IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design, Can They Be Reconciled Instead?

Omega892R09
post Feb 23 2010, 01:47 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 24 2010, 08:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 23 2010, 01:57 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 24 2010, 08:34 AM
Post #23





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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: Book-mark link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 24 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 26 2010, 12:04 PM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 28 2010, 01:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 26 2010, 10:47 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 28 2010, 04:47 AM
Post #27





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 28 2010, 08:41 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 28 2010, 01:41 PM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 1 2010, 10:18 AM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 1 2010, 02:32 PM
Post #31





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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?

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 2 2010, 07:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 2 2010, 03:43 AM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 2 2010, 08:05 AM
Post #33





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 4 2010, 07:28 AM
Post #34





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



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..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Mar 4 2010, 07:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 4 2010, 11:23 AM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 11 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #36





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



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

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/...narcheology.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 11 2010, 12:05 PM
Post #37





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



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/...narcheology.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.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Mar 11 2010, 12:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 12 2010, 08:29 AM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



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.

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Mar 12 2010, 08:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 12 2010, 11:43 PM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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.

This post has been edited by lunk: Mar 12 2010, 11:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 13 2010, 05:12 AM
Post #40





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2019 - 01:08 PM