with that. I was thinking more of the Jade's post, to which CJ replied, and which I didn't find to be at all "bashing."
You're right. I have no problem with Jade being critical. Maybe she wasn't what she seemed to be. Maybe she was a con artist. I don't know. Also, you should get substantial proof when you make wild accusations like what Samnell did. Not just a few disgruntled nuns and a radically left wing website and pretend that you know for a fact what kind of person she was. I can find plenty of websites and "proof" that FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed before it happened. That doesn't make it true.
I can find plenty of websites and "proof" that FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed before it happened. That doesn't make it true.
You said it, man. Don't get me started about my co-worker and "Project Blue Beam" that he's always ranting about.
I can find plenty of websites and "proof" that FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed before it happened. That doesn't make it true.You said it, man. Don't get me started about my co-worker and "Project Blue Beam" that he's always ranting about.
LOL! "Project Blue Beam" is definitely an interesting one that's for sure. It's amazing the stuff people come up with. "Aliens built the pyramids", "Elvis is still alive", etc.. I'm very open-minded towards the unknown but you have to give me evidence instead of throwing darts on the dartboard and hope something sticks. :)