Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Religion _ Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 19 2010, 07:55 PM

Hi All!

I am a committed Evolutionist who just watched a show about the hair pull in the Dover School District over whether Intelligent Design was a competing and valid scientific theory with a proper place in high school Biology text books. It led to a court decision that vindicated Darwin. For the sake of being a Devil's Advocate, and in the American spirit of fair play, here's an attempt fit Intelligent Design into Evolution and end the controversy by destroying the notion that they are mutually exclusive. I don't buy my own following theory myself. It's just an attempt to find the maximum amount of scientific merit that Intelligent Design could ever possibly have, and hope it gets kicked around real good like some kind of luckless football.

A. Stated most simply or as a slogan - Evolution Is Intelligent Design.

1. Intelligence uses logic. Evolution logically explains the development of species including man. Surely an intelligent designer would put such a logical system in place.

2. Intelligence recognizes the difference between better and worse and logically strives to make things better as time goes on. Evolution says that strong species prevail over the weak as the result of a continuous process of improvement. Surely an intelligent designer would put in place a systemic process that only goes in one direction - continuous improvement over time.

3. Intelligence seeks to accomplish its ends with the least amount of effort by putting in place systems such as machines that do not require constant attention as they perform some basic task. Evolution rules out the intervention of God or some other intelligent designer in its progress and instead says that species develop though a self-driven system of natural selection. Surely an Intelligent Designer would put such a "fire and forget" system in place instead of one that requires his constant attention and intervention, and then would not waste a lot of time meddling with a process that is working as intended.

4. According to the Intelligent Designers, their God is more than just intelligent. He is also good and not malicious. Through Evolution, humans have been able to answer the question of where they came from. That question is the natural result of the abstract intellectual curiosity that Intelligent Designers say makes humans special or some sort of exception. A good God would not have given us the intelligence to be curious about where we came from and then torture us by making the answer impossible to find. That would be a malicious God instead.

5. Their God being both intelligent and good, Intelligent Designers express awe over the elegance and beauty of what He has created, in particular man, and the elegance and beauty of the way God does his Work. Points 1, 2 and 3 above show that Evolution is an elegant and beautiful process that has produced results having those same qualities. Evolution works in the same manner that they would expect from their God.

B. This "theory" knocks the pins out from under the key points that Intelligent Designers really want to make or prove.

1. You have to toss out the Book of Genesis and Bishop Usher's 4004 BC. It took 4 billion years with homo sapiens appearing what, about 250,000 years ago.

2. God or some other Intelligent Designer did not intervene to produce man. We are just the current end result of a "fire and forget" Evolutionary process.

3. A lot of mystery is stripped away from God. If all an Intelligent Designer has done is the design, then he only needed intelligence to do it, and did not require any of the other omniscient powers usually attributed to God. Moreover, humans strive toward logical processes that produce constant improvements with minimal effort, and have done this countless times. That suggests the Designer has lot in common with us.

4. The best possible scientific result for Intelligent Design would be acceptance of one or two small parts of it as minor subordinates to Evolution. If an Intelligent Designer implemented Evolution's processes, then Darwin and his successors have provided a comprehensive scientific explanation of how that process works and produced the results that we perceive. Only a few loose ends remain that require further scientific inquiry. Assuming that one or more parts of Intelligent Design Theory are found to have scientific merit, science still only needs to fill a few 150 year old niches in Evolution which have not affected its integrity in the meantime. With usefulness limited to empty niches, it would be fitted within and reconciled with long established, internally self-supported science. Scientific acceptance of one or two sub-concepts would at least toss their scientists some bones. This footnote digresses on the only thing that troubles me about evolution, and how part of ID might fit to fill that void(1).

5. Science concerns itself with how things work. Why they exist is for religion or philosophy. The advocates of Intelligent Design attack Evolution from the outside with claims made in such broad terms that the two are become mutually inconsistent; it's either one or the other, thus they hope to displace Evolution and replace it with a new thing that has God as the Designer. . To do all of that they must advance as science a reason why this Intelligent Designer chose to do it in the first place and then why He did it they way He did. He is not "intelligent" if he does not have free will in making those choices, which leads to the inevitable question of "why he made the choices he did. This could be enough in and of itself to dismiss Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory.


C. Evolution has practical value because it explains processes, results and in general everything that we can actually experience and observe. If Intelligent Design is part of it, then we do not experience and observe that part so it has, at best, very limited practical value.
There is an analogy here to Quantum Mechanics in general and its Uncertainty Principle in particular. My house is held up by a steel beam frame. Uncertainty tells us that we cannot determine the current location of the atoms that compose those beams, and at the same time determine their path (and thus their next location). Thus those beams' past, present and future qualities such as strength and location can only be determined to a degree of probability, not with certainty. That is interesting, but inconsequential. All I ask is for those beams to be in whatever location with whatever strength they need to keep this shack from falling on my head. That's all I have ever been able to see and feel them doing, what I perceive now, and what I expect in the future. Quantum Mechanics has no practical effect on anything large enough for us to perceive, which means just about everything..
But at least Quantum Mechanics has a few practical applications and uses in ways too small for us to perceive, such as the operation of the tiny silicon components in this here computer.

__________________________
(1) Although the human brain is a product of evolution, we know very little about how it works. We do know that when its enormous capabilities are compared to every other evolutionary result, including our own bodies, the difference is a statistical aberration so huge that it passes understanding. To me, Evolution fails to explain why it started to give this one organ such excessive and exclusive favor say about 250,000 years ago. It may never be able to explain, because for several reasons, this adaptation seems more like something that occurred totally outside of evolutionary process instead as an exception within it.

(a) It went far beyond any improvement necessary for the survival of the species when self-awareness, abstract reasoning and long term memory were added. Every other species has survived without these brain powers.

(B) This appears to be a singular occurrence that has not been followed by any other species, in particular certain monkeys that are similar and well-positioned. One would think that there would at least be be signs that they are. Not only that, but the rest of our bodies, in particular the other organs, still generally resemble and function like other species, with no marked difference to make them better. It's the brain that allows us to live a relatively long life.

© All evolution seems to occur at a slow, regular pace, with the physical changes in appearance also being gradual and regular. This results in small increases in capability that bring with them a small comparative advantage that is proportionate to the timing and degree of the physical changes. On the other hand, our brain seems to have developed much quicker and did so in one spurt. The physical change was not gradual or regular because it added a unique and inordinate comparative advantage over all other species. Such big changes over short time is the opposite of the evolutionary normal relationship, which is small change over long time.

(d) Evolutionary adaptions are triggered by a specific problem or need. Their sole purpose is to solve that problem or meet that need. The quickest way to do that, while using the least amount of energy, is to only do what is specifically and strictly necessary for that purpose.
Predators depend on speed, camouflage and eyesight to catch prey. Prey depend on the same things to avoid predators. This drives a continuous cycle of specific eye, color and speed adaptations for the purpose of making theirs better than the competition's, which is also is the limit - an eye adaptation will not continue until the critter has the best eyes on the planet. They won't change their tails or kidneys too just for kicks. Although being smarter would surely make them better predators or prey, that is not a good enough reason for Evolution to provide more brain processing power.

(e) The explosion in human brain power was general, unfocused, and disregarded thes rules of Evolution that seem to require specificity, purpose, expedience and efficiency. While I am sure that 250,000 years ago homo sapiens had very specific problems and needs that centered on basic survival, Evolution hasn't assisted the survival of any other species by increasing intelligence. That's probably because basic survival is a very general problem composed of many smaller specific problems like bad eyesight or vulnerability to a certain disease, and Evolution requires specific smaller issues addressable in unique ways that will only serve that purpose but not others. Brain power itself is not such a solution due to an amorphous nature that defies all confinement, let alone a unique purpose. So this has to be the first and only time that Evolution took on a general problem and/or solved one with an adaptation that has general and unlimited uses. Then Evolution did not follow its pattern of doing the minimum amount needed to solve the problem, and doing so by some modest adaptation. Instead it went overboard in both respects. Homo Sapiens was probably already the smartest critter around, so a modest intelligence boost is enough to turn this existing competitive advantage into total dominance that assureds survival. Evolution always stops when critters obtain some single and slight competitive advantage over just their competitors, but in this case it first resulted in a brain that wasstill multi-use and best, now even better. The process didn't stop there like a normal adaptation should, instead it continued up till now, with no sign of stopping. The quantity of the improvement is 10 times more than we use or even understand today, while normal Evolution ends when physical change is just enough to produce a small comparative advantage. Finally, normal Evolution doesn't do surpluses, let alone tenfold ones.

(f) So the human brain developed in a pattern that is so inconsistent with evolution that perhaps it occurred outside of and independent of Evolution, or independently influenced Evolution from the outside in the matter. I think the explanation will be neither divine nor otherworldly. For example, perhaps a chance encounter with a chemical 250,000 years ago caused a reaction that produced a beneficial mutation which our science can explain.

)g) In the meantime, if the Intelligent Designers count this among their anomalies, I can accept is as such, but not as something that raises any serious question about the rest of it.

Posted by: lunk Feb 19 2010, 09:59 PM

Hmmn,
the most intelligent design method,
is trial and error, if time, is not a factor.

But "intelligent design" is really just a time saving method,
instead of trial and error, for proof of reliance.

So really, unintelligent design, is evolution!

Though, this is the most intelligent way,
to make sure, something will function,
in an unknown environment, for sure.

I think the wing of the airplane,
was designed through trial and error,
so there should be, a more intelligent way,
of designing one
...or two.

perhaps, based on this, non-evolutionary (but still evolving) idea:
(you will need to log-on to read this link)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19284&view=findpost&p=10781781

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 20 2010, 01:32 PM

Hi Lunk!

QUOTE
Though, this is the most intelligent way,
to make sure, something will function,
in an unknown environment, for sure.


Maybe there's an Intelligent Experimenter instead, doing an Intelligent Experiment.

But since he's using trial and error, he obviously doesn't know what the f u c k he's doing. Neither perfect nor omniscient.

SO he sure ain't God!

Evolution is Intelligent Experimentation! SO There!

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 20 2010, 01:46 PM

I could go through your posting point by point but that would take up acres of space to treat each one with the depth and breadth required so I won't. Instead I'll make brief comment or two and cite works that will help explain further. In particular WRT the comments highlighted in red.

QUOTE
2. Intelligence recognizes the difference between better and worse and logically strives to make things better as time goes on. Evolution says that strong species prevail over the weak as the result of a continuous process of improvement. Surely an intelligent designer would put in place a systemic process that only goes in one direction - continuous improvement over time.


No evolution is about the survival of those who best adapt to conditions of habitat and thus survive long enough to have progeny. The process is not about improvement as such for there is no intention behind evolution. Creationists, wrongly, consider humans as the pinnacle of evolution. This is not the case, humans are just that branch of anthrapoids that has progressed the furthest in terms of thought and living modes.

Throughout the history of evolution many well adapted and seemingly, at the time, definitive organisms have become extinct for one reason or another. As the planet ages it becomes less resiliant to perturbations of the complex systems that support life as we know it. That is why the current perturbation of the carbon cycle could be so detrimental to us. The earth's systems that try to maintain a balance may well decide that we are too costly and shed us. Then some other organism will evolve to fill the niche.


QUOTE
(d) Evolutionary adaptions are triggered by a specific problem or need. Their sole purpose is to solve that problem or meet that need. The quickest way to do that, while using the least amount of energy, is to only do what is specifically and strictly necessary for that purpose.


Evolution always has to start from what is. Hence the step by step way that organs and structures evolve. A designer can chose from a range of known technologies and often parts. Evolution does not work like this. With evolution existing parts become, over time, adapted to new conditions.

This is exemplified by the whales, including dolphins, which have evolved from land creatures who returned to the water, much as Hippos are doing today. The forward limbs became flippers, tails became flukes and hind limbs atrophied until they are held within the creatures body tissue, are not connected to the rest of the skeleton and not externally visible. This is an example of vestigial organs – those things so fatal to creationist arguments.

I would suggest a read of Richard Dawkins 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and for anti-creationist material, 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Unweaving-Rainbow-Science-Delusion-Appetite/dp/0618056734/ref=pd_sim_b_2

QUOTE
(e) The explosion in human brain power was general, unfocused, and disregarded thes rules of Evolution that seem to require specificity, purpose, expedience and efficiency. While I am sure that 250,000 years ago homo sapiens had very specific problems and needs that centered on basic survival, Evolution hasn't assisted the survival of any other species by increasing intelligence.

The hominid history goes back considerably further than that. Back to about 6.6 million years IIRC.
Over that time it has been the evolution of tool making and using abilities that began the cranial development and then hunting provided a spur to language development from the need for precise co-ordination between hunters in overcoming the large prey. It is becoming increasingly understood that as humanoids spread across continents that herds of large prey animal became extinct, as did the other predators that hunted those animals. The discovery of, and ability to control, fire also helped by cooking, cleaning out pelts for clothes and even hunting too. Humanoids long since used fire as a tool to scare animals into traps. That takes brain power and organisation of a different order to casual hunting-gathering. Language and then pictures as records or explanatory devices continued to evolve and turned into culture. Cultural wars are ancient history too.


For a reverse trip backwards through evolution is provided in another book by Richard Dawkins 'The Ancestor's Tale' this is not a quick read but very worth it. Stretch to the hardback version if you can as the paperback would soon fall apart.

http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn-Evolution/dp/0618005838

It is being currently proposed that Dolphins are warded special status in recognition of their high intelligence.

Another creature that displays considerable intelligence is the Octopus which belongs to a very ancient order.

QUOTE
There is an analogy here to Quantum Mechanics in general and its Uncertainty Principle in particular. My house is held up by a steel beam frame. Uncertainty tells us that we cannot determine the current location of the atoms that compose those beams...

I think that you will find that the uncertainty principle applies to sub-atomic entities such as electrons and in this context not particles but wave functions.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 20 2010, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 18 2010, 03:32 PM) *
Neither perfect nor omniscient.

SO he sure ain't God!

No Intelligent Designer would have given humans an Appendix!

Neither would one have put an entertainment complex in a sewage works! laughing1.gif

Posted by: lunk Feb 21 2010, 01:45 AM

Everybody wants to blame somebody else for the problems in the world.
Who would even conceive of making something so disastrous, as the universe?
With all the pain and suffering in the world, who would even respect anyone who even contributed to making the universe.

We really ought to have complete contempt for any one who made the universe.
But there is another interpretation, perhaps to be "all knowing" one must experience all experiences, and all experiences, are experienced from different individuals, because we all are different individuals, experiencing and reacting to different experiences. And one can't be all knowing, if there is an experience left yet, to experience.

An athiest, can not experience the same thing as a religious person may,
and vice-versa, So somehow to be all knowing one must be all living things.

Now, the theory of evolution, can be seen,
as the religious experience of the atheist.

Taking evolution as a science, can lead to the belief that the only way to survive is to eliminate the inferior.
The definition of inferior, in this world of economies, is lack of money.
So for the rich, (superior) to survive into the future, the poor (inferior)
must be eliminated, as the poor, will still breed and eventually take over from the rich...

Now this thought runs counter to experiencing all possible experiences, as by eliminating another life form, leads to less experiences.

So is evolution a religion?
A belief system, that leads one toward an unnatural action?

Intelligent design is not the opposite of evolution.
They may be the same thing.

Even with all its' fall backs, evolution, is still the simplest design,
for an ever changing system, if time is not a factor.

There was a story about 2 deaf parents,
who were recommended aborting their baby,
because it could be born without the ability to hear.
(they could not believe what they were hearing!)

But that is eugenics, which is based on the theory of evolution,
survival of the fattest,
by their intelligent elimination,
of the starving workers.

...and the world is in such a mess,
because of this perversion of the religion of evolution.

There are signs of humans similar to ourselves from 8 million years ago.
Darwin first said that humans were only 10,000 years old!
(it is now increased to 3-4 hundred thousand)
And before that, our ancestors were just missing links.

(and everyone knows about missing links, these days)

Posted by: Sanders Feb 21 2010, 06:23 AM

Something I wrote many years ago - a review of Darwin's Black Box, a book by Behe.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050406084134/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/laymans_response.shtml

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 21 2010, 07:41 AM

HI Omega!

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I was trying to reconcile a thing I accept as established science and fact (Evolution) with something I do not accept because it is neither science nor fact (Intelligent Design)"(ID"). That's really hard to do when the ID advocates present the two as mutually exclusive because that's the only way to reach their real goal of replacing Evolution with ID (in which, of course, they require their God to be the Designer). Even before beginning that's hopeless so I cut it down to:

(1) Find some small open question that Evolution hasn't satisfactorily answered. Without that, there's no need in the first place for further work, let alone a new theory like ID.
(2) Fill that small crack in Evolution with putty made out of a few bits and pieces from ID.
(3) Toss the remaining 90% of ID out the window, and along with it, all of the larger religious points that the ID advocates are really trying to make.

Having started with that rubric, I was bound and determined to find something to Post, no matter how hard it stretched and strained even my own credulity. That's asking for trouble and a possible tortured result that deserves to be kicked around like a football. Your kicks scored goals, but since I bear responsibility for trying to defend my "Creation", I'm not leaving the pitch yet.

1.
QUOTE
No evolution is about the survival of those who best adapt to conditions of habitat and thus survive long enough to have progeny. . . . . (h)umans are just that branch of anthrapoids that has progressed the furthest in terms of thought and living modes.


I agree. Evolution is driven by inability to use thought and living modes to adapt to the conditions in the habitat as a means of survival. Animals can't do that, so evolution tries to solve their survival problem through physical changes that give them what they need. Humans have been able to master the habitat. Actually, that mastery probably rises to the level of a substitue for Evolution. Humans may have reached the point where they have little or no need for it to survive. When a species reaches this point, Evolution is certainly slowed way down and probably won't start at all without a survival need demanding an adaptation.


2.
QUOTE
The process is not about improvement as such for there is no intention behind evolution.


I agree that there is no such intention. However, I don't see how that lack of intention is logically related to what Evolution in fact always does, so I disagree that its process is not about improvement. Evolutionary adaptations try to cure deficiencies in a species that are posing a threat to its survival. Curing a deficiency is by definition an improvement, regardless of whether it works or just an attempt that fails.

3.
QUOTE
Creationists, wrongly, consider humans as the pinnacle of evolution.


I agree that we are not the pinnacle of evolution. Either we will evolve higher in our present form, evolve into some different form that is even better, or become extinct to be replaced by something better. So with evolution being a continuous process, we haven't reached the pinnacle yet and never will.

However, I do think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution as of today. So the Creationists are right as far as that goes, but for the wrong reason. Their wrong reason is that our superior capabilities making us top dog today are a gift from a God. The right reason is that we are the highest form that Evolution has produced so far.


4.
QUOTE
A designer can chose from a range of known technologies and often parts. Evolution does not work like this. With evolution existing parts become, over time, adapted to new conditions.


I agree with all of this, but the first sentence suggests a need to clarify something with regard to known technologies and parts.

I was trying to find a way to reconcile certain parts of ID with Evolution. First, I had to find parts of ID that arguably could somehow be fitted into something that Evolution either doesn't cover or yet satisfactorily explain. Then, even though I did not agree that the parts chosen had merit, I decided for the sake of argument to assume that they were scientifically valid. Finally, I had to squeeze that bit of ID into Evolution in a way that did not conflict with Evolution, because I accept Evolution as an unalterable truth..

Well, Evolution doesn't purport to explain anything that happened before Evolution started. So the only way an Intelligent Designer can't conflict with the Evolutionary process is if he stops work when Evolution started and thereafter doesn't meddle with it. He would have to design a self-perpetuating process, start it running without any intended results or even concerns about what it will do, and then leave it alone to do whatever it ends up doing. If that process was Evolution, then everything Darwin says is still true, it still produced all past and present life, and there is a world chock-full of evidence that we can perceive which provides conclusive proof of Evolution. But we can't perceive the Designer himself due to his nature. The reason there is no sign of him in the evidence for Evolution is that once he starts that self-running process without regard to what it does, there is no further need or reason to touch it, so he left no tracks in the evidence the process produced.

So He would have just designed a process, not a machine with parts. You can have a process without a machine. Machine designers often have no parts because they are the ones drawing how new parts are thereafter to be made. Prior known technology could be helpful, but not essential. There have been technological developments that were not based on prior knowledge, and design processes often start with nothing with the goal of creating something.

All I'm saying is that there is a logical way for an Intelligent Designer to both exist and not conflict with any aspect of Evolution. But to do that I had to make him invisible and his existence impossible to perceive let alone prove scientifically. So right off the bat, even it it's true, Intelligent Design cannot be subjected to scientific inquiry, and it is a fraud for its proponents to advance it as a serious alternative scientific theory.


5.
QUOTE
The hominid history goes back considerably further than that. Back to about 6.6 million years IIRC.


Although hominids have been around for millions of years, I used 250,000 years because by then homo sapiens was certainly established, and the prior hominids were no longer around. The subject seems specific to our species' brain development, and it is our species that the holy rollers say is somehow had divine favor. So things should be confined to our species.

You are right that growing use of tools, hunting etc. develops brain power. Such uses really took off when homo sapiens arrived with a brain that gave it a competitive advantage over other hominids. IIRC there is a scientifically acknowledged gap in the evolutionary and archeological record about 250,000 years ago so it is not clear what happened. Today 90% of our brain power is still latent - we only use and understand 10%. It's not clear to me whether tools and the other brain developers you note came from tapping existing but latent brain power or gradually drove an increase in brain power. But this does appear to be the only time that Evolution gave a species excess capacity instead of just what it needed to survive.

Thus there is an open question in Evolution about human brain development that needs an answer. The question is not a fundamental threat, only on the periphery. But any question makes new thinking potentially useful, so there is reason to consider whether ID has anything to offer on the subject that might consistently fit into Evolution. ID basically says that humans are exceptional but adds that this is due to outside influence by God. If you throw out the God part and keep the outside influence and exceptional parts, there might be a fit. In the purely Evolutionary context, human brain development also seems exceptional and outside influences also can affect its normal process.

But that's it. Science already knows of many outside influences that, under the right circumstances, can disrupt or alter Evolutionary process enough to cause exceptional results in a fairly short time. Radiation and chemicals come to mind. An event where some of these known factors and even luck combined to exert exceptional outside influence at least has a conceivable basis. One that requires belief that an unknown thing exists with incomprehensible powers and good intentions has no basis at all.

Posted by: lunk Feb 21 2010, 10:44 AM

Evolution seems to make perfect sense,
but even then there are some possible unseen implications.

For instance, could there be a more, or differently,
evolved intelligent creature living on Earth?
Perhaps existing in the oceans or underground,
that keeps its' presents hidden from us,
perhaps with advanced technology, far ahead of ours...
Perhaps they even "leak" us some of their technology...

They could have made humans from DNA, perhaps.
A modified genetical myriad of the most potentially capable surface creatures, a custom designed prototype: us.

Through thousands of years of selective breeding,
different humans have been bred for different tasks,
giving diverse appearances in the species,
but genetically, we are almost all exactly the same,
compared to other creatures.

Of course, every once and a while, this separate species, from humans,
or their advanced technologies, are spotted by humans, and we explain this, as the unexplainable, demons, UFO's, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, and so on.

So perhaps, we are intentionally being kept to think,
by another evolved species, on Earth,
that we are alone, intelligent,
and the most sheeperior species
in the universe.

People have been breeding different species of plants and animals,
for crops and domestication for years,
and now, it is possible to create a new life-form in a test-tube.

Perhaps we are just emulating our (hiding) creators,
who evolved ahead of us, and are really running the world.

How is that for a take on creation vs evolution?

We are genetically modified organisms created and used,
by a naturally evolved species,
probably just to make, their life,
a little easier.

...but one can not really know the long term effects,
of introducing a GMO into nature.

Posted by: Sanders Feb 21 2010, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 25 2010, 06:41 AM) *
...Well, Evolution doesn't purport to explain anything that happened before Evolution started. So the only way an Intelligent Designer can't conflict with the Evolutionary process is if he stops work when Evolution started and thereafter doesn't meddle with it. He would have to design a self-perpetuating process, start it running without any intended results or even concerns about what it will do, and then leave it alone to do whatever it ends up doing. If that process was Evolution, then everything Darwin says is still true, it still produced all past and present life, and there is a world chock-full of evidence that we can perceive which provides conclusive proof of Evolution. But we can't perceive the Designer himself due to his nature. The reason there is no sign of him in the evidence for Evolution is that once he starts that self-running process without regard to what it does, there is no further need or reason to touch it, so he left no tracks in the evidence the process produced.

So He would have just designed a process, not a machine with parts. You can have a process without a machine. Machine designers often have no parts because they are the ones drawing how new parts are thereafter to be made. Prior known technology could be helpful, but not essential. There have been technological developments that were not based on prior knowledge, and design processes often start with nothing with the goal of creating something.

All I'm saying is that there is a logical way for an Intelligent Designer to both exist and not conflict with any aspect of Evolution...


Yes, you can believe or hope that there was an intelligent designer that, I don't know, laid down some rules and let it go ... but it's not required. Look into micells, or experiments which show cell membranes & RNA, negative and positive feedback loops within systems forming spontaneously ... chemistry provides the answers to how life started - nothing has been proven, but there is a mountain of research that suggests that no "spark" was needed other than the conditions that existed on earth at the time.

But I won't try and convince anyone that we are nothing but the elaborate extension of bacteria, the all of our powers result simply from the forces of natural selection stretched over a couple billion years ... because if you dive into this topic seriously, when it all really hits you, the sand runs out of your bosom and leaves you with an empty feeling so deep that can never be repaired. I know, I'm a victim of my own insatiable curiosity. Religion makes life easier IMO ... maybe better to believe that there's more to it than just this.

Just like I was a happier guy before I learned the truth about 9/11.

Truth is not for the faint of heart.

Posted by: lunk Feb 21 2010, 07:25 PM

There is order to every chaos,
even the most seemingly random events can be seen in patterns,
in a grander scale. Even the galaxies in the sky follow a pattern,
in space, where they can and can't be found.
Symmetry seems to exist from molecular to galactic,
but at every level there seems to be, some random subset.
But that is still just predictable order, at a different scale.
i think that Chaos Theory, proves there is no such thing a chaos.

So, isn't evolution, a form of random chaos,
and intelligent design, a form of structured order?

...So Chaos theory proves intelligent design,
but there doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence behind structure,
i can build a cave with less materials than a mountain, uses, perhaps even stronger, than a similar cave in a mountain,
depending on the mountain, i'm up against.

So intelligent design, is really a human invention.
Nature is a rigid system, in which, each of us is the intelligent creator,
...well, the only living one, that i know, of.

What are the chances that this concept
of evolution vs. intelligent design
is just another one of these,
thesis/antithesis, synthesis thingys?

(problem/reaction, solution)
the solution, of course, is always secretly known,
before the problem is flagged.

Posted by: albertchampion Feb 22 2010, 08:36 PM

so, tell me, what is the cause of the race to devolve intellectually? television? the public education system? a pandemic of prions? some as yet unidentified brain-eating bacteria? all of the above?

Posted by: lunk Feb 22 2010, 10:33 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 22 2010, 04:36 PM) *
so, tell me, what is the cause of the race to devolve intellectually? television? the public education system? a pandemic of prions? some as yet unidentified brain-eating bacteria? all of the above?


i don't think that any "race" intellectually devolve,

though it may be true,
that if you don't use it, you lose it,
...the plight of the leisure society, i guess.

but anybody could be made stupider with chemicals,
hormones or perhaps a targeting bacteria or virus,
that could effect different parts of their brain, as well.

Why would anyone want to do that to another human intelligent creator?

Because, if people realized what they really are...
power and control, could no longer be held by the few, over the many.

We are the intelligent designer.
Each one of us, is the intelligent designer,
subconsciously or consciously, we change the reality,
we have created, or, go along with, for, or against.

You can imagine saying this, to yourself;

"All there is, is just me,
in infinite space, with infinite time,
no one else, no-thing else.
Everything that exists
was a creation of mine,
and is made only, and entirely, of time and space
(and i sure am glad, there is only one lunk.)"
...∞i∞...

oh ya, where was i?
irrelevant design vs devolution,

Hmmm, the things i create,
tend to get better,
with time.

i think this may be universally true, too.

Posted by: albertchampion Feb 22 2010, 11:45 PM

i think you misunderstood.

not a "race" intent on devolution. but a race[as in nascar] to devolve.

Posted by: lunk Feb 23 2010, 01:37 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 22 2010, 07:45 PM) *
i think you misunderstood.

not a "race" intent on devolution. but a race[as in nascar] to devolve.


Ah, the "rat" race; the mass man, i see.
i think that, like statistics, the mass man, does not exists,
and the rat race is a fabricated term for the purpose of dehumanization..

If we are all "the creator", then if one human,
can trick a bunch of others to believe,
in doing something that gives, that person, more power and control,
then they are in essence, taking away the potential of others,
and really only limiting their own self.
As there is really only one creator, that goes by the name,
of all the singular pronouns, (him, her, you, me, i)
(this is why it sort of makes sense,
to treat everybody in the same way, that you yourself,
would expect to be treated.)
Deep down, we are all the same one "thing",
(as a John Carpenter head scurries by, on 8 legs.)

yes, i know,
back to evolution vs intelligent design...

Posted by: albertchampion Feb 23 2010, 02:02 AM

i chase you here as i contemplate my forthcoming book. tentatively entitled I DON'T GET IT.

it is a reflection upon how the citizenry runs away from its best interests.

is this a conscious effort? or an inadvertant one?

it has been my observation that the citizenry runs from the truth. and runs away from the truth-tellers. thus, are conscious devolvers. even revolvers aimed and fired at themselves.

Posted by: lunk Feb 23 2010, 03:10 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 22 2010, 10:02 PM) *
i chase you here as i contemplate my forthcoming book. tentatively entitled I DON'T GET IT.

it is a reflection upon how the citizenry runs away from its best interests.

is this a conscious effort? or an inadvertant one?

it has been my observation that the citizenry runs from the truth. and runs away from the truth-tellers. thus, are conscious devolvers. even revolvers aimed and fired at themselves.


There is definitely a conscious effort to dumb down the population, and there is also a mass mind programming program that has been going on, in one way or another, practically, since the discovery of fire.
Civilizations have been raised like crops of mushroom,
and the techniques are reused and improved upon.
Slavery was never abolished, it was perfected, and our civilization, are the slaves of the moneyed masters, who run it,
from their mono-eyed monstrosity.
The truth is a very cold bath, most will want to run from.
But, i think it is better to know the truth, cold, wet and shaking,
than to continue to go on believing in someone elses bizarre psychopathic explanations and fantasy, that most used to agree,
was normal.

People should want to know more, but this natural yearning has been artificially, and i think, intentionally subverted, through education, tv, movies, sports, books, postcards, neckties, stained glass windows...

i think, you will find the same thing happens at the end of every civilization, that is happening to ours, now, and after, it all is started again, by design.

Posted by: albertchampion Feb 23 2010, 03:41 AM

yes, i like the necktie responsibility for all of this. choking blood flow through the carotid, the jugular i suppose. rendering the brain blood-starved.

before i became a geezer, i used to prize neckties[even bowties]. i have a great collection of great works of necktie art, by the way.

in fact, i have contemplated finding a textile artist to sew them into a bit of art. tentatively to be entitled, loves of a preppie.

it is a great collection of textile artistry. saying so much about some post ww2 eras.

haven't worn one of these chokers in years.

Posted by: lunk Feb 23 2010, 11:04 AM

i don't even like doing up the top button on my shirt.

The tie is quite unnatural and counter intuitive, i feel.
It is the tie that binds, like a leash,
a mental representation of a noose of sorts,
really quite dangerous to wear,
in most of the things i have to do.
Wearing a tie, that is devolution, in the making.
the complete opposite of unrestrained.
...metaphorically, and literally.

unless it is worn as part of a costume,
like in a stage play, or satire...

Somehow, most accept the tie as the symbol of authority.
When it is more like a choke collar on the future evolution of humans.

...but perhaps, this is no accident,
and the tie is an intelligent design for power and control,
subliminally, over the many, by the few.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 23 2010, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 19 2010, 09:23 AM) *
Something I wrote many years ago - a review of Darwin's Black Box, a book by Behe.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050406084134/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/laymans_response.shtml

Nice one S (E). handsdown.gif

Behe is indeed dangerous.

Of course Dawkins sets the record straight WRT "irreducibly complexity" in a number of recent books and certainly in his mammoth work 'The Ancestor's Tale' cited above.

Another book worth looking out is:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532

and if you are buying it from Amazon why not order Dawkins'

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=pd_sim_b_3

if you are in to evolution you won't regret it.

I note your section on Gould, he was good but had one or two odd ideas. Religion, e.g. Literal Bible teaching,and evolution just don't mix. IMHO. Non-overlapping magesteria notwithstanding.

EDIT Punc'

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 23 2010, 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 19 2010, 04:04 PM) *
Truth is not for the faint of heart.

Maybe, but I find the truth liberating and fascinating.

I guess I am just born curious about what makes things tick. My childhood escapades had echoes of Feynman, but faint echoes as I could never hope to match up to his big shoes.

Feynman is one of my scientific/engineering heroes along with

Dawkins
Darwin
Tesla
I K Brunel (his father Marc wasn't so daft either)
Daniel Gooch
G J Churchward
and a number of others.

I guess its folk like these that have driven me, unconsciously to maintain curiosity throughout life despite the oxygen deprivation that I suffered a few years back.

I now have irritating holes in my knowledge, particularly in maths and physics. I look at a problem and recall that I once knew how to do this, the frustration drives me to study stuff again but its much harder second time around.

I also have trouble getting my thoughts down - an interruption and that carefully crafted phrase with absolutely correct words flies out of the window. I then sit staring for some time but it never comes back to mind.

I did, until recently put together a journal for FAA veterans but I ended up providing much of the content so editor turned into creator, also producing pictorial content. I also occasionally write on sail era RN topics and also Victorian iron-steel warships.

EDIT: Removed unintended duplication.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 23 2010, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 21 2010, 05:02 AM) *
i chase you here as i contemplate my forthcoming book. tentatively entitled I DON'T GET IT.

Sounds interesting AC, I wonder what tack it takes.

I hope that you have met

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0143036556/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266947334&sr=1-2

I have also got Guns, Germs and Steel and The Third Chimpanzee which are very good reads to.

I should get his other titles but my interests are so wide money spreads thin at times and I have just had a massive outlay improving the fuel efficiency of our humble abode - still a work in progress so I may be quiet here for awhile.

I am also battling with an Adobe product which insists and messing about with printer driver settings and ditching the assigned printer colour profiles, its not me a more expert user than myself has replicated my experience. Should be ways of making SW developers answerable as I have wasted much time, paper and ink trying to resolve this and as it is the product is not fit for my purpose – nor anybody wishing for precise colour control.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 24 2010, 08:34 AM

For Dawkins fans here is a gift, a book-mark that I knocked up about 8 years ago and which has continued to evolve:



If you would like a version at suitable resolution for printing go here: http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Misc/BkMk6ax1.jpg

Posted by: lunk Feb 24 2010, 10:04 PM

On science as a religion,
with experts, as priests.

All these beings, real or not,
that we all are supposed to worship,
who tells us how we were all made...

How to make something, out of nothing
and then animate, the inanimate,
then grow that, in an ever changing culture,
so that it changes, too.
Trial and error, where
if at first you don't succeed,
...you fail.

Where is the compassion in the scientific explanation?
Why do we work together, more than fight?
Survival of the fittest, surely means elimination of the weakest,
as a necessity of future survival,
yet, we care for our sick, injured, and weak.
Could we have been wrong our entire evolution,
in caring for each other?
Why are there colour blind people, still.
Is there some benefit to the group to have a colour blind member?
Is a deaf person more visually observant, than a jogger with an ipod?
Our imperfections are what make us unique, and may be beneficial, in unforeseen ways.
Interesting to note that natural selection has always been controlled
to some degree, in the human population.

A human can always earn more than a cow,
so why not raise and breed humans,
and they can have a cow.

So have people been intelligently designed by people?

Now "they" have the power of directly genetically modifying the life form,
selective breeding is now obsolete. "They" no longer need people to make more people, "creation" can be done in a lab, and grown in domestic livestock,
or perhaps even, an artificial womb.

What happens to a species, if it loses the desire or ability to procreate?
It goes extinct.

I don't think "we" really want to go this direction,
but there are definitely those among us,
who are guiding humanity this way.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 26 2010, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 23 2010, 12:04 AM) *
Where is the compassion in the scientific explanation?

There is none for there is no compassion in the universe, or multiverse, whatever.

It is in the uses we make of the products of scientific enquiry that compassion can, not exclusively, come, or not.

QUOTE
Why do we work together, more than fight?
Survival of the fittest, surely means elimination of the weakest,

'Survival of the fittest' is not a term properly used in discussions of evolution.

'Survival of the fittest' is a term coined by Herbert Spencer who drew comparisons from Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' with his own theories of economics. And it is the misapplication of this line of thought and also the misinterpretation of the second part of the title of, 'On the Origin of Species...' that much trouble ensued and in particular with the Eugenics movements.

Darwin himself was uncomfortable with Spencer's misappropriation and would have been horrified by eugenics.

Unfortunately religious bigots still conflate Darwin and eugenics and blame Darwin for the acts of tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin and even Pol Pot.

QUOTE
Why are there colour blind people, still.
Is there some benefit to the group to have a colour blind member?

Colour blindness is found in groups of organisms that need to use every photon of available light regardless of wavelength when their primary existence is controlled by activity in poor light, at night, in caves or underground. In this situation colour is not important and light sensing organs can be more efficient if all wavelengths are received equally.

Mammals once, when larger beasts ruled the land, existed and survived by optimising their systems to such conditions. Light, e,g. twilight, was still important for such creatures and so sensitivity to sound waves was not so evolved as with creatures using only echo location as a means of mapping their surroundings.

It is the brain mapping of surroundings that is important to keep in mind for we brain-map using visible light and bats map by using sound. The images formed may well be similarly detailed for it is that is that is controlled by the brain.

Most mammals today only have dichromatic vision but apes and we humans have trichromatic vision.

It is because humans are descended from a long line of mammals that colour blindness persists and is explained well by Dawkins in his 'The Ancestor's Tale...' pages 126 - 133 of the hardback edition.

EDIT: tpyo

Posted by: lunk Feb 26 2010, 10:47 PM

I find it interesting that they discovered that birds see in the ultra violet spectrum, i wonder if the sun was a different spectrum and intensity when they evolved...
Or is it somehow beneficial to be able to see, in the UV, when flying?
Like, can one "see" warm updrafts, and cold down drafts,
when looking through air in the UV?
Can birds "see" the wind?

On the most basic level, life must grow,
learn how to feed itself,
and adapt to a changing environment,
and reproduce, a new generation.

On our level, survival (should be) is secondary,
to learning, and understanding our environment
correctly, so we can predict the future, better,
and prepare for it, correctly.

We know the weather always changes.
Where other species don't. They rely on the luck of the draw,
where we, humans, no longer have to
...because we can know, or at least have a reasonable idea,
of what is coming.

If it's a snow storm, get firewood,
if it's a drought, get water.
That is why it is so important, to all of us,
to know the truth, rather than a fiction.
When we start basing our future upon a fiction,
we could be preparing for the wrong thing,
leading to human extinction.

Posted by: tnemelckram Feb 28 2010, 04:47 AM

HI Lunk, Sanders, Omega and Albert!

Thanks for your excellent Posts. I trust that you all realize that I was not trying to justify or defend Intelligent Design. Just that in both broad logical and narrow scientific senses, the terms that its own advocates use to define it do not, and cannot ever, contradict the comprehensive array of scientific facts that have already been established by Evolution. Thus it cannot supplant Evolution in the first place. It moreover fails to even raise the only significant question I think still needs to be explored - is human brain development an exception and if so, why?

1. Lunk - I think you really understand what I am trying to say. You accurately summed it up using different words:

QUOTE
So, isn't evolution, a form of random chaos, and intelligent design, a form of structured order?

...So Chaos theory proves intelligent design, but there doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence behind structure, i can build a cave with less materials than a mountain, uses, perhaps even stronger, than a similar cave in a mountain,depending on the mountain, i'm up against.

So intelligent design, is really a human invention.Nature is a rigid system, in which, each of us is the intelligent creator,...well, the only living one, that i know, of.


Trial and error and serendipity play huge roles in human discovery and invention; they probably are the main drivers. We are capable of keeping orderly track of the trials and errors, recognizing and taking advantage of luck when we see it, and knowing when to start and stop, while Evolution lacks the requisite consciousness to do the same. In the end, the difference is that we are just more efficient than Evolution, which seems to simulate our use of trial and error and serendipity by a program that constantly runs to compensate for its inefficiency. So both Evolution and intelligence have a structured order that includes chaos. Evolution can't control or use chaos, but the chaos still isn't totally random because it has to operate within some structure. Intelligence can control and use chaos, but still leaves a little room left for random chaos. Evolution has some aspects that one expects in a structured order designed by some level of intelligence. What's important is its inefficiency - we know that this is a flaw that a designer having only our level of intelligence would avoid. Thus you are right that ID is "really a human invention" because we can only rationally compare it to ourselves.


2. Sanders - I like this point:

QUOTE
Yes, you can believe or hope that there was an intelligent designer that, I don't know, laid down some rules and let it go ... but it's not required.


The lack of requirement on one side and requirements of the other side are key. Evolution is pretty comprehensive with little requirement for new theories. The only use for anything new is either to fill one of these small scientific gaps, or for religious purposes to explain what preceded or will follow Evolution. But Intelligent Design eschews these two logically justifiable niches. It instead requires all encompassing beliefs that are contrary to Evolution, and deliberately so because they are intended to replace it. Thus they take ideas which are little required in the first place, and add their further requirements to it, thereby make it something that is not required at all.

QUOTE
Look into micells, or experiments which show cell membranes & RNA, negative and positive feedback loops within systems forming spontaneously ... chemistry provides the answers to how life started - nothing has been proven, but there is a mountain of research that suggests that no "spark" was needed other than the conditions that existed on earth at the time.


This is interesting because it raises the possibility of humans being able to reverse engineer the "design process' itself. If that turns out to be the case, then even if there is a designer, he's no smarter than us!


3. Omega - I like this:

QUOTE
It is because humans are descended from a long line of mammals that colour blindness persists and is explained well by Dawkins in his 'The Ancestor's Tale...' pages 126 - 133 of the hardback edition.


Here's a Beeb documentary that you might have seen that gets into color blindness in great detail (I think it's in Part 4):

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-fantastic/


4. Albert - Good question:

QUOTE
so, tell me, what is the cause of the race to devolve intellectually?


I don't know the cause - maybe it's something along the lines of why cattle stampede in the same direction for no apparent good reason. But I do know of one thing fueling it - Sarah Palin.

In all seriousness, the cause could tie into the way that evolution tends toward specialization of species. Civilization gave rise to a need for and ability to have specialization of labor. Up until recently, the resulting increase in complication made people smarter. Now the demands of human specialization have become so specific and complicated that we give feel we must give people educations that while very lengthy and in depth, have a narrow technical scope. Thus they become monomaniac automatons with no capacity for the critical thought and flexibility that one learns from a broader but less deep liberal arts education. Added to this is the way that modern instant communication devices such as cell phones are shortening attention spans and time for reflection.

Posted by: lunk Feb 28 2010, 08:41 AM

i watched part 4 of the light video.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-fantastic/

interesting documentary,
they didn't really get into the evolutionary benefits to the group for colour blindness to exist.

And if i was on a light beam,
time would appear to stop for me,
and distance would disappear,
not stretch.
ugg.

Funny how they go on about the elite,
somehow inventing all these things,
and proving themselves just as inferior,
as the people they were testing.

And saving energy in lighting for work houses,
where the poor were worked to death,
gets one tenure with a pro-name.
ugg, again.

a very interesting video, none the less.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 28 2010, 01:41 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 26 2010, 06:47 AM) *
Trial and error and serendipity play huge roles in human discovery and invention; they probably are the main drivers. We are capable of keeping orderly track of the trials and errors, recognizing and taking advantage of luck when we see it, and knowing when to start and stop, while Evolution lacks the requisite consciousness to do the same.

But is that not evolution moved on to another level?

Furthermore, beavers, for example, must certainly learn by trial and error how to construct a dam and a lodge. This is an example of The Extended Phenotype on which Dawkins wrote a whole book with that title and exhorted readers to read that book of his if they read no other thus he gave it a higher importance than his seminal 'The Selfish Gene'.

I know that Sanders has written much on Dawkins' books but if you have not as yet read them then I urge you to give them a go. The Selfish Gene is probably not the right book to start with. My first wasw in fact 'The Blind Watchmaker' which tied in with a Biomorph software program which I had become aware of and which I extended and hardened (trapped user input routines and tidied up the user interface) for use of degree course college students.

'The Blind Watch Maker' is a good start although for arguments when in discussion with creationists (like that weird and science free James Inhofe) then 'Climbing Mount Improbable; and 'Unweaving the Rainbow' are the most useful.

'The Ancestor's Tale' is a tour de force and well worth the staying power required. 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype' will provide good insights into what makes thing work the way they do. Later editions of 'The Selfish Gene (I am now with my fifth copy, others having been borrowed by the kids and their friends and not come back home) contain excellent replies by Dawkins to misunderstandings and distortions that he received from 'men of the cloth'.

In 'The Blind Watchmaker' it is rammed home how many more ways their are of being dead i.e., high entropy. This is an argument quantified by probability theory which is not well understood by the non maths/science aware public but which is well explained in the book by Leonard Susskind, 'The Black Hole War: My Battle With Stephen Hawking To Make The World Safe For Quantum Mechanics'.

QUOTE
In the end, the difference is that we are just more efficient than Evolution,

Not at all. I think you still misunderstand the nature of evolution.

Sure humans have evolved language and invented culture, the later an extended phenotype, but that certainly does not mean that evolution for us has stopped. It most certainly has not. It is becoming clearer that other species also have the ability to communicate and have their own cultures. It is only to us that the mores of these cultures are poorly understood and this is changing. As our awareness that other species are sophisticated enough to be able to show emotion then so our respect for them increases. Well for some of us anyway. Animals certainly are not dumb.

It is the religious trait in man that keeps alive the idea that we have dominion over the creatures of the earth and thus can use them as we want. A moments reflection, by the well informed, shows why this is so capricious an attitude, dominion can also carry responsibility for the welfare of other creatures.

We may yet evolve a way of overcoming that big limitation - oxidisation - which kills us all. Plants have a slower metabolic rate that uses less oxygen and thus some can grow to great age. Oxygen is our means of freedom by being able to create energy from combustion with the by-products being CO2 and water vapour. But I doubt it because this would violate the laws of thermodynamics which are only kept at bay while we can consume and process to extract the energy and stave of that final entropy. That was what was behind my remarks WRT Jacob Marley earlier.

Posted by: lunk Mar 1 2010, 10:18 AM

QUOTE
We may yet evolve a way of overcoming that big limitation - oxidisation - which kills us all. Plants have a slower metabolic rate that uses less oxygen and thus some can grow to great age. Oxygen is our means of freedom by being able to create energy from combustion with the by-products being CO2 and water vapour. But I doubt it because this would violate the laws of thermodynamics which are only kept at bay while we can consume and process to extract the energy and stave of that final entropy.



Score
Oxygen 20.946%
CO2 0.0387%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

on entropy:

OK, i remember this theory,
All the energy in the universe is slowly dissipated until, all matter drops to absolute zero, and everything comes crashing together again, in an energy-free-for-all, big crunch, collapsing down to smaller than a pinpoint,
the final end to the universe.

...this just seems so far fetched, and too simplistic, to me now.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 1 2010, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 27 2010, 12:18 PM) *
OK, i remember this theory,
All the energy in the universe is slowly dissipated until, all matter drops to absolute zero, and everything comes crashing together again, in an energy-free-for-all, big crunch, collapsing down to smaller than a pinpoint,
the final end to the universe.

...this just seems so far fetched, and too simplistic, to me now.

Current thinking is, based upon observation, that the universe expansion is accelerating. What this means eventually is open to further suggestion I suppose and does not rule out a later contraction but does make this less likely.

Dark stars - black holes - event horizon - Planck lengths. Oops we are now tunneling through the fabric to that other thread The Dark Spangly Universe or something.

Basically - the end is when all the universe reaches maximum entropy - no usable energy - all smeared out through infinity.

OTOH Alice gets back for tea. whistle.gif

EDIT: inserted dropped 'c' in Planck.

I looked under the desk to see if that is where it fell - must have gone into a black hole.

Darn this keyboard with its curved key arrangement. Why do MS think that they know better?

Posted by: lunk Mar 2 2010, 03:43 AM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 1 2010, 10:32 AM) *
Current thinking is, based upon observation, that the universe expansion is accelerating. What this means eventually is open to further suggestion I suppose and does not rule out a later contraction but does make this less likely.

Dark stars - black holes - event horizon - Plank lengths. Oops we are now tunneling through the fabric to that other thread The Dark Spangly Universe or something.

Basically – the end is when all the universe reaches maximum entropy – no usable energy – all smeared out through infinity.

OTOH Alice gets back for tea. whistle.gif


Hmmm, now it's the accelerating universe,
seen in the advancing Doppler shift of stars farther away.

Sounds, sort of exciting.
How are physicists ever going to explain galaxies going near light speed, away from us.
i figured it was space that was expanding, in between, faster than light.
'cause space is matter-less.
I guess anything going faster than light away from us, we could never see, and of course, this would be farther away than the fastest galaxies moving away from us.
There is also the small problem of matter gaining mass as it accelerates toward light speed, and infinite mass.
Of course if something is moving away from us at light speed, we would also be moving away from it at light speed.
...or half light speed...
Anyhow, apparently, according to relativity, time,
comes to a standstill at light speed.
So if a super distant galaxy sees us moving away from them, at near light speed, we would be stopped in time, to them, or them, us.
But we are not, so therefore we should (on Earth) be the center of the universe, but i don't think that this could be true, either.

Now, if time was slower there, all time based interactions would be slower there too, and light would go slower too, we might see this as a red shift.
The Doppler Effect in light may actually be caused by slower time, there.
Not the galaxy actually moving away from us at light speed.
From their perspective we would be blue shifted,
as our time must be faster than theirs,
if this is the case.
As there is a blue shifted part of the universe, we are not in the center.

Of course,
we are told that a small blue shifted area of the universe is coming toward us,
not that it will matter in a million years.

Who was it that said that the camel was designed by comity?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 2 2010, 08:05 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 28 2010, 05:43 AM) *
I guess anything going faster than light away from us, we could never see, and of course, this would be farther away than the fastest galaxies moving away from us.

I have been pondering that for some time and wonder how the age of the universe could be ascertained.
QUOTE
There is also the small problem of matter gaining mass as it accelerates toward light speed, and infinite mass.
Of course if something is moving away from us at light speed, we would also be moving away from it at light speed.
...or half light speed...

Or even light speed +, which was considered as an impossibility.
QUOTE
As there is a blue shifted part of the universe, we are not in the center.

Which are the arcs of spiral galaxies that are moving towards us in relation to the opposite arcs. Analogous to rotating helicopter blades which would generate asymmetric lift with directional flight if measures were not taken to counter such.

To get back to light and sensitivity of living organisms to differing wavelengths it should be kept in mind that the photons of longer light wavelengths have less energy than the shorter, higher frequency light wavelengths e.g. blue light. This is why infra red light requires amplification techniques before we can 'see' it.

The vibrational response of particular molecules to specific wavelengths is also linked to this energy difference and is the basis of film based photography. You may be too young to recall using orthochromatic film which was not sensitive to red light - hence the dark room red lighting for this film. Reds in the image processed as blacks and the tonal quality could be similar to some greens. Here we have a hint of the physics behind the most common form of colour blindness in males red/green.

QUOTE
Who was it that said that the camel was designed by comity?

I thought that JR Reynolds designed the camel. wink.gif

OTOH Sopwith and Hawker designed another Camel - the Supermarine Seafire of WW1 as it would bite the pilot if not handled carefully particularly on take-off and landing.

Posted by: tnemelckram Mar 4 2010, 07:28 AM

Hi Omega and Lunk!

1. Lunk

I saw that you watched Light Fantastic Part 4 and did not see the color blindness. My Bad - I probably had the wrong Part - try Part 3. However, I am glad that accident or serendipity led you to part IV, which goes into some depth about Einstein et. al. and the new ideas about the nature of light - which is something that probably interested you more, judging from your thread on The Big Black Sparkly Thing!

2. Omega

A couple of things about Dawkins.

I saw your Post on the immediate other Thread about the removal of some of Dawkins' work. There's a couple of documentaries on the link I gave for Light Fantastic that concern Evolutionary subjects with Dawkins as the presenter. So at least he's still there.

You keep urging me to read Dawkins. I confess that despite their ready availability, I haven't even watched the above Dawkins documentaries, let alone read him! There are two reasons,

First, I am generally familiar with his work and conclude that as to me, he would just be preaching to the choir. I figured I'd try to stir up a little trouble (or more politely, provoke discussion) by trying to fit Intelligent Design as a subordinate into Evolution as a senior, and then defend myself with whatever conviction I could muster. I am gratified that this resulted in 32 Posts, including the thoughtful and gentle criticism and suggestions from you, my friend!

Second, my current interests are along the lines of Lunk's, but I haven't finished plowing through and digesting the other documentaries there about Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and the general nature of reality. But I'll watch Dawkins soon. My understanding of Evolution seems to be about as good as the next man's so there's a lot for me to learn.

It will be interesting to see how he might touch on the following.. IMHO Evolution's normal pace of and amount of successive change seems linear, but human brain development seems like an exponential outlier; thus arguably, it's the only significant thing that still requires an explanation through scientific investigation. At the same time, Evolutionary process seems to unconsciously, partially, imperfectly and/or inefficiently resemble certain human thought processes. Intuitively I sense that science will find that these thoughts juxtapose in some way.

Eventually anthropologists will dig up the right evidence from the right time or neurologists will find out how to trace it backwards. An singular agency or event, originating outside of and acting independently of Evolution, interrupted and by its intervention accelerated the normal process. The event, and how it worked to produce the result, will be readily understandable and explainable by our current science, and may be quite mundane. However, even the most exciting explanation will still be worldly, not extraterrestrial or religious.

Such an exception to Evolution is also perfectly consistent with it, considering the explanation.
I know that outside interference can also be viewed as part of the process (asteroid kills dinosaurs, gives planet to small mammals) but the human brain is still exceptional. There is no other case of such a totally dominant competitive advantage developing so quickly, which was many times in excess of what was needed for survival at the time, and with 90% excess capacity that still goes unused. Finally, it can out think the process that created it, which brings to mind what we hear about a coming singularity in computing power or AI where it becomes smarter that us, its creator and can get along without us..

Posted by: lunk Mar 4 2010, 11:23 AM

Physiologically, nothing has changed much in humans for
(i think science says about 100 000 years),
this is a drop in the bucket of time, evolutionarily speaking.
Our brains are almost exactly the same as our ancestors.
So why wouldn't they have been designing and building machines and sending craft into space, too.
Yet we only have 12,000 years of technological advancement,
most of which has happened over the last 120 years?

Just how stupid are we?

All this capability, inherent, in everyone of us, and our ancestors,
and we don't start using it until just now?

Foraging and gathering,
scaring off lions with sticks, to steal their prey,
waiting for the next light to strike ground, from a storm,
in the hope of getting another fire started,
again...

Then suddenly,
the space race.

No, i think humans were always just as clever as we are now,
perhaps even more advanced, or in different ways,
and whether it be war, or natural disaster,
human civilization is regularly set back,
pre-stone age.

Sure, in theory,
one can start a fire with two sticks,
but have you ever tried?

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 11 2010, 10:05 AM

maybe evolution is crap and humans have been around a really long time:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_forbiddenarcheology.htm

Posted by: tnemelckram Mar 11 2010, 12:05 PM

Hi Groundpounder and all!

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 11 2010, 09:05 AM) *
maybe evolution is crap and humans have been around a really long time:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_forbiddenarcheology.htm


Thanks for the great link! After poking around its interior links, I think this guy comes close to saying what I rather clumsily was trying to say. He correctly tosses aside Intelligent Design, says that there is evidence supporting an "outside intervention" or "event", but then is too quick to suggest that the was UFO's instead of something explainable in Darwinistic terms as an exception ti Evolution, or otherwise explainable in current scientific terms:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_outside_interv.htm

Here's the key passage:

QUOTE
The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.

Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of "bottleneck effect" they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs.

By doing so, they left paleontologists still able to insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannas of Africa as long ago as five million years, but that between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago "something" happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to reproduce from a small population of survivors.

That this "something" remains wholly unknown is a given, although Creationists wildly wave their hands like know-it-alls at the back of a classroom, desperate to suggest it was the Great Flood. But because they refuse to move away from the biblical timeline of the event (in the range of 6,000 years ago), nobody can take them seriously. Still, it seems the two sides might work together productively on this crucial issue. If only...

Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued that we do not belong on Earth at all, that we are not even from Earth, because we do not seem to have developed here.


I said the critical time for starting to look at exceptional human brain development was 250,000 years ago. His 100-200,000 years looks a lot better as the relevant time frame because I like his summary of the scientific support for it.

But I think that any challenge to Evolution ends there. That establishes we had the brain then. All of the other questions, such as when the Pyramids or Sphinx were built, concern only the pace and timing of how we did constructive things with our brain. Proving these things happened 9,000 instead of 4,500 years ago does not challenge the crucial Evolutionary date, which was a window that closed 100-200,000 years ago. Thus such a finding of a 4,500 year difference actually comfortably fits within the relevant Evolutionary time line instead of challenging it. All of the evidence that the various links advance as challenges to evolution seem to actually be only evidence of more instead of less rapid use of the brain that Evolution had already given us, thus they cannot amount to a challenge to Evolution.

Then assuming these things are actually 9,000 or even 12,000 years old, I think the far simpler explanation is the development of some kind of advanced lifting or transportation technology at that time that either resembles what we have today or was at least significantly better than what the Egyptians had 4,500 years ago. It was then lost or forgotten and we haven't yet found any archeological evidence of it. Interposing UFO's is a far more complicated explanation and should be disfavored vis a vis the simpler explanation of a forgotten and as of yet still un-evidenced technology that we know our brains were capable of, both then and now.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 12 2010, 08:29 AM

i missed the dna stuff and concentrated on the anomalous artifacts that could be millions of years old. that i found intriguing. who knows, maybe the silver chain embedded in the 100 million year old lump of coal, got there by other means. i wonder how many present day items got sucked down some fissure in chile during their 8.8, only to re-emerge at some later time. hard to say.

i'm also not going to dismiss any theory completely. if we're not alone in the universe, aliens could have genetically engineered humans. hopefully they are wiser than monsanto.

if god is omnipotent, then i assume he could split nothing into two wave functions both appearing to have very long pasts and still be only 6k (real) years old. weird i know. when you watch a movie (yes, it's fiction and 2d), the characters have their present and then imagined pasts. our collective human mind right now relies primarily on what? the oldest human alive today is only around 120 yrs old..

very tangential and not great analogy, i'll admit. however, there is more to life than meets the eye, imho.

Posted by: lunk Mar 12 2010, 11:43 PM

Other life forms, in our universe, may have a different measure of time, than us.
How would something communicate with us if we were moving at a stand still, by comparison, or a near light speed?
There also is the size factor.
Life forms can be as small as bacteria, or as big as a whale,
that we know of, and we can't really communicate with either.

These factors really limits other intelligent lifeforms, to having to be about the same size as us, and the have about the same measure of time.

Hmmm, the only way two different intelligent life forms could comunicate,
if time, or size, was too far apart, would be pictures or symbols,
i should think.

Posted by: tnemelckram Mar 13 2010, 05:12 AM

Hi Groundpounder and all! (especially Lunk)

Good thoughts in your post.


1. The Millions Years Old Necklace In Lump Of Coal - I have real problems with the provenance of such things.

( a ) I agree that archeologists and anthropologists are influenced by things that bias them toward the conventional thinking, but at least they use scientific methods and discipline. They deliberately seek out artifacts with a purpose and plan that controls variables and reduces uncertainties. When they find them, the stratum and other position in the soil is documented, along with what surrounds it, the item is given a unique identifier, and its chain of custody is recorded through further examination such as carbon or other dating. It at least reliably becomes what it is and remains that way for someone who looks at it again hundreds of years in the future. That at least gives you some context to use to make speculative to solidly grounded conclusions about where it might fit or out lie current Evolutionary science. Lacking any better way, they at least try to do the best they can.

( b ) There's none of that with serendipitous discoveries such as this necklace.

( i ) The lady was apparently alone 120 years ago when she broke the coal lump ]open and found it. All we have is the ancient testimony of a dead person that she found it inside coal, which is the key to the whole notion that if it's inside millions of years old coal then it also must be millions of years old.

( ii ) Where's the lump of coal? Was it also preserved so that we know today that it was ancient coal and not some common impurity in your average load of coal like a piece of recent plain ol' dirt or rock? It's also curious that no mention is made of whether the necklace was dated using the usual scientific tests, and the test result.

( iii ) It was found in a way that takes it out of whatever context it had while still in the ground. We don't even know if it was unearthed from the claimed ancient coal strata during the normal process of mining that strata; all we can do is infer that it may have because it was allegedly found in a load of coal that one would normally expect to have been dug out of a mine at the right depth. But a load of coal is fungible and could have come from many places, at various depths, and if from stockpiles, may have been mined many years beforehand, then sat for a long time above ground readily available for tampering, instead of coming straight out of the ground to her.

( iv ) Coal mining is not a careful and deliberate search for small objects like necklaces. It's a brute force and chaotic operation that gives no though to finding such things in the first place, let alone controlling the number of variables in the process and worrying about documenting where a particular lump of coal was extracted from the ground and thereafter went. In fact it adds innumerable uncontrolled variables such as darkness, safety, numerous workmen and machines going down into the mine and back out in regular daily shifts, and economies of scale that demand extracting large volumes regularly and rapidly without any exceptions.

( v ) Finally, similar factors can readily undercut the provenance of the other artifacts that were found by workmen or others.


2. Not Totally Dismissing Any Theory And Tangential Analogies - I hope that saying I agree generally doesn't look like a major contradiction of my prior posts. Their intended theme is to try to fit at least part of some radical new theory or its evidence into Evolution in a way that might be scientifically supportable and explainable instead of discarding them completely. Given the uncertainty of the subject matter, any new thought can be the seed of someone else's later crucial connection or discovery even if the motive or effect is to disprove the initial new thought. Under these circumstances, it's hard to call any analogy too tangential. I thought there might be something new in some small part of one of my above Posts but instead, I found that years ago, a guy on your site had already covered all of my critical elements using the same line of reasoning. The only problem right at the end where he makes a jump to UFO's as the most probable explanation which seems totally unwarranted.


3. Omnipotent God Splitting Wave Functions Into Confusing Time Lines - This is a good idea for us to chew on. It provokes another analogous thought that tosses out the God part. From what I have read and seen on documentaries about "The Nature Of Reality", some quantum physicists and cosmologists have theories saying that reality could have many simultaneous time lines, but their basis is grounded in our current scientific observations and knowledge, and are otherwise within human understanding, without requiring a God to be involved. Hell, even if something is beyond our science and understanding, it doesn't mean that a God has to be involved, it just means that that it's beyond our science and understanding now, and may or may not continue to be that way.


4. I guess the bottom line is that thinking about this should be consistent with the way one thinks about 911.

Gage, Jones and others have carefully examine the three WTC collapses by using the same scientific method, discipline and reasoning that is also used by the types of scientists mentioned above. I think they have proven that there was a CD, but one can more conservatively and say that they have shown that CD is the most likely explanation, and at least even a doubter must admit that they have made a case that demands a new, thorough and proper investigation. Then you have the Government investigators like NIST, that were also compelled to use the same scientific approach. But staying within the discipline made mistakes inevitable and/or required them to falsify or fudge, but the disciplined framework made these both impossible to hide and also glaringly obvious and easy to find. So to be consistent, one has to generally favor established and proper science in all areas and be very skeptical of unconventional ideas.

Moreover, a similar line of reasoning results in the most cogent, understandable and easily digested explanation of what happened with the three WTCs for the uninitiated.
First, accept as true all "established OTC WTC facts" that are not fundamentally inconsistent with CDs, just for argument's sake, whether or not you truly believe them.
Second, gather all of your new CD facts, both those that can be proven and those you propose but cannot prove (yet). From those, only keep the ones that are essential to the CDs. Facts with proof should be favored, but a lot of proposed facts are essential and that must be kept even though they cannot be proven (yet).
Third, fit your new and essential CD facts in with the old OCT WTC facts that you accept as true. Add them to the time line before, between, during and after the old facts so people can use what they "already know" as points of reference for navigation and to put new facts into a familiar context. Be ready to explain how each new fact can be reconciled with the old facts without any conflict and why they can all be true.
Fourth, explain how your new facts are narrowly focused on answering a single open question. 100,000 tons of steel connected together with 100,000 tons of concrete and other stuff to stand 1300 feet high creates an enormous amount of energy by resisting gravity. It would take hundreds of years for gravity alone to convert the lower entropy of this assembled form into a higher entropy rubble pile of unidentifiable concrete dust and 30 foot pieces of steel. What generated enough joules to overcome this energy and produce that same entropic change in 12 seconds, by a simultaneous, symmetrical and sequenced removal of support leading to straight down free fall collapse?
Fifth, the answer is very simple. You can continue to believe just about all the facts the government told you about the WTC. All I am doing is explaining how the buildings collapsed and doing that by using some additional facts that they neglected to tell you.

Here's a summary with old assumed OCT facts in regular type and my new facts in bold.
You can still believe that Osama, Al Queda and the 19 hijackers conspired a year ahead of time to hijack 4 planes, crash them into the WTCs or other landmarks, and kill a lot of people, including themselves.
I am adding that there was a second conspiracy. Certain people who I can't identify, but at least some of whom probably were or soon to be US government officials, got wind of the terrorist plot around that time. They had access to the means to rig the WTCs for CDs, enough advance warning to do that, and the necessary motive and will. The rigging process is not as difficult as you might think to either do or conceal. All they had to do was wait for the terrorist event. If it did not happen, they simply would not blow up the buildings. They did nothing to alert the terrorists or interfere with their plot.
The terrorists did what they planned to do. They crashed two planes into the WTCs, which started some fires and did considerable damage.
The government, in its NIST Report of its investigation into the collapse, admits that the fires were not hot enough to bring down the buildings. They also do not attempt to explain what caused the collapse I described in my question.
While you were digesting the Pentagon events and dealing with that fear and confusion, the time seemed right to put a whole lot more on your emotional plate. A computer activated a precise sequence of detonations, first in WTC 2 and then in WTC 1.

Then you heard that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. It had taken off 40 minutes late from Newark. Passenger resistance appears to be the cause of that crash.
WTC 7 was the command post for the CDs. There were a lot of US and City government offices in the building, including the so-called City Emergency Center. Thus it was full of evidence. Flight 93 was supposed to crash into WTC 7 to set the stage for the destruction of whatever evidence was left due to its use as the CP. But its unforeseen late take off was a serious complication in the timing that may have made it useless for its intended purpose but now something had to be done to get rid of it. Or perhaps the passenger revolt unexpectedly took it down. Perhaps both. In any case, after considering what to do with WTC 7, it was decided to bring it down for the viewing pleasure of East Coast people getting home from work.
The three CDs were computer detonated and precisely controlled. Each only required one person to start, and that person only needed one second at most to press a button. These three acts are the most critical proposed facts that I am adding to the OCT events of 911, each of them requires only a simple one second act by one person.
But the most critical added facts are backed by solid and sometimes undeniable supporting evidence. These are the facts used by Gage, Jones and many other qualified people as the basis for their scientific proof that the three WTC CDs actually occurred. I leave it to them to speak for me. Take 3 or 4 hours to watch their Videos.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 13 2010, 07:56 AM

personally, lihop doesn't work for me. the fact that half a dozen of the named terrorists were alive after 9/11 stirs up lots of questions. cd it was, but what kind. i'm not willing to throw away any data regardless of how anomalous it is. the highly elevated tritium levels for example, which were summarily dismissed by many 'experts'. thermite/thermate at a mere 2500 degrees celsius doesn't explain to me the 3 month long hot spots. nist, ntsb and every other alphabet soup agency, bureau, administration is worse than useless.

on another topic, this guy at the link swears there were 9 ft tall aliens he personally witnessed on the space shuttle. of course, the flip side is he believes the moon landing (which i don't, not as presented anyway)

http://www.henrymakow.com/clark_mcclelland.html

Posted by: lunk Mar 14 2010, 02:04 AM

How do we explain the different kinds of dogs, or goats or rabbits or cows?
This is not evolution that made them this way, but selective breeding for domestication, by another creature, humans.

Yet, they say that all dogs came from the wolf, and at one time all looked, more or less the same.

If people can do this with other species,
wouldn't we try it on ourselves, too?

History, it's all about who made who.
Nature and evolution are virtually, out of the picture, today.

Though, they have the overriding, ultimate, say in things, still.

Posted by: tnemelckram Mar 14 2010, 05:34 AM

Hi Groundpounder and All! (including Lunk, who's having a look as I write this)

1. LIHOP, MOHOP - I don't see my 911 scenario as LIHOP. Not even MIHOP. What makes mine different is the active conduct by the perps to rig the CD after getting advance knowledge. As I see it, nether of those two common theories include overt independent conduct by a second set of perps such as rigging a CD.

Let It Happen On Purpose means finding out ahead of time and doing nothing other than not warning.

It seems to me all the Made It Happen On Purpose theories include the concept that the perps took active steps to cause the terrorists to do what they did in their initial. My theory does not include that. I suggest finding out an independent terrorist plot beforehand, doing nothing about it, but taking advantage of what you know by rigging a CD to enhance the result of the initial terrorist plot.

I also believe that the perps monkeyed with the planes by adding remote guidance and/or strengthening them to ensure that they hit their targets. But I keep that out of the scenario because the OCT already includes the planes hitting the buildings, so explaining how they were able to hit the buildings does not involve essential new facts to fit a CD into the OCT.

In any case, my whole spiel about trying to fit a CD into the OCT is not something that restricts my thinking. It's just a device to make it easier for people who are already grounded int he OCT to listen to us. I agree that nothing should be ruled out. We certainly don't have enough information to do that at this point, to say what actually happened and rule out other things, because the people who did whatever it really was are motivated to deny us the information we need to pinpoint it.

2. Tritium Levels - For the same reasons, a nuke-driven CD can't be ruled out ( I know Lunk tends to favor this). I also agree that the presence of the abnormal nuke by products needs to be explained.

But it seems to me that the second set of perps would know beforehand that a nuke device would leave hard to contain, obviously unexplainable and easily detectable traces like high tritium behind afterward. Especially when there was nothing nuclear already in the area to point to as a false source, and you know that safety concerns during the rescues and cleanup would probably bring a lot of sensors into the area.

Conventional CD explosives (including exotic military ones like nano thermites) leave much more subtle traces - look at what Jones had to do to find traces and how lucky he was to get legitimate dust samples. Nor are these residues the type of thing that post-disaster safety sensors and concerns would be geared toward, especially when any type of CD seems so unimaginable in the first place.

Given that I have already said that there was no known nuclear source in the area beforehand, to be consistent I have to posit that some unknown nuclear thing was already there, probably for some legitimate purpose, but maybe for some questionable purpose unrelated to 911. Maybe something in WTC 7 for the NYC Emergency Ops or other government offices in it, such as a second backup emergency power source if the first backup either failed or ran out of fuel.

3. Guy That Saw Aliens - I am sure that we are not the only life in our near celestial neighborhood, let alone the galaxy or whole universe. The numbers, when fed through the Drake Equation, are overwhelmingly in favor of it because it opens millions of possibilities.

But let's say there's a million other planets with life. I think you have to run the Drake Equation backward and reduce that to the number of life forms that: (1) are recognizable to us as life; (2) have intelligence we can relate to; (3) are able to communicate with us; and (4) want to interact with us as well. That's going to eliminate the vast majority of them.

And then the hard part starts. To develop any technology at all intelligent aliens need to have existed (1) continuously; (2) for a long time; (3) in a benign environment they can control. Technology cannot be developed on a planet with a harsh environment that causes interrupting extinctions, or that diverts too much energy into a mere battle for survival. But all that gets you is intelligent life with some technology.

To be as technologically advanced as us, they also have to be as smart as us and have been around as long as us. But if they are to have UFO's, it's not enough for them to be at our level. They have to be smarter than us, around longer than us, or both. But being comparatively more advanced is not enough because we don't even know how to begin to make an interstellar craft. They would have to be not just ahead, but far enough ahead to have good reasons to think they can make a serious attempt at making one.

But our current science says that we are limited to the speed of light and a life span of 85 years on the average. Thus other than a few nearby stars, interstellar travel simply cannot be done in a human lifetime, so for it to be meaningful or useful to us, we would have to do it faster than light, which is impossible. The same would be true of any intelligent aliens using our science. Even if they could figure out a way to travel at nature's speed limit, there would still be no practical reason to build an interstellar craft.

Thus what is really required for there to be UFOs is some planet that we haven't already tossed for other reasons that is populated by aliens that are not constrained by our science and immutable laws of nature. I suppose that's not impossible, but the chances seem vanishingly small. As Enrico Fermi said - "If we have alien visitors, then where are they?"

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 14 2010, 09:03 AM

here comes some disjointed stuff.

knowledge. what we think we know and what we really know.

thought experiment: what would be an appropriate comparison between what we really know to what there is to know? grain of sand to mt everest? do we even know that much?

starting to speculate based on some premise (and all it's inherent flaws) can be pretty dangerous. like marie and pierre curie body painting with radium. seems like a quaint thing to do at the time.....

the character 'q' took picard and the enterprise out to meet the borg to show picard that arrogance (hubris) doesn't lead down a happy path.

we don't know that the speed of light is the speed limit in the known universe, let alone the unknown universe. we don't know the byproducts of any/all 4th+ gen nuke/micronukes. we don't know the game of 9/11, anymore than being able to tell the structure of an iceberg by observing it's tip. and why is any of this? because we don't have an adequate and reliable fact gathering and retention mechanism.

everybody is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

Posted by: lunk Mar 16 2010, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 14 2010, 06:03 AM) *
here comes some disjointed stuff.

knowledge. what we think we know and what we really know.

thought experiment: what would be an appropriate comparison between what we really know to what there is to know? grain of sand to mt everest? do we even know that much?

starting to speculate based on some premise (and all it's inherent flaws) can be pretty dangerous. like marie and pierre curie body painting with radium. seems like a quaint thing to do at the time.....

the character 'q' took picard and the enterprise out to meet the borg to show picard that arrogance (hubris) doesn't lead down a happy path.

we don't know that the speed of light is the speed limit in the known universe, let alone the unknown universe. we don't know the byproducts of any/all 4th+ gen nuke/micronukes. we don't know the game of 9/11, anymore than being able to tell the structure of an iceberg by observing it's tip. and why is any of this? because we don't have an adequate and reliable fact gathering and retention mechanism.

everybody is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.


i think we just about completely understand the shadow of a grain of sand,
shaded upon the side of Everest,
...in the moon light.

but we think it is the actual grain of sand, not just a shadow.

There still must be some dust from the WTC, in every nook and cranny around where the towers stood.
thermite is magnetic.
It should pull out of that dust with a magnet, easy.

The excess tritium in the ground water found after 9/11 under the wtc,
was blamed on the exit signs on the aircraft(?) and certain scopes in guns,
that were melted by the concrete that poured like molten lava(?)

With the huge value of central city properties, it would make sense to have shelf life on all constructions,
and if this is the case, then it would also be wise to plan how to take down a building in the initial design, too.
As this would not be a selling point,
it would probably be kept a secret from most.

i suspect that the twin towers were designed to come down in their own footprints, in their original designs, thermite, tons of it, could have been incorporated safely into the original structures,
even key structural access points and even detonation wiring could be designed and built into place,
covertly from the beginning.

When the time came for the twin's to be demolished,
a whole false flag was scrolled around the entire event,
and it was used to justify an all out attack on everybody,
not just one group of people.

Now, they had to make sure the towers came down, and couldn't just rely on 30 year old technology,
So they reinforced the demolition with fourth generation (this is about evolution vs intelligent design)
low yield nuclear demolitionaries. (nukes designed specifically for building demolition).

using nuclear bombs for building demolition was suggested as a peaceful use, for nuclear weapons,
along with, plowing fields for farmers.

...but, i suppose,
all i really know is that dust gets into every nook and cranny.

Posted by: forthetrees Mar 16 2010, 04:06 PM

When it comes to Intelligent Design, it helps to follow the money. The money behind the Discovery Institute, the vehicle through which ID was designed and marketed, comes from Howard Ahmanson, Jr.. You have most likely never heard of him. You should learn a bit about him and who he "pals around with".

Search: howard ahmanson diebold intelligent design

Posted by: tnemelckram Mar 25 2010, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (forthetrees @ Mar 16 2010, 03:06 PM) *
When it comes to Intelligent Design, it helps to follow the money.
. . . . . . . .
Search: howard ahmanson diebold intelligent design


I'm somewhat familiar with him. IMHO, just another guy who is content with nothing but total victory and showing those he doesn't agree with what for, whether it comes to stealing elections or replacing a century and a half of well established evolutionary science with his version.

99% of what the ID'ers say turns to crap when they apply it. That's because they direct it at re-opening Evolutionary questions that are closed because they have conclusive scientific answers, and trying to overturn those answers. They are wasting their effort here.

I've been saying that perhaps 1% of what they say might have some value or validity in connection with answering one of the few unanswered questions in Evolution. They say that humans are somehow special because they have been favored by larger forces. That limited and literal statement seems true in a context that is also limited - the still open Evolutionary puzzle over human brain development.

But I say that statement can be true if the question is answered scientifically within the Evolutionary framework (and I think it will). Humans are special because the pace and magnitude of their brain development out lies normal Evolutionary patterns so it appears we have been favored by something exceptional and perhaps singular in Evolutionary terms. And the larger forces that did that was Evolution combined with some triggering cause from the outside that is scientifically explainable, readily understandable, and perhaps even mundane.

EDIT: Here's a shot at one explanation that is not so mundane. A group of homo sapiens (or several or many groups) eventually happen to dwell in a place or region where they are exposed to natural radiation from deposits in the Earth. This triggers a mutation where brain cells begin to grow exponentially. Because the area has other advantages like ready water, shelter, game or forage, they remain there over many generations. The growing brains and Evolutionary response of a larger skull to hold it are passed on through those generations. This gives this subset of the species a competitive advantage and Evolution gradually weeds out their dumber cohort through natural selection of the superior qualities.

Posted by: lunk Mar 26 2010, 10:05 AM

People, don't look like predators. We are lacking the sharp, retractable, claws and fangs.
Some of our internal organs resemble that of the pig.
Our external shape is more like the ape or monkey.
We know that the majority of people have been treated like livestock,
throughout all known history.

...and "genes" are written into very ancient symbols and writings, from the medical spiraling snakes on the stick, to Genesis, in the bible.

It's like we were "built" from the existing creatures that successfully naturally evolved on our planet, long ago. Perhaps, even millions of years ago.

If this was done, there may be a number of prototypes, similar to us, that have either gone extinct, like the the "http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_flor.html", or escaped to the wild, like perhaps, the Sasquatch.

We now have the technology today to mix species in a test tube.
What creatures, today, have the best potential for success in future generations on this planet?
Can we advance the slow progress of evolution, for this planet, by building
our own design for a, say, self governing intelligent life form?

Can we put life into a "thing" and really make a creature, that could build a better mouse trap?

Anyhow, all these things could have been thought about at least 100,000 years ago, and possibly, not by us.

If another "being" created us, and had control over the rate of time in areas of space...

Then they could plant a nut, and get a nut tree, almost instantly.

...or make a couple of people, and watch the raise and fall civilizations, in minutes, and that would be countless generations to us.

Posted by: tnemelckram Mar 27 2010, 04:32 AM

Hi Lunk!

I totally agree with the first half of your above post which ends with "Sasquatch". We were "built" from the existing creatures that successfully naturally evolved on our planet, long ago. Perhaps, even millions of years ago.

But that only has to do with our bodies. Our brain development seems to out lie natural evolution because it resulted in 10 times more than was needed for survival and was done in a much shorter time than the usual millions of years pace.

Which leads into the second half of your post, where I think you ask some very good questions about creating a self governing intelligent life form. That seems to call into question the nature of reality itself. The reason why we ask such questions is that our brain development seems to have given us a mental quality unique in all of nature's creatures - sentience. That leads us to ask them, but then really complicates matters because we naturally interpret things in a way that is consistent with our existence (the Anthropic Principle). You correctly recognize that this could be a fallacious approach because it leads us to think that we are the only critters capable of being self-aware, and the further leap that we are the only ones who have ever been, now are, or ever will be.

For example, assume we are in the same room. A cat runs through between us. You see it but I don't. To you the cat was real, while I don't even know it existed, although we were in the same space and time. The conditions are identical for both of us but we have different perceptions of reality. You can tell me you just saw it, but time can't be reversed to make me just have seen it as well. You can remark that you haven't seen any cats run by yet, which puts our minds in harmony but denies your reality. Or You can ask if I saw it too, but asking proves the point. Despite what you saw, there are still two possible realities for me - I did or didn't see, and if I was looking the same place at the same time and still didn't see it, there are two possible realities for each of us.

Reality seems to start in our minds and go out instead of starting with the external things we pull in. Nothing outside anybody's mind is real until their mind processes it as real. So it's like everyone's brain is running its own program that tells the five senses what to project as reality, instead of collecting and bringing in some outside objective reality. You see the cat and I don't when our programs are running differently and we both see the cat when they are running in sync.

Maybe creating a self-aware intelligent life form requires far more than giving it a physical body and some kind of thought processor like a brain. Maybe you also have to create an entire reality for it.

Posted by: lunk Mar 28 2010, 05:09 PM

If we, humans, have been domesticating wild animals into farm animalls for all recorded history,
the next level up is to realize that we too, may be a "live stock" domesticated and
extracted from the wild.

As for the cat walking by, the reality is, that a cat walked by, whether you or i, saw it, or not.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 29 2010, 08:01 AM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Mar 25 2010, 06:32 AM) *
But that only has to do with our bodies. Our brain development seems to out lie natural evolution because it resulted in 10 times more than was needed for survival and was done in a much shorter time than the usual millions of years pace.

Archaeological anthropologists have traced some of the history of humanoid development back millions of years (about 7 million years ATM I think) and once again I entreat you to consult Dawkins on this and in particular 'The Ancestor's Tale and starting very much at the beginning with 'The Pilgrimage Begins'.

Within this is the consideration that geophysical events and features can provide a spur to more rapid evolution. Evolution does not proceed at a set pace but rather the pace changes with location and period. Dawkins discusses 'Punctuated Equilibrium' in 'Climbing Mount Improbable' in the chapter 'Message from the Mountain' and at greater length in 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Some confusion has arisen from considering macro-mutations under the same banner because Stephen Jay Gould by favouring some forms of macro-mutation failed to make a clear distinction between rapid-gradualism and true macro-mutation.
QUOTE
You correctly recognize that this could be a fallacious approach because it leads us to think that we are the only critters capable of being self-aware, and the further leap that we are the only ones who have ever been, now are, or ever will be.

I have come around to thinking that other apes are self aware, how else could they work out their place in their societal hierarchy?

Going further, other species also have a sense of hierarchy viz the term 'pecking order' which surely comes from considering avians. I am sure a little more thought would reveal other species with such abilities.

Of course I realise that this is somewhat different from the human ability to grapple with the structure of the earth, the solar system and the universe. How many chickens know the difference between a boson and a fermion let alone why this could be important. If a chicken did consider such a difference the chances are it would not call them bosons and fermions, 'cluck' and '˝cluck' perhaps! whistle.gif
QUOTE
For example, assume we are in the same room. A cat runs through between us. You see it but I don't. To you the cat was real, while I don't even know it existed, although we were in the same space and time. The conditions are identical for both of us but we have different perceptions of reality. You can tell me you just saw it, but time can't be reversed to make me just have seen it as well. You can remark that you haven't seen any cats run by yet, which puts our minds in harmony but denies your reality. Or You can ask if I saw it too, but asking proves the point. Despite what you saw, there are still two possible realities for me - I did or didn't see, and if I was looking the same place at the same time and still didn't see it, there are two possible realities for each of us.

I think your case demonstrates something other than the anthropic principle at work.

We have all experienced, particularly those of us with a spouse, being scolded for not listening to others. Like your seen-unseen cat this is more down to brain overload than any difference in each others reality.

The manner in which our senses work deserves some study here and in particular the fact that eyes and ears are just sensors, sensors which transmit signals to a central computer. This computer has various registers each dedicated to processing signals from particular sensors. The results of this processing are co-ordinated by a central processor which combines the messages to create a 'picture' of the surroundings.

Now at any moment in time some sensors, and their associated registers, will grab the attention of the central processor at the expense of the other sensors. For example if a limb suddenly experiences a high temperature heat source (could diverge down to quantum mechanics here but I forebear) then the part of the brain used to process such stimuli will take precedence. Things within visual or audio range may not register at all.

Now taking this consideration of sensors a stage further it is of value to consider what happens if one sense, say vision fails. This could happen for a number of reasons for example damage to the eye, damage to the transmission system (optic nerve) or damage to the associated register.

Depending on the part afflicted the person could develop the ability to 'see' by hearing. Indeed this often happens blind people have accentuated senses of hearing, or rather ability to process the hearing data and produce information from it which in time becomes knowledge expressed in the ability to echo-locate their way around obstacles.

Thus a person has 'evolved' a new means of using the brain to make sense of their surroundings.

Other species use stimuli not sensibly apparent to us to build up their cognitive picture of their surroundings. Insects with the use of UV light and bats with echo-location for example.

Dawkins does a fine job of explanation in 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.
QUOTE
Maybe creating a self-aware intelligent life form requires far more than giving it a physical body and some kind of thought processor like a brain. Maybe you also have to create an entire reality for it.

This is getting dangerously close to considering a 'skyhook' (a creator).

No. Awareness of reality comes from the evolution of thought as extended by the need to quantify objects, such as counting the cattle owned or bushels of grain to exchange (as a means to assessing value) in order to survive in a complex society. The evolution of such mechanisms over time, coupled with that of the associated linguistic abilities, will drive the evolution of the brain. After all if brains can evolve new powers of sensing in one lifetime then 5 million years is a very, very long time for development.

EDIT: Tpyo

Posted by: lunk Mar 30 2010, 07:34 AM

i saw a coyote walk across the road in front of me.
It was almost like it wasn't there, so camouflaged,
to its' environment. There were some mountain goats too, same thing,
the horses, nearby were obvious, but the wild goats were like part of a still picture,
fitting so well with the background,
that they were practically invisible, yet, no more than 10 feet off the road.
Domesticated creatures are easy to spot, wild creatures are more "invisible",
probably because they have evolved to their environment.

...and then there is the fashion industry for people,
almost the opposite of camouflage.

Perhaps it's more like evolution vs domestication of species.
Domestication is intelligent design.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 30 2010, 11:34 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 28 2010, 10:34 AM) *
...and then there is the fashion industry for people,
almost the opposite of camouflage.

Perhaps it's more like evolution vs domestication of species.

I believe peacocks are fairly keen on fashionable displays and for similar reasons to those humans who like to flaunt their designer garb, or latest new toy, house etc.

It goes like this, 'Look at me and what I can afford to do so I must therefore be well endowed and worth mating with.'

That is another aspect of natural selection.

QUOTE
Domestication is intelligent design.

Not realy. It is breeding for required characteristics but always starting with what is already there.

Intelligent design means to assemble from a selection of already existent, if only as drawings or plans, pieces.

Posted by: lunk Mar 31 2010, 08:37 AM

Domesticated stock don't usually fair too well, in the wild.
It's the idea of trial and error, in evolution over vast stretches of time, that works so well.
If we actually designed, from the gene up, a life form,
the chances are slim that it could survive the wild, for long.

My genetically modified thorn-less blackberry bush,
isn't doing so well, anymore.
and it didn't have any seed that grew,
and it didn't taste quite the same,
and it looked sort of messy...

Posted by: lunk Apr 9 2010, 09:38 PM

Following along, with the idea that humans are an ancient, genetically modified, created, and domesticated, livestock, by another life form...

What the heck is the product that humans create, for that farmer?

We aint grown for our meat.
A large percentage of our labor is taken for something...

Power?
Energy?
Thought?
Products?
Any ideas?

...and why do we spend so much of our time,
looking at clocks?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 10 2010, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 8 2010, 12:38 AM) *
...and why do we spend so much of our time,
looking at clocks?

I don't but cannot answer for you of course.

As for the rest of your post, mind you don't fall off The Yellow Brick Road. wink.gif

Posted by: tnemelckram Apr 11 2010, 06:13 AM

Hi Omega!

1.

QUOTE
Archaeological anthropologists have traced some of the history of humanoid development back millions of years (about 7 million years ATM I think) and once again I entreat you to consult Dawkins on this and in particular 'The Ancestor's Tale and starting very much at the beginning with 'The Pilgrimage Begins'.


Although not intended as a direct reply, I think this Article in last week's Economist fits in nicely. It's about a newly discovered species of mountain dwelling hominid that had common ancestry with us until a separation that occurred about a million years ago:

http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767281


2. Within this is the consideration that geophysical events and features can provide a spur to more rapid evolution.

Is there anything from Dawkins specifically on this topic? I've ruminated about whether there was some such extraordinary trigger for human brain development in several posts.


3. I
QUOTE
have come around to thinking that other apes are self aware, how else could they work out their place in their societal hierarchy?


I agree with you that apes and other animals are self aware. My dog sure seems to be. But a few years ago I had an illuminating experience where I thought I saw self-awareness in a wild critter. A raccoon took up residence in a shelter I made for a stereo and old TV up on our roof deck. I found him when I almost stuck my hand in his face (not good) to turn on the stereo. He took over the entire deck in two days, crapping up a storm, chewing everything including the roof shingles, relying on rabies vectoring bite for defense. He had to go, so I bought a large cage trap, put it in the center of the deck, and put some bacon in it. The next morning he was caught. I called City Animal Control to pick him up, take him away and gas him. When they arrived, I went up first to clear the way. The raccoon seemed irritated by his confinement. But when he saw the Animal Control guys some instinct seemed to tell him that they were executioners. Fear pooled and twitched in his eyes while hate bristled the hair on his face as he hissed and growled how much at the nonplussed AC I thought his his eyes looked the same as a person facing death His facial expression was expressing a specific kind of helpless hatred, the same way human faces add nuance to their emotions . What I saw in that raccoon's eyes and face was awareness of his existence making him value his life just as highly as I value mine.


4. My Quote:
QUOTE
Maybe creating a self-aware intelligent life form requires far more than giving it a physical body and some kind of thought processor like a brain. Maybe you also have to create an entire reality for it.

Your Quote to which I am responding:
QUOTE
This is getting dangerously close to considering a 'skyhook' (a creator).


I wasn't clear about the type of life form I was thinking of that might need an entire reality created for it to become a self-aware intelligent life form. I was thinking of some type of robotic machine that is built in a serious attempt to duplicate human intelligence and experience life as we do. But for some reason it fails to work properly without some sort of reality to use as a reference point. The reality would not be something with religious implications, instead something we make to give the robot some kind of ersatz reality or fool it into thinking that now it has one..

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 11 2010, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Apr 9 2010, 08:13 AM) *
2. Within this is the consideration that geophysical events and features can provide a spur to more rapid evolution.

Is there anything from Dawkins specifically on this topic?

Evolution is most certainly driven by geophysical events and this is what started Darwin on his journey towards 'On The Origin...' the variety of species on the Galapagos Islands. Thus this aspect forms an essential thread throughout Dawkins' works and in particular 'The Ancestor's Tale'

If you find that one difficult to get hold of look out for:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532 by Jerry A. Coyne. Highly recommended.

QUOTE
I've ruminated about whether there was some such extraordinary trigger for human brain development in several posts.

I see it essentially as an increased ability for problem solving. The ability to think laterally in order to overcome obstacles. This a matter of the slow grinding of evolutionary processes.

I think that even now many humans display a poor ability to solve problems, some just have a natural ability for lateral thinking but this may be more down to environmental experience that evolutionary divergence. I dunno! Interesting line of inquiry has just opened up.

QUOTE
I wasn't clear about the type of life form I was thinking of that might need an entire reality created for it to become a self-aware intelligent life form. I was thinking of some type of robotic machine that is built in a serious attempt to duplicate human intelligence and experience life as we do. But for some reason it fails to work properly without some sort of reality to use as a reference point. The reality would not be something with religious implications, instead something we make to give the robot some kind of ersatz reality or fool it into thinking that now it has one..

Of course to display the abilities of any form of life a robot must be capable of self-replication and by extension its replicant must also be capable of replication and so on and so on.

Thus we come down to a question of how did life start? That's the rub. Personally I do not think that we will ever create a fully autonomous robot entity. Although 'ever' is a long time, but then humans are not likely to have a forever. Unless...?

Unless some form of electrodynamical/biological hybrid is developed. Some of course could say such entities are already amongst us and have been for milenia.

Posted by: lunk Apr 11 2010, 11:45 AM

Waking up in the morning is akin to a computer booting up.

CODE
What am i?
what is my condition?
where am i?
how did i get here?
what must i do today?
what time is it?


Computing, uses transistors.
The first transistors were germanium, then silicon,
the next element in that series, is carbon.
And we are carbon-based lifeforms.

The next generation of computers,
and possibly the smallest,
will probably have carbon-based transistors.

The language, we humans speak, is the code,
that programs our brains.
Artists that drift between two different languages,
like French and English, are cross-coding.

Posted by: Obwon Apr 11 2010, 12:21 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 20 2010, 01:32 PM) *
Hi Lunk!



Maybe there's an Intelligent Experimenter instead, doing an Intelligent Experiment.

But since he's using trial and error, he obviously doesn't know what the f u c k he's doing. Neither perfect nor omniscient.

SO he sure ain't God!

Evolution is Intelligent Experimentation! SO There!


Hahaha... There are too many "logical falacies" connected with intelligent design and the misunderstood processes of evolution.

The problem arises from the human need to understand the incomprehensible, so we tend to make things fit into the molds we have by "trimming the edges". When we had knowledge the people contained blood, for instance, all ills were traceable to blood disorders. When we had microbes, then all ills became microbially induced on and on.

We believe we have an idea as to what intelligence is, so we begin to attribute many good things to it, and bad things to a lack of it. You should know that neither view is true. Intelligence is merely being able to combine memory and experience to predict a reasonably accurate and possible future, without having to experience things first hand every time. One can read what others have experienced, what others have thought about that experience, and use that information to predict outcomes based upon that material, of future events which have a great deal of similarity. Though we may applie logic to these processes, under study they don't always hold. Some people fare better or worse using the same information in the same ways. That is both illogical and counter intuitive (unintelligent?). Never-the-less, intelligence alone is no magic line to "Utopia".

Logic, on the other hand, gives way all to many times to "logical fallacy". ie. people should not be allowed to ride on elevators because, each person who get on an elevator, reduces it's carrying capacity, reduced carrying capacity is bad, therefore no one should be allowed on. Or, hire more police the number of arrests increases, therefore police cause crime.

If one looks closely at evolution, one will quickly come to understand that it is neither intelligent nor does it follow any design! It is a hapazard collection of what has worked so far, and by expanding from there, into all possible directions, it eventually obtains a new add on. Unfortunately some of these "add ons" do absolutely nothing! They are only there because they were possible and because they didn't interfere or do harm. Life pushes out in all directions, and as it does so, it finds many things that are unacceptable and do harm, things that are acceptable and do nothing, and finally a few things that do some good.

An "intelligent design" for example, would get rid of things that do nothing, because they are useless and it's a waste of resources to carry them along. Evolution does no such thing! "Intelligent design" would work to make things it has already acquired more efficient or more effective, evolution does nothing of the kind. Evolution "took advantage" of a better foot, by "throwing all feet" into the maw of environmental hazard. The enviroment took out the poor quality feet, but how did it do so? Not by what we think of as "natural selection" but rather by "unnatural selection". Where, the "best" design for the foot had to do with the ecology at the time. We'd have had much better working feet, for example, if a fairly modern man had been alive during the age of the dinosaurs. Since at that time a very highly developed and extremely efficient foot would have been required. Modern man evolved in a rather more sedate ecology, with slower and less rapacious, as well as less numerous carnivores. Thus the more moderate environment dispensed with working on the foot. We are left with a foot that is somewhat serviceable, but not the best design. So too it goes with many other parts of the body and it's various organs. And now our intelligence is allowing us to learn ways to interfere with the "natural selection" processes. That which was once "unsurvivable" is survivable today and, therefore, available to be passed on to future generations, instead of being weeded out.


So that what is being called "intelligent design" in evolution, is neither intelligent nor the result of any design. It is merely a haphazard collection of things that have worked so far.
And this is about as short as I can tell the story without filling volumes, but that's what it is.
"Evolution" is just a backwards looking recording of what has happened. To see the truth of it all, one has to be aware of the possibilities as to what didn't happen and the why's and wherefore's of that.

Obwon

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 12 2010, 12:01 PM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Apr 9 2010, 03:21 PM) *
...the misunderstood processes of evolution.

That, in a nutshell is one of the biggest issues in the evolution/ID-Creationist dichotomy.

Many think of evolution as a random process in the macro sense when it is anything but as a look at the mechanisms and processes of natural selection makes clear.

Jerry Coyne in http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532 expands on this in the chapter 'The Engine of Evolution' where he reminds us that Richard Dawkins has described natural selection as, 'the non-random survival of random variants', this from 'Climbing Mount Improbable' which happens to be one of my favourite Dawkins.

QUOTE
And this is about as short as I can tell the story without filling volumes,

Just so. Such volumes are already written, and continue to be updated, which is why I keep mentioning Dawkins as he has a lucid style of explaning the most complex processes. I think I am on my sixth copy of The Selfish Gene', children and their friends having borowed earlier copies which have failed to come back - but I don't mind as Dawkins has added more to later editions.

QUOTE
"Evolution" is just a backwards looking recording of what has happened. To see the truth of it all, one has to be aware of the possibilities as to what didn't happen and the why's and wherefore's of that.

Sorry to yet again bring in Dawkins but he explained how there are many more ways of being dead, i.e. never having existed, than there are of being a viable organism in his 'The Blind Watchmaker'.

EDIT.
In this book he introduced Biomorphs:

Now I have not evaluated any software found by seraching on Biomorphs at this time so visitors beware.

http://www.rennard.org/alife/english/biomintrgb.html

Posted by: lunk Apr 12 2010, 12:11 PM

There is a huge diversity of life forms, that we know of, on Earth.
The maximum size of land creatures has decreased.
The earliest critters were insects, some of them so huge, that they could not exist today, even if we could "remake" them, today.

Over time and through evolution, their prodigy became smaller.
Dragonfly's, no longer have 1 meter wing spans, nor could one that size, exist today.
Same with the much later evolved dinosaurs, and reptiles.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/allabout/Extremes.html

They are mostly way too big, to exist under today's gravity.

The Blue Whale would collapse, under its own weight, on the beach.

This means, to me, that the gravity on the surface of the Earth is getting stronger, and lifeforms on the land, must evolve smaller, over time.

So, perhaps, intelligent design would be better replaced with the words evolutionary necessity.
However, in animal husbandry, and breeding programs, features of certain creatures can be enhanced, and of course, with today's technology, we can skip the whole long term breeding programs and "build" the DNA, to make any creature with any features we want.

Genetically modified organisms, are intelligent design.
Breeding out a poodle from a wolf, is intelligent design.

But both, can fail, because these organisms may not be able to stand the test of time.

So evolution, is not an intelligent design,
but an evolutionary necessity, responding to changes on, and of, the Earth.

Funny, evolution is tried and true,
while intelligent design is haphazard.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 12 2010, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 10 2010, 02:11 PM) *
There is a huge diversity of life forms, that we know of, on Earth.
The maximum size of land creatures has decreased.

This has more to do with available habitat and plentiful food sources rather than to do with your pet hypothesis of an expanding earth.

After all carp, as in goldfish, can develop enormously in size if moved from an indoor tank to a pond. This is well known.

To be sure gravity does have a limiting factor on size of organisms but blue whales are living proof that the earth is still capable of supporting organisms larger than any previously known.

Besides, an expanding earth does not necessarily mean it becomes more massive.

Posted by: lunk Apr 13 2010, 03:43 AM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 12 2010, 10:03 AM) *
This has more to do with available habitat and plentiful food sources rather than to do with your pet hypothesis of an expanding earth.

After all carp, as in goldfish, can develop enormously in size if moved from an indoor tank to a pond. This is well known.

To be sure gravity does have a limiting factor on size of organisms but blue whales are living proof that the earth is still capable of supporting organisms larger than any previously known.

Besides, an expanding earth does not necessarily mean it becomes more massive.


"Did you know, the whale is not a fish?
...It's an insect that lives on bananas."
Monty Python.

Omega, i was talking about land animals, reptiles, dinosaurs and bugs, as they have generally gotten smaller, through evolution, globally, over time.

The whale is supported by the water,
it is not in the category of critters that live on the land.
Though it is curious, that some water creatures have gotten bigger,
than their ancestors from the distant past.
Perhaps the shallow seas, weren't deep enough,
back then.

Posted by: Obwon Apr 13 2010, 04:49 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 13 2010, 03:43 AM) *
"Did you know, the whale is not a fish?
...It's an insect that lives on bananas."
Monty Python.

Omega, i was talking about land animals, reptiles, dinosaurs and bugs, as they have generally gotten smaller, through evolution, globally, over time.

The whale is supported by the water,
it is not in the category of critters that live on the land.
Though it is curious, that some water creatures have gotten bigger,
than their ancestors from the distant past.
Perhaps the shallow seas, weren't deep enough,
back then.


Funny thing is, there is some truth to what you say, but another
"funny" thing is, I have yet to see anyone try to account for it.
Sure the earth is "growing" by accretion. >About a trillion tons of space
dust falls to earth every day.< (correct that way-off memory from so dim past reading to: 30 to 40k per year) I don't know exactly how much of an effect
has had (quantitatively) on gravity over the last 4.5 billion years, but
I'd have to imagine that, what we call 1g today, isn't what it was
4.5 billion years ago.

We do know that atmospheric pressure is about 14 lbs/sq.in at sea level
today. We don't know what it was 1 billion years ago, when life was
getting started. But we do know that reaction times for many chemical
reactions, slow as pressure increases. Not to mention the variations of
survival mechanism that would be gravitationally sensitive.

To try to apprehend what has happened (I'm no physicist), but I do intend
to google up some facts about mass and gravity as well as the earths accretion
rates to see what kind of ball park figures I might arrive at. Unfortunately
I can't do that right now because things (demands on my time) get in the way.

In any event, it's easier to feed, support and defend an organism that's smaller
than it is to do for a larger animal. But my guess is that as land plants got
started when there were very few land animals around, the first to come
ashore found plenty of lush vegetation to feed upon. With food being no
object, they'd be expected to grow to enormous sizes, since size has
many beneficial effects with regards to metabolism, I've read, bigger is
generally the way to go when food is plentiful. Unfortunately this leaves
the species prey when smaller life forms turn predatory and/or destructively
parasitic.

My point is that what was also possible, but did not happen, is as (if not more)
informative as what did. Of course, it takes more effort to see the non-existant
possibilities at any given point along the life time line.

But, that is worth the effort because it makes it very clear indeed, that
what's being called "intelligent design", is merely another attempt to imbue
the record with an imposed view. Something akin to cartoonist giving animals
human like traits.

Oh wait... It's UPS at the door with my new ACME jet skates! lol! laughing1.gif
cleanup.gif
Found this interesting page on space dust:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
Seems it's way too inconsequential to matter, even over 4.5 billion years.
That hasn't stopped creationists from trying to use it though.

Obwon

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 13 2010, 07:40 AM

don't know how much space dust, cosmic rays (heavy nuclei) and meteorites get incorporated into the earths mass, but hydrogen and helium float off into space from the earth.

so, who's got a big scale to weigh the earth?

Posted by: lunk Apr 13 2010, 08:30 PM

The thing that forces evolutionary change in the development in a species is a change in the environment. This could cause an extinction, if it is a sudden change, or the development of fins on the whale if it is gradual.

Changes in many species, world wide, shows a change in the entire Earth.

BTW. Accretion would have left all the planets on different plains of orbits, each being bombarded with cosmic debris
yet all eight planets are all on the same planetary plain around the sun.

Plus, mountains are not covered with millions of years of accreted cosmic dust from space.

Yes, there is accretion, going on, but it is not enough to account for the gradual change, over time, of the maximum sizes of species on the Earth.



hmm, i wonder, do goldfish grow bigger,
when they are placed in a larger tank?

Posted by: Obwon Apr 14 2010, 07:38 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 13 2010, 08:30 PM) *
The thing that forces evolutionary change in the development in a species is a change in the environment. This could cause an extinction, if it is a sudden change, or the development of fins on the whale if it is gradual.

Changes in many species, world wide, shows a change in the entire Earth.

BTW. Accretion would have left all the planets on different plains of orbits, each being bombarded with cosmic debris
yet all eight planets are all on the same planetary plain around the sun.

Plus, mountains are not covered with millions of years of accreted cosmic dust from space.

Yes, there is accretion, going on, but it is not enough to account for the gradual change, over time, of the maximum sizes of species on the Earth.



hmm, i wonder, do goldfish grow bigger,
when they are placed in a larger tank?


Yes, I corrected that, "dust fall" is negligible as a factor.

On the other hand, environment doesn't drive evolution, it shapes it.
DNA will change regardless of any and all environmental factors. Many of the
changes to DNA will not do anything at all. Of these, those changes that do
alter something, most will be unsurvivable. But, of those there will be a few
that will be survivable, and of those even fewer will actually do something that
might enhance survival. Then, after all that's done with, it's the environments
turn to apply the stresses that test the performance of the new function.

As one might imagine in this "hodge-podge", even a new and very valuable
new advantage, could simply be lost forever, due merely to an unfortunate
circumstance, that did not permit it to survive. Thus the idea of (it's not a theory)
"intelligent design" fails. For any "intelligent designer" would have had to protect
his design from disappearance due to unfortunate circumstance. No where in the
historical records do we find any such "unseen hand" intervening.

Posted by: lunk Apr 14 2010, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Apr 14 2010, 04:38 AM) *
DNA will change regardless of any and all environmental factors.


The shark hasn't changed for billion(s?) of years, and i think, the same is true for the crocodile,
why would evolution stop, for just them?

Posted by: Obwon Apr 15 2010, 08:47 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 14 2010, 09:26 PM) *
The shark hasn't changed for billion(s?) of years, and i think, the same is true for the crocodile,
why would evolution stop, for just them?


Quite obviously we need to know more about the exceptions. There are species that don't appear to change over millions of years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their dna hasn't changed.
There are several possibilities, one of which might be that, shark dna, for some reason, has a low tolerance for incorporating changes. Such that just about any dna changes simply will not produce a
survivable offspring. Offhand, we can be sure that their dna does change at the normal rate of all species, because they receive the same amount of background radiation/chemical exposure that causes these changes to occur in all dna. However, there are "repair" strategies, which these unchanging species may have nearly perfected. Or their dna may be sructured to be simply highly intolerant of faults.

Posted by: Sanders Apr 15 2010, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 18 2010, 07:26 PM) *
The shark hasn't changed for billion(s?) of years, and i think, the same is true for the crocodile,
why would evolution stop, for just them?


When a model becomes stable in its environment, outside forces (DNA corruption) become moot. When a species is not sufficiently adapted to its environment, outside forces either provide alternate plans to deal with new suroundings, or the species goes extinct. More often than not, the species goes extinct - but in a minority of cases, the species adapts and a new species emerges.

Seems pretty simple to me, and you don't even have to embrace Darwin to grasp it.

Posted by: lunk Apr 15 2010, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 15 2010, 09:32 AM) *
When a model becomes stable in its environment, outside forces (DNA corruption) become moot. When a species is not sufficiently adapted to its environment, outside forces either provide alternate plans to deal with new surroundings, or the species goes extinct. More often than not, the species goes extinct - but in a minority of cases, the species adapts and a new species emerges.

Seems pretty simple to me, and you don't even have to embrace Darwin to grasp it.


Whats the definition for the domestication of wild creatures?

Dog, from wolf;
pig from bore,
cat from wild-cat,
rabbit from wild rabbit,
cow from wild cattle,
Indian elephant from wild Indian elephant.
How does this differ from evolution?

This, i think, is the only, intelligent design.
or perhaps intelligent re-designing.

...but most domesticated species, cannot exist for long, in the wild.

Evolutionarily speaking, they would probably soon be, an extinct error.

Posted by: Obwon Apr 16 2010, 08:41 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 15 2010, 09:03 PM) *
Whats the definition for the domestication of wild creatures?

Dog, from wolf;
pig from bore,
cat from wild-cat,
rabbit from wild rabbit,
cow from wild cattle,
Indian elephant from wild Indian elephant.
How does this differ from evolution?

This, i think, is the only, intelligent design.
or perhaps intelligent re-designing.

...but most domesticated species, cannot exist for long, in the wild.

Evolutionarily speaking, they would probably soon be, an extinct error.


But we're not designing anything merely by domesticating animals.
All we're really doing is providing an environment with special needs/conditions for
the animal to adapt to over time.

Designing would be, to go in and take out, say, a hunter predator gene and
replace it with a more domestically desirable trait.

Obwon

Posted by: tnemelckram Apr 16 2010, 06:37 PM

Hi Omega and All!

I just took your advice (in part) and watched Dawkins' documentary Why Are We Here?

He said a lot of the things I said above about human brain exceptionalism. Foresight, contemplating own existence, purpose, transcending basic evolutionary drives to reproduce and propagate the species, technology overriding nature etc.

I've been saying that the human brain seems to be an evolutionary exception. He does too, but has a different approach. He looks back and says that our brains have developed so that we gradually been able to make ourselves an exception to evolution - for example, instead of being driven to reproduce at all costs by taking every opportunity to do that, we deliberately use contraception to impede reproduction so we can have purely hedonistic sex.

He is right with this analysis of exceptionalism looking back, but I think a further question about evolutionary exception arises if you look at human brain development from the start and then going forward. He explained that the triggers for our brain development fit the normal pattern and gradual pace evolution to provide us with a competitive survival advantage, which is the conventional way of looking at it. I still suspect one or a few events where some force outside of evolution was a trigger that suddenly accelerated the normal evolutionary process of our brain development, which is a different exception. Oh well . . . .

I also watched his The Enemies Of Reason, which was really delightful. I wonder what those shamans think when they look out at the sea of adoring faces and see this one man with b u l l s h i t! written on his face in the audience? Dawkins takes them apart and is polite enough to do it in one on one interviews instead of in front of the crowd. The only quibble I had was when he proposed to one that it was bad to keep feeding people's obsessions instead of leaving them alone so they could let go. First, I thought this moral question exceeded his writ, which was to just demolish their fallacy using science. Second, it seems that if the goal is to comfort people, that can be done by either "letting go" or by revisiting it - whatever works. I'm not sure that psychologists agree that one approach is better than the other, although I'm a "letting go" man myself.

Posted by: lunk Apr 16 2010, 11:59 PM

It's sort of about structure.

Is the mountain designed like a castle?
No, but a castle can be designed like a mountain.
Yet, it is the rock from the mountain that the castle is made from.
But when it comes to the test of time,
it is the mountain that usually endures the longest.

It was the castle that was an intelligent design,
not necessarily, the mountain.

DNA, the building block of life.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 17 2010, 09:32 AM

Lunk

You're an Artist. You're a Poet.

It will take generations for people with exclusively scientific minds to understand you.

The mountain is of course based upon intelligent design. So is the valley.

But so also is music of the spheres - in all its glory.

Think of the first vibration. The first oscillation. The first wavelength. The first pulsation.

The first resonance. The first trembling. The first goose pimples.

All of it much more intelligent than what meets the eye.

All "Design" belong to the Arts.

Science will never understand its nature. Until the day arrives when we will explain it to them.

But that will first happen when they are ready.

Not before.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 18 2010, 09:30 AM

and then there is always:

http://halfpasthuman.com/woowoodo.html

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 18 2010, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 11 2010, 06:43 AM) *
Omega, i was talking about land animals, reptiles, dinosaurs and bugs, as they have generally gotten smaller, through evolution, globally, over time.

Evidence does not support that.

Land animals became larger when the landmasses were more grouped together and thus had a wider space to roam and forage for food. Also there were fewer large predators to cull the large herds of browsers. It has been shown that the rate of predition can be a limiting factor on the size of an organism.

And note that mammals of the Mesozoic period tended to be small but then developed into giants such as modern day elephants of which some can be larger than the Brontotherium of the Paleogene but smaller than the Indricotherium. African and Indian elephants can be larger than the Imperial Mammoth or the woolly mammoth of the Quaternary.

When bugs, e.g. arthropods such as dragon flies and centipedes were larger during the Late Carboniferous (you may know it as the Pennsylvanian), up to 2ft 4 in (70cm) wing span of dragon flies, then oxygen content of the atmosphere was much higher at about 35 percent. Structural strength aside, respiration in arthropods is another limiting factor on size as breathing takes place through the surface and volume is in proportion to cube of the length thus if oxygen ratio is higher the upper size limit is moved.

QUOTE
The whale is supported by the water,

Yes but a Liopleurodon, a large continental shelf predator of the Jurassic was smaller than the Blue Whale. Gravity still has an effect even if the organism is oceanic.

QUOTE
Though it is curious, that some water creatures have gotten bigger,
than their ancestors from the distant past.
Perhaps the shallow seas, weren't deep enough,
back then.

Higher abundance of food perhaps. Note that the large whales are plankton feeders which are more abundent in nutrient rich water where there is mixing from below.

For an expanding earth to be the explanation then the earth would have had to go through periods of both expansion and contraction. Besides the geological record is against such a hypothesis supported by detailed knowledge of the contours of ocean floors.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 18 2010, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 16 2010, 12:30 PM) *
and then there is always:

http://halfpasthuman.com/woowoodo.html


".......
Something else you can count on; universe is geared in cycles. These cycles should be thought of not as circles, but rather the peaks and valleys of waves. Just when things get to their most extreme state in the wave, either top or bottom, is also when things change and start moving the other way. Learn to notice this, and then harmonize with it.

Harmonization with universe means that universe directs, we agree, and amplify. In so doing a link between the goals of universe and our puny ass little selves is formed such that in order to defeat us, an enemy would have to defeat universe itself. Count on this too….that ain’t gonna happen.
......."


O' thanks for that One, Groundpounder!

Couldn't be said any better.

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 18 2010, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 16 2010, 04:28 PM) *
Evidence does not support that.



Lunk is correct.

Many animal species has become and will become extinct as time passes.

All animals of all kinds and all types that has survived and will continue to survive in the future,
all evolve Toward their blueprint.

Which means that these animal species eventually will become more and more in harmony with
the prevailing conditions existing as times go by.

All homo sapiens, on the contrary, evolve Away from their blueprint.

Which means, that as mankind continues to evolve and advance, the less and less
'animalistic' mankind becomes.

Cheers

Posted by: lunk Apr 18 2010, 10:02 PM

That's the thing, we know the universe is in cycles,
like rings within rings.
Is there a regular super cycle with the sun,
that is known by a few, but kept secret from the general public?

The sun is behaving unexpectedly, according to current theory,
but this could be just a little cycle, in a much longer one.

If there is an upcoming solar super cycle,
it could set back civilization, world wide,
and this may happen rarely, but regularly, like clockwork.

This could be the event that has caused repeated mass extinctions in the distant past.

Few know to prepare for it.
Yet, governments are building underground bunkers,
and seed vaults?!

(please leave the combination for the lock, at the door.)

Posted by: lunk Apr 20 2010, 01:48 AM



Of course, a Blue whale is weightless in the ocean!
Land animals and critters are affected by gravity,
their maximum size has decreased over time, but
the blue whale is the biggest creature that ever existed, because gravity,
is not a restriction in its' development, in the water!
It's weightless in that environment!

This is the cause of the difference in size in the evolution of land vs sea creatures.
When gravity was weaker land animals could evolve bigger, as gravity increased land creatures became smaller.
Ocean creatures were unaffected by the gradual change in gravity
because they are weightless in water.

And the cockroaches will eventually inherit the Earth,
and the oceans will fill with even bigger whales.
if things keep on growing, the way they have.

Nature favors the little creatures on land, in the future.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 20 2010, 12:10 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 18 2010, 03:48 AM) *
Of course, a Blue whale is weightless in the ocean!

The laws of physics are overturned again!

No, Blue Whales are NOT weightless in the ocean. Neither are Sperm whales which have to power themselves down to the depths.

Dead whales eventually descend to the ocean floor, benthic creatures have been filmed feeding off whale carcasses.

QUOTE
This is the cause of the difference in size in the evolution of land vs sea creatures.

You should note the difference in body plan between oceanic species and the large sauropod dinosaurs. Much of such a latter creatures size is down to the lengths of the neck and more especially the tail which tended to be of comparatively narrow average cross sections. This most certainly true of the especially long Diplodocus of up to 115 ft. Indeed, Othniel Charles Marsh is said to have extrapolated from a single bone the size of one such beast of about 150 ft but the bone in question can no longer be found.

However:

QUOTE
When gravity was weaker land animals could evolve bigger, as gravity increased land creatures became smaller.

As we know with birds, who's ancestors were dinosaurs, bone structure is modified to save weight and in such species the inner bone retains structural strength and yet comparatively light by being a 'honey-comb' of air spaces. As an aside one modern day raptor the Kestrel (the name given to the early trials versions of the VTOL Harrier) has moved on to use the chambers in its bones as air reservoirs to enable it to hover whilst assessing an attack on prey.

It is known that as long ago as the early Triassic (a few million years in once life had re-established evolutionary radiation after the end of Permian mass extinction (the biggest at 95% known) that dinosaurs such as the smallish, quick and nimble Coelophysis has evolved such a light and strong structure for its bones. Whether or not it used the chambers for air storage is not known. Coelophysis could be thought of as the dinosaur equivalent of the greyhound being about the same size and a fast runner.

QUOTE
Nature favors the little creatures on land, in the future.

At the time of the large dinosaurs nature favoured large size for foraging of the tough vegetation of the period and being able to graze from heights and over a longer reach. A long body plan was favoured for the processing of such tough vegetation in a many chambered alimentary canal. Like birds, sauropod dinosaurs swallowed hard stones to be used to aid the grinding and breakdown of the tough cellulose. At this time, as I wrote above, the land masses extended from pole to pole of large continent Pangea, which began to break up in Jurassic times.

Size also helped defend against predators, a large sauropod had little to fear, if fit, from any therapod.

Posted by: lunk Apr 20 2010, 05:23 PM

If i put a scale on the floor of the ocean and a whale swims over it way up at the surface of the ocean, how much will that scale show that living whale weighs?

Airplanes fly over my head here all the time,
Yes, they weigh tons, but i don't feel anything.
i don't think the barometric pressure even changes, when this happens.

A blue whales rib cage would collapse on the beach, from its' own weight,
but not in the ocean. Why?
Specifically, gravity, or specific gravity.
The water they displace is subtracted from their weight.
If a whale is floating in water it weighs the same as the water.


(place scale on ocean floor below whale)

Because the ocean is a liquid, it supports really heavy creatures, that could not exist at such a vast size, on the land.

Whales can evolve bigger than land creatures, and have.
On the other hand, the largest creatures, on land,
known from fossil records, do not exist today.

The Elephant can't even technically run, because of its' huge weight on land,
how did the Tyrannosaur get around, they were much heavier than the Elephant?

It seems obvious to me, that there must have been less gravity,
everywhere on the Earth, for such huge dinosaurs to have existed in the past.



All that muscle, claws, teeth, why would it have binocular eyes that can see better than a hawk, if it couldn't even run, to get to where it was looking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

QUOTE
The eye-sockets of tyrannosaurs are positioned so that the eyes would point forward, giving them binocular vision slightly better than that of modern hawks.


and it could only walk 11 km/per hour?!
I can run faster than that!

No, these things look like they could run.

If they were intelligently designed,
i would have made them smaller,
and more colorful, knowing that gravity,
was on the increase.

Interesting to think, if gravity was less, back in the dino days,
the specific gravity of water would be less than today...
Would this limit the maximum size of the creatures living in it, back then?

Thanks omega,
you really got me thinking.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 21 2010, 08:40 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 18 2010, 07:23 PM) *
Airplanes fly over my head here all the time,
Yes, they weigh tons, but i don't feel anything.

So, flying airplanes are not weightless, by the same token a whale immersed in water is not weightless!

You have just argued yourself deeper into the hole. Your arguments do not (Ahem!) hold water.

Airplanes fly over your head by virtue of the lift generated from their aerofoil surfaces.

Do not confuse buoyancy with weightlessness.

An object floats in water because it displaces an equal weight of water - that does not mean that the object has lost weight.

Any naval architect will tell you of the need to pay particular attention to the structural strength of a ship's hull where heavy machinery is going to be situated. Heavy weights such as this within the hull produce stress concentrations on adjacent areas of hull which can cause, and has caused, fatigue failure as a vessel rises and falls with wave motions if not designed with care.

Whales have evolved from land creatures and thus have a rib cage supported from a backbone which runs along the dorsal line this means that the weight of the animal, by being unsupported locally, would serve to suffocate it if beached.
QUOTE
Interesting to think, if gravity was less, back in the dino days,
the specific gravity of water would be less than today...
Would this limit the maximum size of the creatures living in it, back then?

As gravity has not changed significantly over time then no water back then would have a similar SG. SG depends upon salinity and temperature. Salinity in open water has not changed significantly (the earth's mineral systems tend to keep this in balance over time with successive periods of orogeny and weathering) but temperature may well have done during the very warm periods. But then temperatures tended to rise more over the large continental mass of Pangea. The presence, or otherwise, and variety of numerous pelagic organisms provide information on both salinity and temperature through the ratios of isotopes of e.g. carbon, oxygen and also the minerals found in their remains.


BTW On that Wiki page did you note the remarks WRT cavities in bones?

You may also like to consider the present day Wetas as an example of a large arthropod.

And yes dragonflies of the Carboniferous with 2 ft wing spans may be larger but that is a measure of wing span. Large objects can be constructed very light indeed. I don't know if you have ever encountered microfilm winged indoor model aircraft, often pole flying. I remember making these wings from a carefully pored, over water, mix of model aircraft engine fuel and dope and carefully lowering the prepared, very light, balsa wing frame onto the surface to attach the film.

Similar principle involved with the flying pterosaurs.

Posted by: lunk Apr 21 2010, 11:03 AM

Perhaps i should have used a blimp instead of an airplane, as an example.

Yes, buoyancy.

Lets look at a hypothetical situation, say a moon half the size of the Earth, covered with water, lets say, life lived in that water on that moon.
As the gravity on that moon is less than on Earth, would this limit the size that a life form living in that water on that moon, could evolve to?

There are physical limits to the growth of life.
We cannot exist on a slice of bread,
but a spore of mold can.

But it's not just about food supply, there are physical constraints to life forms on Earth.

A siphon of water will only work up to 32 feet.
A greater height will not siphon. This is a limiting constraint of our present gravity.
If gravity was less, a siphon would work at a higher level.
What creature, alive today, is taller or longer than 32 feet?
(trees don't count, as they use capillary action to raise water to its top.)

lets see, a giraffe, max. height

QUOTE
It is approximately 4.3 metres (14 ft) to 5.2 metres (17 ft) tall, although the tallest male recorded stood almost 6 metres (20 ft).

check, less than 32 feet.

How 'bout the anaconda?
QUOTE
Green anacondas can grow to be 29 feet long and 550 pounds

check, less than 32 feet.
Quotes from wikipedia.

As blood is heavier than water, its' siphonability
will be less than 32 feet.
Any creature, on Earth, alive today, must be less than 32 feet in height because of the restriction of Earths gravity.
As there were creatures that lived upon the Earth that were taller than 32 feet in the past, then the Earths gravity must have been less back then!

I wonder if the (edit correction) height of thickness of the Blue whale is less than 32 feet, i wonder if they can even swim vertically straight, up and down...

Perhaps this should be called the gravitational constraint for evolution.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 21 2010, 01:23 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 19 2010, 01:03 PM) *
Any creature, on Earth, alive today, must be less than 32 feet in height because of the restriction of Earths gravity.

Ahem! What do you think hearts are for?
If blood is to be pushed higher use a larger pump with stronger muscles and or a faster beat. Or use more than one pump, heart. That latter solution has been tried.
QUOTE
I wonder if the (edit correction) height of thickness of the Blue whale is less than 32 feet, i wonder if they can even swim vertically straight, up and down...

Sperm whales are more massive than Liopleurodon and they dive practically vertically and broach in a similar attitude.
QUOTE
Perhaps this should be called the gravitational constraint for evolution.

I am not saying that gravity does not constrain the size of organisms only that variation in size should not be taken as proof of a large change in the earth's gravity over time.

I have already pointed to ways that creatures can overcome size limitations by the evolution of lighter structures for bones and maybe also musculature. Body plan also plays a large part in the maximum size of a particular evolutionary line and that includes the layout of the skeleton.

Lifestyle - availability of large quantities of vegetation which often being very tough and poor, compared to later evolved flowering plants, also played a part. This encouraged large size in which to hold an extended alimentary canal with many chambers to break down and digest this rough diet. Size also assisted in deterring predators.

As I pointed out large arthropods managed to evolve because of an elevated level of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Posted by: lunk Apr 22 2010, 10:38 AM

Hmmm, i am having problems with whales.
They can be bigger today than any land creature that ever existed on Earth,
but land creatures are smaller in their maximum size that they were, in the past.

The big difference is that one lives in air (on the Earth) and the other lives its entire life in liquid, (water), on Earth.
Water makes whales weightless to that environment.
As there must be a gravitational constraint to the growth of life,
obviously, it aint there in the water.

Since, it is thought that life evolved from tiny single cell organisms,
they must have evolved bigger, into multicelled creatures, the direction of evolution seems to "want" to make things bigger, unless there is some sort of constraint.
As you pointed out, i think, it is beneficial for some species to evolve small.
i think they found a miniature elephant in Madagascar, thought to have evolved that way because a lesser food supply, when they got isolated from the African continent.
(note to self: check seafloor age to see how long ago that was)

Obviously gravity is another constraint, to evolution, and the maximum size of a life-form.
The only creature that does not fit the picture is the whale and it is buoyant.
Life forms must have a solid, (do jellyfish count?) in them, even if it just the cell wall.
Different states of matter behave differently with gravity, and within and outside.
A solid drops through the atmosphere faster than it does through a liquid.
What walks on solid ice, must sink or swim in water.

Sure, there is gravity everywhere on the Earth, but the state of the matter determines how much and what kind of an effect it has, on the matter within, or upon it.

Life is always found with water.

The constraints of existing upon the land is different from the constraints of living in the water.
Lifeforms evolve to suit their environment.

This really is a question of biological physics,
hypothetical or not.

If gravity is slowly increasing on the Earth,
Does this increase in gravity allow things to evolve bigger in water,
while causing things evolving on solid land, to generally get smaller?

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 22 2010, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 20 2010, 01:38 PM) *
If gravity is slowly increasing on the Earth,
Does this increase in gravity allow things to evolve bigger in water,
while causing things evolving on solid land, to generally get smaller?


why are people getting taller?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 22 2010, 12:56 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 20 2010, 01:50 PM) *
why are people getting taller?

Darn it!

I was keeping that one up my sleeve!

For now. wink.gif

Posted by: lunk Apr 22 2010, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 22 2010, 08:50 AM) *
why are people getting taller?

Better nutrition.

In a perfect environment, an organism will grow to a maximum size,
but if there is not enough nutrition, it will be stunted.
Perhaps people have gotten taller because nutrition is better today,
than in the dark ages.
But this is probably not an evolutionary change.

We haven't yet reached the present gravitational limit,
of about 30 feet.
But, i don't know if there is much benefit in people evolving taller.

(if you haven't noticed,
taller people tend to bump their heads,
on things, more often than the little people)
...perhaps this is another type of evolutionary constraint.

Posted by: tnemelckram Apr 22 2010, 10:04 PM

Hi Lunk!

You have a hit-or-miss approach. Sometimes you make damn good points or ask damn good questions, and sometimes not. I suppose it's the artist in you. So although I'm about to rebut what I think are the essential premises of your last few posts, just keep being you!


1.

QUOTE
Obviously gravity is another constraint, to evolution, and the maximum size of a life-form.
. . . . .
Sure, there is gravity everywhere on the Earth, but the state of the matter determines how much and what kind of an effect it has, on the matter within, or upon it.

It seems that one of the keys to what you say is that gravity is a strong force. Physicists regard gravity as a weak force compared to strong and weak electromagnetism in matter. If I jump off a building, gravity is not powerful enough to pull me through the atoms of the concrete sidewalk, which is composed of electromagnetically connected atoms. I do not continue to fall. Instead, gravity yields to the sidewalk, and my less powerfully connected atoms yield to others more strongly connected and I spatter on the sidewalk.

While I agree that Gravity is powerful enough to be a factor that affects evolution, I don't think it is powerful enough to impose a constraint that Evolution can't overcome, let alone a specific constraint like your "32 foot tall limit" for land critters. All that would be required to spur it would be some reason why survival depends on, or a competitive advantage would be gained by, a land critter being 33 or more feet tall.

2.
QUOTE
If gravity is slowly increasing on the Earth,


I don't think there's any scientific or other basis for the idea that gravity is increasing.


3.
QUOTE
(if you haven't noticed,taller people tend to bump their heads, on things, more often than the little people) ...perhaps this is another type of evolutionary constraint.

Good thought leading to this wild thought that might not hold water under scrutiny. All our dwelling spaces together represent a huge fixed investment not easily replaced and they are essential to our survival. They on the average have 8-10 foot ceilings that can't be raised unless you replace each structure. Would the average ceiling height amount to a force or factor that might cause evolution to limit our height, or at least pace it in accordance with the rate at which we replace our housing stock with dwellings having higher ceilings?


4.
QUOTE
Why are people getting taller? Better nutrition.


This seems to be a case of human technology being an outside force powerful enough to affect and alter evolution. I can't think of any reason purely grounded in survival of the species to cause this, or of any competitive advantage that is gained, so Evolution alone would not make people get taller. And then you have human technology perhaps imposing the same kind of constraints on height, as per 3 above.

Posted by: lunk Apr 23 2010, 01:15 AM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Apr 22 2010, 07:04 PM) *
Hi Lunk!

You have a hit-or-miss approach. Sometimes you make damn good points or ask damn good questions, and sometimes not. I suppose it's the artist in you. So although I'm about to rebut what I think are the essential premises of your last few posts, just keep being you!


1.
It seems that one of the keys to what you say is that gravity is a strong force. Physicists regard gravity as a weak force compared to strong and weak electromagnetism in matter. If I jump off a building, gravity is not powerful enough to pull me through the atoms of the concrete sidewalk, which is composed of electromagnetically connected atoms. I do not continue to fall. Instead, gravity yields to the sidewalk, and my less powerfully connected atoms yield to others more strongly connected and I spatter on the sidewalk.

While I agree that Gravity is powerful enough to be a factor that affects evolution, I don't think it is powerful enough to impose a constraint that Evolution can't overcome, let alone a specific constraint like your "32 foot tall limit" for land critters. All that would be required to spur it would be some reason why survival depends on, or a competitive advantage would be gained by, a land critter being 33 or more feet tall.

2.

I don't think there's any scientific or other basis for the idea that gravity is increasing.


3.
Good thought leading to this wild thought that might not hold water under scrutiny. All our dwelling spaces together represent a huge fixed investment not easily replaced and they are essential to our survival. They on the average have 8-10 foot ceilings that can't be raised unless you replace each structure. Would the average ceiling height amount to a force or factor that might cause evolution to limit our height, or at least pace it in accordance with the rate at which we replace our housing stock with dwellings having higher ceilings?


4.

This seems to be a case of human technology being an outside force powerful enough to affect and alter evolution. I can't think of any reason purely grounded in survival of the species to cause this, or of any competitive advantage that is gained, so Evolution alone would not make people get taller. And then you have human technology perhaps imposing the same kind of constraints on height, as per 3 above.


The more mass the Earth has the greater it's gravity.
Even science agrees that the Earth has gotten bigger from accretion.
So gravity must increase over time, somewhat.
many are still at odds with this idea, but
there are some that say the Earth is actually growing from the inside!
As all the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller globe, without the oceans, and the age of the measured seafloor confirms this.

(Omega, say it's not true.)

Other factors like the maximum size of land critters becoming smaller through, the fossil records, also shows this increase in gravity.
The objection has always been shown that the Blue whale is now the largest creature that ever existed.
But i say that because it lives in the water, it is buoyant and therefore the increase in gravity doesn't limit it's evolutionary size.
In fact the opposite may be true, with less gravity, on an earlier, smaller Earth, water creatures may have been limited in their size. While land creatures could be much bigger as their heart could pump to a greater height.

Think about it, can you lift two 16 foot 2x4s, each by just one end and flap?
There were pterodactyls with greater wing spans!
There is no way that under today's gravity,
they could even hold them off the ground!

And going back even farther there were giant bugs,
similar to the much smaller ones of today.

There are physical constraints to the size a life-form can grow to,
a sort of envelope.
If you have a sealed solid pipe 35 feet vertical, full of water and open the bottom end the top 2-3 feet will pour out and leave a vacuum at the top.
That vacuum can only hold 32 feet of water, because of gravity.
This is the same principle as the mercury barometer, as mercury is much heavier than water it forms a vacuum at around 3 feet.
But it is gravity that gives them this weight.

If gravity was less, these heights would be greater for the same liquids.
Our bodies can be thought of as tubes with liquids in them too.
If you stand up too fast, you can get dizzy or pass out, because of the pressure drop and not enough blood can get to the brain.

If i was 35 feet tall, my brain would be a vacuum and my heart would have to pump like crazy, just to keep the blood up in my head.

That is why, i think that the anaconda must be shorter than 32 feet,
if it was larger it wouldn't be able to climb straight up a tree.

If the planet was the size of a golf ball,
there wouldn't be a whale living on it.
I don't know how the forces of evolution can get around this.
These are the envelopes of physics,
that limits, and gives the maximum size allowable for life,
on a planet.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Apr 23 2010, 11:29 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 21 2010, 03:15 AM) *
The more mass the Earth has the greater it's gravity.
Even science agrees that the Earth has gotten bigger from accretion.

Sources?

Apart from Samuel Warren Carey and his followers who could only hold to their expanding earth hypothesis by ignoring the growing body of scientific evidence that has proven the validity of plate tectonics involving subduction.

QUOTE
So gravity must increase over time, somewhat.
many are still at odds with this idea, but
there are some that say the Earth is actually growing from the inside!
As all the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller globe, without the oceans, and the age of the measured seafloor confirms this.

(Omega, say it's not true.)

Lunk you know I have countered your arguments exhaustively in another thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12145&hl=

where you posted a Wiki link to a Carey page. There is very little more to add other than I suggest that you consult some reliable sources on e.g. geology and all the other 'ologys mention of which cropped up in the course of that thread as well as the 'ographys such as oceanography and geography.

Anticipating a mention of Neal Adams it may be worth visiting here to watch a few debunking videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIJ_GIaGUo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpostpolitical%2Ecom%2Fppblog%2F2007%2F06%2F19%2Fmud%2Dfrom%2Dspace%2F

Posted by: lunk Apr 26 2010, 12:01 PM

Omega, it's the official theory,
that the planets accreted from the dust around the sun.

QUOTE
In the very beginning of earth's history, this planet was a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock - a magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of much smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped together as they collided to form this planet. As the collisions tapered off the earth began to cool, forming a thin crust on its surface.

http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.php/geologic-earth-history

Like to know, how all the planets, are on the same solar plain, around the sun,
if this happened.

i am not the only one thinking of marine creatures, like whales,
found some intelligent speculation,
QUOTE
Marine creatures might also conceivably live in huge oceans of water beneath a miles-thick layer of ice on Europa, a moon of Jupiter.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422

He also seems to think that it may be dangerous,
to talk with extra terrestrials.
(they could be hungry for a planet to conquer)

No kidding, they could lock you away in a rubber room, too.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 26 2010, 11:41 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 24 2010, 03:01 PM) *


QUOTE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422

He also seems to think that it may be dangerous,
to talk with extra terrestrials.
(they could be hungry for a planet to conquer)

No kidding, they could lock you away in a rubber room, too.


Poor poor Hawking. I do feel for him, honestly.

Too many 'black holes' haunts his mind, i think!

Posted by: lunk Apr 27 2010, 12:21 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 26 2010, 08:41 PM) *
Poor poor Hawking. I do feel for him, honestly.

Too many 'black holes' haunts his mind, i think!


There is a theory that in the center of every star, planet, and atom,
is a black hole, and the universe itself is inside a black hole.

That's a whole lot of darkness, considering that there could be another universe within every black hole!

ya, still reading.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 27 2010, 05:49 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 25 2010, 03:21 AM) *
There is a theory that in the center of every star, planet, and atom,
is a black hole, and the universe itself is inside a black hole.

That's a whole lot of darkness, considering that there could be another universe within every black hole!

ya, still reading.



The Darkness will always precipitate in the sea of Light and form as a core.

There's a Light corona around our Earth that We cannot yet see with our limited
physical eyes.

One day, we, humankind, will be able to, and Darkness will then precipitate even more.

There's no black "holes" in existence. Only cores.

i'm with you all the way with the reading thing, Lunk. Press on no matter what.

Cheers

Posted by: Nunyabiz Dec 6 2010, 12:12 PM

No, they can not be "reconciled" anymore than hot oil can be reconciled with cold water.
They are completely different in every possible way.
Evolution is born out with factual, observable, testable evidence.
Creationism is nothing but pure nonsense, a fairy tale.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Dec 6 2010, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 24 2010, 03:01 PM) *
Omega, it's the official theory,
that the planets accreted from the dust around the sun.

Sorry for time lapse, I have only just picked up on this again, thread went into limbo whilst I was in difficulties myself.

Yes. I am well aware that the Earth was formed from material surrounding the Sun. I am also familiar with the ideas that the early Earth collided with another sizeable body resulting in the Eart-Moon couplet and that a number of major collisions with, probably, asteroids, have occured since. One is thought a possibility for finalising the Permian-Triassic extinction, which had a long, millions of years, lead in. There is more certainty about the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) boundary event and the associated Chixulub crater.

What I question is your expanding Earth arguments and I took your statement here as a further attempt to bolster those.

Sure matter is still raining down on Earth but it is not adding to Earths mass, let alone size, to any significant extent.

But you pushing an official theory, that is a new one and something else that made me think that you were using the argument to support expanding Earth.

As your self how African continental gneiss ended up being the top of the Matterhorn, or that the top of Everest is formed from sedimentary rocks complete with fossil ocean organisms?

Sorry, expanding Earth is dead, as dead as Marley!

QUOTE
http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.php/geologic-earth-history

An interesting links. I do hope that you noticed the Climate Change link in the side bar there.

QUOTE
Like to know, how all the planets, are on the same solar plain, around the sun,

They are?

QUOTE
i am not the only one thinking of marine creatures, like whales, found some intelligent speculation,

To be like whales they would have to be descendants of land mammals that became more and more aquatic as they evolved, rather like hippopotamus.

I think it would be a stretch to think of finding such creatures swimming in some form of beneath the surface ocean. There may be simple organisms though, after all such things are found in deep rock on Earth.

QUOTE
No kidding, they could lock you away in a rubber room, too.

Yeah! Perhaps you should be more careful as to what thoughts you air in public. whistle.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)