text:
Why Darwinism Is Wrong, Dead Wrong - Part 1: Intelligent Design and Information
Luke Baier
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:06 UTC
Charles Darwin: God-savior of materialism
Despite its name, Darwin's theory of evolution - and its post-genetics variation, neo-Darwinism - is almost universally accepted as hard fact. It's 'scientifically proven' we're told, which in practice simply denotes something about which you are not allowed to ask questions. But Darwinism is wrong, dead wrong. It is wrong philosophically, scientifically and morally.
It is philosophically wrong, because even some non-sloppy thinking combined with common sense is all you need to dismiss it.
It is scientifically wrong, because the more science progresses (the more we discover about molecular biology, for example), the more Darwinism loses the little plausibility it had left.
It is morally wrong, because the kind of materialism and (false) postulations about nature Darwinism promotes imply an abhorrent world view that acts like poison on human morality; as such, it paved the way for Nazism, Stalinism, postmodernism and today's nihilist, almost psychopathic outlook on life in general.
In the first part of this series, we'll look at Darwin's theory from the philosophical angle. Philosophy promotes rigorous thinking, the detection of gross errors in reasoning and the ability to hold different and conflicting ideas in mind without freaking out. Let's see how Darwinism fares.
Darwin's Arch-Enemy: Intelligent Design
Darwinism is a mess. It makes all kinds of wild assumptions that are seldom even brought to conscious awareness, and those defending Darwinism often play games with definitions and the meanings of words. So instead of tackling Darwinism head-on, let's first consider it in the context of another theory that Darwinism sought to replace and that has made a comeback in recent decades: Intelligent Design ("ID").
The design argument is very old indeed: if we look at life on our planet, including human life, our intuition tells us that all this beauty, complexity, symmetry, specialization, systems, etc., must originate in some kind of mind, just as our complex tools and devices originate in the minds of humans.
One of the classic formulations of ID comes from the theologian William Paley, who asked: if you were to find a watch in the woods, wouldn't you assume that it had been thought of and assembled by an intelligent being? And wouldn't the same be true for the living beings we find in nature? This is the analogy that gave Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker its title. Dawkins, of course, argues that the "blind" process of Darwinian evolution could explain the "watch" - meaning organisms, including humans.
A more modern and bare bones formulation of the design argument goes something like this:
The design argument
a) The only known way to increase functional complexity in any system is through the infusion of information, which Darwinism cannot explain.
b) Life forms developed additional complex systems.
c) Therefore, there must have been an infusion of information, which Darwinism cannot explain, and since the only known cause of information is intelligence, then intelligence must have caused it, hence "intelligent design".
Since you can be sure that this argument will seriously provoke Darwinists, let's look at some of the arguments against ID. This will also help us understand the argument better.
First, there are "arguments" against ID that don't even deserve to be called arguments. Let's get them out of the way.
The best-known of these is probably the accusation that Intelligent Design proponents are "biased". Since many, if not most, of the ID proponents are religious, so the story goes, they already made up their minds before they even started their investigation. They want ID to be true, because they are emotionally invested in their belief in God; therefore, they cook up a cocktail of pseudo-science to get there.
The objection to this "argument" is simple. Even if this assumption is true, it doesn't change the actual argument for ID in the least (and by the way, the same argument could be made against Darwinists - that they've already made up their minds that ID cannot be true). The propositions a) and b) above have nothing to do with belief in God, with emotional investment or "bias". They simply are what they are, and either you can refute them or you cannot.
To illustrate this point, suppose I'm a militant atheist and I'm hell-bent on disproving the existence of the historical Jesus. I then advance a powerful argument, based on historical research and rational reasoning, that Jesus didn't exist in any shape or form that the bible claims. Now, if you want to attack my argument, you need to show precisely where my historical facts might be wrong, or where my reasoning might have gone wrong. Simply accusing me of being biased because I'm an atheist is not a valid argument. The most you could reasonably claim is that my atheism makes you suspicious of my reasoning and that you will, therefore, pay particular attention to the details of my claims. But of course, that's what you should do anyway if you want to uncover the truth. In fact, when you dismiss someone else's claim as 'biased' simply because of what they believe, you discredit your own dedication to the truth and open yourself to being accused of bias.
Another of the most frequent (and poorest) strategies Darwinians use to attack the design argument is the time-honoured practice of erecting straw-men and then tearing them down, loudly and proudly of course, which makes the whole spectacle even more pathetic. Here's a (very) partial list of such straw-men:
You believe in the bible more than science.
You believe the earth was created 6000 years ago.
You believe in miracles.
You proclaim that organisms were created by God in an instant.
You deny natural variation.
You deny that natural selection exists.
You deny that science is the best method to find out the truth.
You deny evolution.
You deny common ancestry.
You are a homophobic bigot.
Needless to say, none of these claims are even relevant, much less valid, as arguments against the case for ID. For example, the ID argument is completely compatible with the idea that man evolved from monkeys. It doesn't deny that organisms that are less "fit" have a lower chance of survival. It doesn't deny that there are variations within species, or that species are related. The only thing that it argues for is that, whatever happened and however it happened, there must have been some kind of 'ordering force' involved: namely information. And that unless you can explain how information can sponatanously come into existence without some form of intelligence being involved, you must conclude that there was some sort of intelligence involved in the coming into existence of the complex life we see today.
Heck, even Richard Dawkins' theory of 'selfish genes' would fit the bill, given that he proclaims the existence of hyper-intelligent and cunning little monsters (genes) that build organisms and manipulate them into scheming on their behalf in order to make copies of themselves. So they could be the ones that infuse information into the system! But let's not waste too much time making fun of Dawkins. While he may be a decent-enough comedian when it comes to Bible-bashing, as a philosopher he is worse than useless. But then again, Dawkins-bashing is also much fun, so maybe we'll get back to his particular brand of theism later in this series.
So since Intelligent Design doesn't make any wild claims about God waving his magic wand, what's the real problem with it? To put it simply, while ID doesn't assume and certainly doesn't prove god's existence, it is, nevertheless, consistent with the existence of god. And that is what atheists and materialists simply cannot tolerate. You see, Darwinism is not just any old biological theory. It is an avatar for materialism. It is an idol for the denial of any higher intelligence, or even any intelligence at all - higher or not - outside physical brains and similar organs, of anything existing beyond the strictly physical universe. Darwinism, in combination with Darwinism-inspired theories of the origin of life, is the foundational myth for the worship of dead matter. It seeks to do the impossible, namely to explain how a dead universe can come into being from 'nothing' and produce and evolve life, including minds, to the point of staggering complexity and intelligence that we witness every day. That is why ID freaks Darwinians out: it threatens their myth, the cornerstone of their dead-matter-religion.
Darwinists not only believe that their theory has proven that god does not exist - nonsensical as that idea, in and of itself, is - they simply cannot countenance the idea that there is something, anything, going on in the universe that is not explainable as, essentially, 'dead matter randomly floating around'. I wonder what they are so terrified of that they go to such lengths to keep that particular door locked...
The Crucial Role of Information
But back to our design argument. If you want to argue against ID in a way that is not limited to creating and destroying strawmen and using ad-hominem attacks against the beliefs of ID proponents, you need to attack the propositions (a or b above) or the logic behind the argument. Since the logic is sound, as far as I can see, and proposition b is uncontroversial, the only thing left is to attack proposition a: that the only known way to increase functional complexity in any system is through the infusion of information, which Darwinism cannot explain. This is the approach taken by the more serious Darwinists; after all, Darwin's 'ground-breaking idea' was intended to make this proposition obsolete to begin with.
The claim that evolution is about producing new information should be uncontroversial. New forms of life, new species, new organs, new molecular systems and so on represent new information. The question, then, is this: can the Darwinian mechanism explain how new information can come into existence?
First, it's clear that the environment cannot magically change organisms: Darwinian organisms are supposed to be entirely passive. That is, they don't self-adapt biologically by using any sort of intelligence. If an organism does react to stimuli from the environment, this ability must have been already present in the Darwinian view - either pre-coded genetically or learned, or a combination of the two. But organisms don't grow larger ears or bigger claws because of environmental stimuli. They just react - nothing truly new is ever directly created in them by external stimuli.
This means that something more is needed. In the (neo-)Darwinian view, that something is provided by random changes in DNA, which supposedly can sometimes produce advantageous results that are then 'selected for' in the great struggle for survival. But since the environment cannot directly change organisms, we have a problem: 'natural selection' needs to somehow already have something to select for - it needs raw material! The whole theory of Darwinism therefore hinges on this question: can random genetic mutations, over long periods of time and in incremental steps, pitted against the environment, produce entirely novel, staggeringly complex systems from relatively primitive ones (which are themselves extremely complex)?
Let's hold on for a second and think about the words 'pitted against'. Darwin's creatures obviously have goals: namely survival and reproduction. I encourage you to think about what that means. Why do creatures want to survive? Does that even make sense in a materialist world? After all, the universe is supposed to be 'blind' - without goal or purpose. So where does this purpose of survival and reproduction come from? Why should the universe care about this or that molecular configuration 'surviving'? Why should the configuration itself care? Indeed, how can it, if it is just dead matter? We should always remember that Darwinism is an avatar for materialism. This is the motivation behind the vitriol Darwinians spew when you ask such questions. Their behavior, especially in online debates and 'comment wars', starts to make sense if we know what's really behind it: a worship of the materialistic, dead universe that, for some reason, they simply cannot renounce.
Random Mutation Doesn't Cut It
Back to our 'information problem'. Can random mutation and natural selection explain the creation of entirely new information?
Let's look at what exactly is postulated here. What kind of change can a 'random mutation' of anything produce? Remember that we are not talking about a skilled genetic engineer at work, we're not talking about consciousness (because that's not allowed). We're talking about change that happens, essentially, by pure luck (or bad luck). So to begin with, it is highly improbable that many genes could change simultaneously in a coordinated fashion, regardless of whether or not the change was beneficial. At best, a single part of the genetic code might change and produce an 'advantageous' (or disadvantageous) effect, or more than one part of the genetic code might change simultaneously, but completely independently of the other part.
The probability that more than one change would happen at the same time and produce a specifically advantageous effect is even more improbable, something like accurately predicting all the lotto numbers over and over and over again. So when talking about random mutation of genes, there is a far higher chance that the change will be disadvantageous, an evolutionary dead end. So for a beneficial change in a gene as a result of random mutation, you need VERY large numbers of such 'experiments' - that are extremely unlikely to happen even to begin with - for something useful to show up, which can then be 'naturally selected'.
But it gets worse: this entire process must, again, be repeated ad nauseam: because once a certain small, useful change manifests and enters the gene pool via natural selection, you need many, many more such changes on top of that to get anywhere useful from an evolutionary point of view. Just think about the difference between, say, a one-celled organism and a deer, and you begin to see why the intuition so many people have always had might be right: the numbers just don't add up; not even close. And it does Darwinians no good to invoke nebulous concepts such as 'Deep Time' to make the problem go away. (For reference, according to Wikipedia, the time it took for man to evolve from the great apes was 10 million years - that's just 5000 times the time from Christ to the present.)
Random Changes Degenerate Code
But the trouble for Darwin's theory runs even deeper. The question is: what effects, exactly, can theoretically be produced if a code is 'randomly changed'? Can random mutations produce a code that contains entirely new information - even if we allow unlimited consecutive mutations? If you put the question that way, the answer is obvious: no! Randomly changing a code is synonymous with degrading it - you lose information!
Some of the cleverer Darwinians recognize the problem. One strategy they use is to deny that the genetic code is really a code. In other words, they 'pull a Dawkins': no, rest assured, we don't really mean it when we talk about codes (or conscious genes plotting world domination, in Dawkins' case). In reality, this is all just billiard balls bouncing around randomly! We could, if we wanted, express all of this in non-code terms! Strangely enough though, biologists keep referring to the genetic code and keep treating it as such. They can't do otherwise, because it is a code.
Perforated paper for automatic pianos: try randomly changing that!
But let's assume that despite the fact that it looks like a duck etc. (heck, the genetic code literally has letters!), this really is just a bunch of molecules 'causing stuff' in a purely mechanical way. Say, like a piano where you randomly push a key and then a hammer hits the string, except that the process is more complicated and convoluted in the case of genetics.
Now imagine one of these automatic pianos from Western movies. You could say of course that this is just a mechanical process that translates holes in the perforated paper into hammers hitting strings. But the crucial thing here is that it's more than just that: the whole process produces a complex structure of an altogether different type. In this case: music! The reason is that the perforated paper driving the piano doesn't consist of 'random holes' or even simple patterns, but contains information. It codes for an end-product. And of course, just as with any code, if you 'randomly change' parts of the code (the holes representing notes), the information, and therefore the music, will degenerate. (Although, it must be said, given what passes today for art and music, perhaps Darwinians do have a point that random mutation can produce... something.)
But what about natural selection? Can it change the picture? After all, it's the core idea of Darwinism: it's where the needed information to create new lifeforms is supposed to come from. To stay with our analogy, could a step-by-step process of random mutation and blind application of a simple rule somehow change a children's song on our Western piano into a Beethoven symphony? The analogy gives us a clue about some of the many issues plaguing Darwinism:
Random alterations indeed degenerate code. They represent a loss of information. This is obvious in the case of sheet music - as well as in the case of any other code you could think of: text in a book, a computer program, Morse code, etc.
This also means that while you might have a lucky mutation that somehow makes the music better, this can only be because of a destruction of information - such as the deletion of a note, the breaking of a motive, etc. You cannot increase the information, such as adding a whole new segment based on an advanced composing technique such as developing a variation based on that initial, good-sounding deletion of a single note.
After each 'mutation', the song must be somehow better for it to be selected. That means you cannot reach a result that requires a step that makes the song worse temporarily - like changing a C to a C# before you change other notes as well.
You cannot go back - once a mutation is 'selected', this means the song somehow got better after the change; if you were to go back, the song would be worse again and therefore this back-change wouldn't be selected. So you are stuck with it, even though there might have been different changes that would have made the song even better - or different pathways to an even better end product!
Notice that just as with Darwinism, we required the choice to be made on the basis of very simple rules. No guiding hand, no anticipation of the end result, no planning is allowed. This means that the entire pathway from the children's song to the symphony needs to be 'random' but without the option of going back after each step - which makes it incredibly unlikely to materialize.
So common sense seems right: you cannot get from a children's song on a Western piano to a symphony by random changes, just as you cannot go from a single-celled organism to a deer based on random mutations. Only informed changes can do that. Only an intelligent mind can produce a complex, coherent symphony.
But it gets worse. The music analogy actually falls short - but not in Darwinism's favour. This is because impossible as the odds are even in that analogy, real 'natural selection' cannot even see (or hear) the new version of the song most of the time. Let's have a look at why that is.
There Is Nothing to Select For
One of the favorite sentences Darwinians use is 'this produced an advantage for the survival of the species and was therefore selected'. But think about it: how exactly does a small mutation, leading to a small improvement, help an organism survive? The problem here is that small improvements, or even large improvements to specific systems, don't necessarily translate to survival or more offspring in any straight-forward way.
Imagine for example that by some evolutionary process, you improve your eyesight by 5%. What are the odds that this will help you survive? It would require a very special situation where, let's say, a tiger is about to eat you but thanks to the small improvement, you see it a second earlier than you would have without the improvement, and the situation was precisely such that this difference of 5% in eyesight saved you. That's an extremely unlikely scenario. What's more, the small change in eyesight does nothing to protect you from freezing to death, breaking your leg and dying, or the innumerable other reasons you might not survive. So how, exactly, can natural selection 'select' this mutation when it does not clearly confer an advantage? Your chances of survival are only marginally better than your peers', and chances are you won't even encounter the situation in which the trait comes in handy. And that's assuming it is even possible for random mutation to produce a 5% improvement in eyesight in the first place.
How did the giraffe's long neck evolve? Despite wild speculations by Darwinians, the truth is: nobody has the slightest clue.
Or think of a giraffe: perhaps by some random mutation, the neck of one animal gets a tiny bit longer. Does this help it better reach its food? Maybe on some very rare occasions. But if it's a weak giraffe to boot, this won't help. And again, this won't help a bit against the myriad of other threats. How, then, should it 'pass on its genes' better than other giraffes?
All we ever get from Darwinians is wild speculation, often using misleading language such as 'giraffes needed to reach higher trees, therefore they evolved their long necks', as if the collective mind of the giraffe-species somehow decided it would be a good idea to 'evolve' a long neck. And perhaps that's really how it happens, who knows? But of course, this isn't at all what Darwinism proclaims. For a prime-example of the nonsensical drivel Darwinian thinking produces, read this article from the New Scientist about the giraffe's long necks, culminating in the 'explanation' that 'Girls like them long'. When you find yourself resorting to schoolyard humor to convince your audience, you know you are in the presence of 'high science'.
There might be some cases where such scenarios could work, but you get the point: a random mutation that miraculously produces something slightly beneficial and is then somehow magically preserved or 'selected' is massively improbable. A whole lot more needs to happen. The signal of the tiny piece of new information, should it even manifest, would be drowned out in a sea of noise: namely the vast majority of scenarios where this specific, tiny advantage doesn't help one bit.
Rather, the way variation and selection seems to work in cases like the giraffe is this: a population has a range of variation for a particular trait, e.g. beak size, in the case of Darwin's famous finches. New conditions favoring a long beak will cause those with beaks too short to die, and new generations will tend to have a larger number of these long beaks - because there are already enough individuals with the now optimal beak length. But nothing new has been created. New finch species might have smaller or larger beaks, but they all fall within the initial range. An abnormally long beak - or neck in the case of the giraffe - requires multiple additional new traits to make it work, and they must all come together at the same time. Naturally, this only compounds the problem described above.
Now, what does this all mean? Just this: that our initial argument is valid. There must be some kind of information coming from somewhere to explain how you get from no life to the first life form and from primitive life to the incredibly complex life forms we observe today. And however this works, it cannot work as Darwinism claims. This also means that materialism is in serious trouble: because materialists proclaim, after all, that the whole universe consists of nothing but dead matter floating around, obeying the physical laws but nothing else. In that view, there is no pre-existing information that could save the day; no plan, no purpose, no guidance, no intelligence, no infusion of information. Remember, to defend this position was the whole point of Darwinism! If Darwinism goes out of the window, so does materialism, unless someone can explain how a universe of dead matter obeying the natural laws can produce information in the form of a code. So far, no one has been able to do so, because it is physically and mathematically impossible.
Now, religious folks will be quick to claim that God is the answer. And that may be the case. But there are other options, including a view of the Cosmos as a living system where information reigns supreme. Where minds, not matter, are the real 'movers and shakers'. Or even where this distinction must be given up altogether: where matter is an active part of a greater mind and all is connected and mutually exchanging information. But let's stop here for the time being, and I hope to see you in the next part of this series!
Michael J. Behe: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Michael J. Behe: The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
Perry Marshall: Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
David Stove: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution
Luke joined the sott.net team in 2015. Based in Germany, he has a B.A. in philosophy and communication and runs a consultancy business.
genero81 · 2019-03-12T14:38:44Z
Nice Job Luke! Looking forward to the next installment.
Gaby · 2019-03-12T14:57:47Z
Great article! Darwinism is dead on arrival!
ge0m0 · 2019-03-12T15:24:26Z
a) The only known way to increase functional complexity in any system is through the infusion of information , which Darwinism cannot explain.
Are these a priori statements of fact? What is the basis for these statements?
I am no Darwinist, but those statements "seriously provike" me to think they are weak-sauce. Gotta do better than that.
Darwinists not only believe that their theory has proven that god does not exist - nonsensical as that idea, in and of itself, is - they simply cannot countenance the idea that there is something, anything, going on in the universe that is not explainable as, essentially, 'dead matter randomly floating around'.
While the Darwin's theory does lead one to posit that a strictly materialist view of the cosmos, the ID theory doesn't do much better. Both are cause-and-effect systems of thought. For me to give credence to any "creation" theory, such a theory would have to recognize the co-emergent nature of the cosmos: material and consciousness are analagous to electricity and magnetism. They cannot be separated. In the same way, the "designer" cannot be separated from the creation. No cause-and-effect involved. No change involved. The only so-called change is context. Eastern religions are much better at breaking the cause-and-effect trance of the western mind.
Gcarlin · 2019-03-12T21:16:53Z
ge0m0 Exactly! You can't say that ID is right because Darwinism is wrong. Both could be wrong. In the case of Darwinism, there are changes that come about when new things are discovered. I would err on the side of using science. In the article about behe I describe why he is so wrong about equating entropy with devolution, which the ID crowd loves to use :
"We don't know what entropy is intended for, it just is. Every reaction contributes to entropy. Even random number generators use a "guess" of entropy in order to come up with unique numbers. So I would say that entropy allows for uniqueness!"
Gcarlin Entropy came to mind for me as well. I think that is what is implied by the author as a "loss of information."
Darwin's creatures obviously have goals: namely survival and reproduction. I encourage you to think about what that means. Why do creatures want to survive? Does that even make sense in a materialist world? After all, the universe is supposed to be 'blind' - without goal or purpose. So where does this purpose of survival and reproduction come from? Why should the universe care about this or that molecular configuration 'surviving'? Why should the configuration itself care? Indeed, how can it, if it is just dead matter? We should always remember that Darwinism is an avatar for materialism.
Does the god of ID have motivations? What purpose would the ID god have in doing anything? Is such a god complete or incomplete? How can an incomplete god be a god at all? How can a complete god desire anything at all? How can there be anything at all without an underlying motivation for it?
What "motivates" electrons, photons, etc?
Is god atomic, cosmic, both, neither?
The only time I feel a sense of satisfaction while holding these questions in mind is when I am in a meditative state wherein there is no motivation for "me" to take any position seriously.
ge0m0 This whole idea of some higher intelligence basically negates the idea that intelligence develops. It's that mindf*&k of what came first: the chicken or the egg?
Of course you can say that intelligence created us, but what created that intelligence then?
TOUCHE! LOL
All I can say is that a lot of what is declared as proof for the paranormal/supernatural/etc is not actually testable and goes into trusting witnesses over actual footage/data.
There's plenty of articles here on sott that explained why we can't trust our own memories, why is that ignored when it comes to the paranormal?
ge0m0 Exactly, and you can only begin asking those questions once you leave the tunnel of Darwinian evolution.
Exactly, and you can only begin asking those questions once you leave the tunnel of Darwinian evolution.
Spoken like religion. Follow me in faith and the answers will come.
You seem like a smart person.
So riddle me this:
Why would you solve a riddle with another riddle?
Consciousness helped create consciousness. Do you not see the problem there? Who created the consciousness in the first place?
Maybe I refuse to downplay the billions of years of struggle that lead to the consciousness that I have now, with some stupid bullcrap about a consciousness that seeded consciousness. How are you any different than religion/new age nonsense?
Maybe to would be better to rephrase your question. Who is creating consciousness?
The statement in italics, you take as a given. How does that differ from religion/new age?
This can apply universally. For example. (Maybe I refuse to downplay the billions of years of struggle that lead to the consciousness that I have now, ) Where is the footage and data to support this claim?
(You don't need intent to progress. A bunch of gas eventually becomes a galaxy by gravity alone.) Where is the footage and data to support this claim?
The materialist seems to separate the observer from the field, in spatial terms, and via 'time'. A statement analysis of the pronouncements could perceive a subconscious drive to separate the materialist from a crime. Most interesting.
Joe: If something appears to specifically design itself to survive, then that suggests that there is some kind of "intent" involved. Maybe you should try applying your analysis of how life survives to yourself. Do you survive "just because you survive"? Is it random? For example, if you walk out onto a road and car comes speeding towards you, do your survive or not "just because", i.e. by random chance, or do you have some input into the outcome?
Gcarlin: Cognitive science says your subconscious mind decides in that road situation and if you survive, the conscious mind creates a story to fill in the blanks.
So, the subconscious mind was responsible for the input then? That is not only dodging the car in this scenario, it is dodging the question!
Cognitive science also says (multi store model, MSM) of memory that information coded in the sensory register, SR, i.e, echoic store, iconic store, haptic store, olfactory store, and the gustatory store is directed by the central executive (the working memory model, WMM) to the short term memory, STM, and is selective what information is attended to. The MSM sees the system comprising the SR, STM, and long term memory, LTM. Information stored in the LTM passes from the SR, and STM! , How the information was coded when stored, will determine how easy, or not, recall is from the LTM, retrieval cues, etc. The WMM expands on the MSM model by introducing the Central executive, CE, the phonological loop, PL, the Visuo-spatial sketchpad, VSS, and later, the Episodic buffer, EB. For example, information stored and coded in the LTM is mainly Semantic, the STM mainly acoustic, and so on. Memory is then subdivided into STM, and LTM. LTM is further subdivided into Conscious (explicit), and Subconscious (implicit). From there, LTM is further subdivided from (implicit),i.e, Subconscious, to procedural memory, i.e, the performance of actions. The LTM from (explicit), i.e, Conscious, is further subdivided into Episodic memory, i.e, personal events, and context, and Semantic memory, i.e, general knowledge and worldview. Point is, i took a rather long winded approach to try get an answer from you regarding Joe's question above, which, in my opinion, you have avoided answering.
you lose information
Hmmmm. Where does the information go?
Look at it like a geologic formation seen in a roadway cut. You can see layers of rock that seem to be orderly, then out of nowhere a "discontinuity" throws the pattern off. Maybe a fault line, or some erosion process, or any number of other, geologic processes are in play, and there seems to be a loss of information because the pattern is now scrambled. But the information is still there, you just have to look differently for it, and it may not be in a state that is usable anymore, but it's not lost .
Animals that Defy Evolution - first one is the Bombardier Beetle, second one is the Giraffe - [Link]
e.g. how does a giraffe drink water without exploding its head .. how does it get up quickly without blacking out ... all ID, not evolution
Dus7 · 2019-03-12T18:25:50Z
the time-honoured practice of erecting straw-men
is honored in this piece, too, lol. There are (here and always) multiple examples of characterizing 'Darwinists' as believing this, that, and the other, then arguing how wrong they always are.
Forget Darwin since a number of people considered evolution before (and after) he did, but let's address the theory of evolution! Where it doesn't seem to cover everything we're discovering about complex biology, let's investigate why - without trying to completely trash the idea in order to substitute some pet hobbyhorse idea that's much worse.
If someone wrote articles that were really about biological 'design', I could read and respect that. Instead, it's always 'Darwinists Are Wrong! Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!' which comes across as ankle-nippingly spiteful and embarrassingly immature.
Amazing how SOTT keeps doing this, daily. If I became an editor, could I write or promote daily pieces about pink elephants or aliens or whatever I personally like while expounding on how extremely foolish it is not to see it my way? Or maybe Dawson or someone treated an editor rudely at some point? There's a vendetta aura to all this. SOTT properly examines campaigns supporting climate change, non-smoking, over-immunization, political tomfoolery, and many more issues that need our attention, but its endless attacks on evolution are strange and really insupportable. Reporting controversy is one thing, encouraging it is quite another.
Dus7 Well stated.
Rincewind · 2019-03-12T19:28:19Z
@Dus7...The theory of evolution explains absolutely nothing about what the basic sciences are uncovering. It has been disproven over and over again by fossil and genetic evidence, but it makes for a nice narrative for guys like you who like to think about themselves as being rationalists.
And please tell us where he reported on the postulates of the Theory inaccurately.
luke · 2019-03-12T19:42:30Z
Dus7
There are (here and always) multiple examples of characterizing 'Darwinists' as believing this, that, and the other, then arguing how wrong they always are.
Because they are. What's your point?
Forget Darwin since a number of people considered evolution before (and after) he did, but let's address the theory of evolution!
Did you understand the argument? No problem with evolution, as long as there is additional information brought in. The question is how to explain the emergence of this information. Darwinism cannot. If you have another theory - great!
Where it doesn't seem to cover everything we're discovering about complex biology, let's investigate why - without trying to completely trash the idea in order to substitute some pet hobbyhorse idea that's much worse.
The old "God of the gaps" argument... Only problem is that the more we learn about biology, the less mechanistic evolution makes sense. Yes, let's investigate why - and so far, everything points to a non-materialist explanation: because the information to build complex systems must come from somewhere, or else be "precoded" in its entirety at the very beginning.
Joe · 2019-03-12T20:27:16Z
Is saying that something is "always" a straw man or a logical fallacy? It's one of the other. The reason Darwinism has to be attacked is because of its unmerited standing as the unassailable truth. How else do you suggest that any other theory might get a fair hearing at the court of Darwinism if not by first exposing the fact that the emperor has no clothes?
Joe Good point, science as practiced today (politically and economically driven) is indeed the biggest obstacle to science.
However, why is there a quick leap of faith to the intelligent design hypothesis?
Way back, science could explain machines- but it was weird that these people that worked with glowing rocks started dying. ID is like saying that they died because those glowing rocks were "evil".
How about we say that an incomplete theory such as Darwinism needs time to develop into what actually is true, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water and jumping into another guess that pretty much contradicts itself.
Main contradiction: If there is an intelligence out there that created, what created it? What if you stopped looking at order as the source of order and realize that consciousness is pretty much a result of "chaos" or entropy. If the creator came from chaos, and we were created by the creator, then we're robots- while the creator was "naturally born".
So ID tells me that we're robots then, and the only real natural consciousness is the creator. SORRY but f' your religion and f' your god in that case.
Darwinism is not incomplete, theres nothing to improve there. It's just plain wrong and entirely at odds with reality.
And, George, your writing clearly shows that you understand nothing about ID. And it's obviously not because you're stupid, but because you are a diehard materialist who doesn't want look at reality objectively.
Objective means repeatable experiment. Objective means measurable. Objective means that to 50 people, it happens as it does in reality.
You can't be telling me that ID is objective because it tries to fill a hole in current theory.
In that case, you might as well say that way back when people thought lightning came from Zeus or Thor, this was somehow objective.
ID does not fill a hole in the theory, it proposes an entirely different perspective. Darwin himself said that for his theory to be proven, a preponderance of fossils of transitional forms must be found. None were ever found in almost two centuries. ID, as opposed to Darwinism, does not feign to be the be all end all of scientific enquiry, it merely states that, according to the evidence, some sort of intelligence had to have had an influence on the evolution of species.
Gcarlin ID doesn't say anything about "glowing rocks". Darwinism isn't incomplete, it's fundamentally flawed in that it cannot explain how complex life evolved, and that's not just theoretically but from Darwin's specific explanation of how complex life evolved, i.e. through 'genetic mutation', which has unfortunately been shown to be incapable of producing genetic improvements and therefore more complex functional organisms.
As for the "contradiction", there is none. ID (like Darwinism) does not attempt to explain how life began, it explains how life proceeded. The question of how life began is a separate one, and almost by definition falls into the category of philosophy or religious belief.
Rincewind
ID, as opposed to Darwinism, does not feign to be the be all end all of scientific enquiry, it merely states that, according to the evidence, some sort of intelligence had to have had an influence on the evolution of species.
Indeed. "We" are that intelligence. After I posted my critiques of the article (not pro-Darwin or con-ID critiques, just what I thought were points that had not been considered in the article..and I am most definitely not a "materialist"...just sayin'), I thought about it some more. The concept of the "preceptor" came to mind. Such a perceptor, in a spiritual sense perhaps a yogi or mystic, is said to have perspective that we do not. All the information available to them is available to us, but they aggregate the information in such a way that it is usable as knowledge . When I once asked such a perceptor what is the nature of such a being, the reply was "living knowledge." So, that intelligence, that ability to transform information into knowledge, is infused into life itself, as the cosmos.
So, certainly not dead-matter-Darwinism, and even better than ID-by-whom-or what, is that the cosmos, the whole of it, is alive and intelligent. And, as it appears to follow some rules, such that design of some kind is implied, there is somehow a principle of congruence that makes it all intelligible. The intelligence speaks to itself in such a way that it must understand. Intelligence could not do otherwise. And it can't be dead.
Joe ID doesn't say anything about "glowing rocks".
I was using glowing rocks as an example of how crude belief systems such as ID develop when there is no science to explain it at the time.
Maybe you should reread the comment to get the picture.
An all-too-common, and unacknowledged by most folks conscious minds, is the human tendency to anthropomorphize* all things, both living, (e.g., dogs, birds, et al.) and 'dead'/inanimate (a car; a mountain); and also possibly living things (llike God) - see Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel.
I dare say that if there be a 'god', (s)he would be quite beyond any human's ability of comprehension.
Just because our species seems to be the biggest baddest frog on this planet,it's still a tiny pond, nay, a drop . What we call a macrocosm, is most likely a microcosm.
*I love how with SOTTfolk, one can discuss terms like that in a normal conversation. If you were expecting a definition here, you were wrong.
Rowan Cocoan "I think therefore I am" ... Leeches have 32 brains, do they think they are 32 individuals - [Link]
The individual sets oneself apart from the macrocosm and has to try to deny or find "God" - but it's only the one brain and the biological unit that it inhabits that creates the illusion of separation
Our perception of what we are is an illusion - aka Maya
Oh, thanks for feeding my ego by reminding me that I know what anthropomorphize means. Jeez, I think we learned what that means in 7th grade or something. But then again, your presidents speak at a 2nd grade level, so I guess it is a big deal in the land of the free.
HashAttack2 Well, one can assume that leeches don't 'think', they just 'do'. There's an argument that mammals can think, feel, and enjoy some self-awareness, dunno about reptiles, but certainly not worms.
As for separateness and a human sense of individuality, I'm fascinated by the idea of a 'global mind' or 'shared consciousness', but there's definitely an unconnected aspect that cannot be denied. I may 'feel' your pain with my empathy, but I don't actually sense your physical discomfort. We may be 'all in this together', but we always retain the option for individual choices.
We perceive 'reality' through our brains' interpretation of whatever's out there. It's only an illusion when it misinterprets our sensory input. Often having insufficient data or proof of anything, we are wont to plug in a 'plausible' explanations, like chariots pulling the sun across the sky, the earth being flat, or the 'devine' designing and deciding things.
Not to go on about this, but I do think humankind is in the state of adoloscence, knowing quite a lot compared to childhood but prone to believing our emotions are important!, and alternately acting both childish and mature.
LindaMay ·
Rincewind You write: " Oh, thanks for feeding my ego by reminding me that I know what anthropomorphize means. Jeez, I think we learned what that means in 7th grade or something. But then again, your presidents speak at a 2nd grade level, so I guess it is a big deal in the land of the free."
I could atomize your words which reveal your seriously skewed thinking, e.g.., your prototypical disinformation tactic/'affirming the consequent' conclusion that because I'm an American, you assume I approve of our idiot presidents, or believe that this is the 'land of the free', etc. but shall not as not worth the time.
Re: "thanks for feeding my ego by reminding me that I know what anthropomorphize means"; fear not! For:
1) I was expressly 'speaking' to SOTTfolk (which, by definition, includes SOTTites) ; AND NOT TO YOU; , and,
2) I would never do such - feed your ego - for it quite apparently could hardly stand another calorie before it explodes.
(Then again, I hear that where you're from there's an ego obesity epidemic - which by your 'logic' (sic) applies to you - and quite apparently, from your postS, you're near or on the very pinnacle of that massive pile of the porcine flesh of self-anointed trolls.)
(I'd Insert a F*** Off! emoji, et al., here; - I am stuck with merely this: - and I'd also say it to your face, in a heartbeat.)
Technically we have 2 brains, linked by a relatively weak corpus callosum. Guess what happens when you cut that corpus callosum? Each hemisphere makes up a story to explain why it thinks a way- to fill in the blanks that it cannot understand.
If you want to go further with your analogy, we have way more than 2 brains. We have many centers that do different tasks and try to unify a 'narrative'. Give the human brain a hallucinogen or traumatic experience and it will see what it wants to see to explain why it sensed/thought/felt a certain way.
Illusion of separation.... separation from what? What I describe above which is a tested characteristic of altered states explains that even the idea of a unified perception could very well be a delusion.
Hey, these same presidents and politicians that speak at a 2nd grade level believe that jesus or some god created things. Give them some credit for selling this story so widely!
Gcarlin The 32 brains/2 brains analogy etc. is the effort of HashAttack2, in a reply to my post.
I dare say that HA2 would agree with me that your point should be directed to HA2.
Gcarlin "Hey, these same presidents and politicians that speak at a 2nd grade level believe that jesus or some god created things. Give them some credit for selling this story so widely!"
Point of sarcasm well taken.
Dus7 The real illusion is that intelligence existed before getting to that point. It's the chicken or the egg argument on a deeper level.
My biggest gripe about the idea of a shared consciousness is that you could say the same about any group that is forced to follow a common narrative: The nature of uniqueness that comes from entropy is destroyed once you consider the idea of a group consciousness. Maybe on the level of plant life or insects, there is a group consciousness network, but the more individual consciousness becomes (aka more intelligent- more apparent "free will") there would be less of such grouping.
So why is there this push for an idea that is ages old, that somehow god runs the show and we're some kind of soul that knew a lot but chose to come here and live in restricted consciousness. Sounds a bit contradictory.
We do perceive with our brains and those OBE/NDE stories contradict themselves.
So, they claimed that it MUST BE REAL, because of no brain activity on EEG. Fine, let's assume that, so then how were the memories recorded in that same dead brain?
Happens to be that EEG's have a threshold of what they can sense, so you can see zero, but there still could be activity.
Sott has plenty of cool articles on how the brain does fancy tricks to fool itself with stories that fill in the blanks. How come this same site ignores that when it comes to consciousness experimentation? Even if the brain was dead for X minutes, what says the brain didn't construct a story in the short time when it came back 'online' to explain why time was missing? Missing time stories are a common thing in trauma/ptsd. But why is it proof of the afterlife when the trauma itself is death? Consciousness does funny things, including inventing stories. So how about we apply real science to consciousness and intelligence instead of act like GWB and force "you're with us or against us". Sorry religion and psychopaths have used that argument time and time again in order to force a decision. I will gladly face death not knowing what lies beyond, instead of accept some assumption because my brain anticipates a reward for being conscious.
Dear God RC. I know that sarcasm and irony translate poorly in writing, but your response sounds like a triggered snowflake. Your comment just sounded like congratulating yourself and praising others for knowing a word, and not a particularly obscure one at that. I never meant to imply that you support any of your idiot presidents or that you think that USA is the land of the free. PS. My ego is doing fine, thanks (kept in check).
Also RC, I am a SOTTie as you say (been here for 15 years I think), unless you have a specific sort of person in mind when you use that term. Maybe someone that follows you around high fiving you for every comment you make?
Rincewind So, sire, do you, or do you not, agree, with this simple proposition:
That your comment replying to mine was locigally fallacious, as I pointed out?
If not, please explain.
If so, then why? Why not use logic and fair anaylsis?
Rowan Cocoan "sir'
sorry! It's this crappy reply mechanism. It quotes the first but not the second quote.
Again, you have inferred something that wasn't there. I had no intention of saying that you are a dumb American who supports Trump and believes that Murica is bestest. I was being flip about that. My comment was just trying to point out how silly your side note on the word "anthropomorphize" sounded.
Mandatory Intellectomy · 2019-03-13T12:08:09Z
Accusing sarcasm of being logically fallacious? How does that even work...
LindaMay · 2019-03-13T13:48:53Z
Let me R.C.
To rincey, encore
Hifiving rincey
rince.... you remember Sheepdove? Theowhatever? What was your name back then? .... got kicked off????
HashAttack2 on Maya and Ishvara...
Brahman who is existence, consciousness and infinity is the Reality. Its being Ishvara (the Omniscient Lord of the world) and Jiva (the individual soul) are (mere) superimpositions by the two illusory adjuncts (Maya and Avidya, respectively).
There is a power (called Maya) of this Ishvara which controls everything. It informs all objects from the bliss sheath (to the physical body and the external world).
Panachadashi III.37-38
Ishvara is endowed with the power of Maya which is the power of manifesting and de-manifesting, so the objections to the theory that creation has a beginning or that it is evolutionary or that things are naturally endowed with certain special qualities do not apply to it.
Ishvara through the Tamas of Maya is the cause of the inanimate objects and through the reflection of the supreme intelligence Ishvara is the cause of the Jivas
Panachadashi VI.186-187
Lots more food for thought in the rest of the Panchadashi text. It's ancient Vedic philosophy, which I find very complete once the various cultural trappings are understood. Panchadashi does a good job of explaining the various Vedic terminology, and in particular does the best job I've read of compiling a theory of creation and evolution with few holes. It's quite an enlightening text and was recommended to me by a Himalayan yogi who maybe got tired of my questions;-)
Gcarlin As above so below. You can't separate consciousness from matter any more than you can separate electricity from magnetism. Neither causes the other. Why do folks find it so necessary to pick sides.
Just because I like chocolate, doesn't mean I have to vilify vanilla.
@LM...Sheepdove? Haha. I have no idea what you're talking about. I had a few different handles here, couldn't log in so I made a new account. I did get banned as Revolucionar for criticizing Sott's stance on Yugoslavia, though. Talk about free speech.
ge0m0 thanks Gem ...
Whoever knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe
One of my favourite books is "World within the mind" by HP Shastri - [Link] / [Link]
The book is translated extracts from Yoga Vasishtha ... he also did a translation of Panchadashi
If I became a devotee, I would take the name Atman Das
ge0m0 GCarlin asked - "Illusion of separation.... separation from what?"
Separation of Atman from Brahman explains my position in full ... I have no idea how to express it in Western terms
Rince, i have a yugoslavia story to tell too. 1986. Those border guards were downright vicious. 4am... SUBJECTing all sorts of tired travelling souls to empty out their belongings from their VW vans etc onto the pavement... standing by and mocking them. Old folks just terrorized.
I always wondered why they left me alone.... maybe they knew i was a wildkat.
When we finally went on our way... i told them... 'i'd watch my behind...'
Well... you know it didnt take long.
MFers
Rince i remember that name. We werent buddies then either
GaryN · 2019-03-12T20:29:14Z
Thermal self assembly can not explain the creation of complex life, therefore it must be a guided self assembly, but what can be doing the guiding? The ancients knew, it is the Sun! And how does the Sun do that? The neutrino.
"The number of bits of information that neutrino light can then carry is effectively infinite. That is, it is a quantized infinity! Surely enough bandwidth to carry information describing all life forms of the universe."
From a patent by Robert W. Beckwith[Link]
Highland Fleet Lute · 2019-03-13T09:49:35Z
GaryN Rupert Sheldrake - Is The Sun Conscious?....[Link]
Highland Fleet Lute Cool link. Sheldrake is such a clear thinker. On a personal note, I read an account whereby a person claimed to have a direct, personal encounter with the "Presence" of the Sun. It inspired that person to change her English name to Surya and write a book titled "Call of the Sun."
Some ten years later, after a meeting with the same yogi who inspired her book, I had a similar personal encounter with the "Presence" of the Sun, though some would say it was all in my mind. I don't entirely disagree with them;-)
cracker ·
32 brains amazing
JoeThreeBlah · 2019-03-12T21:36:30Z
This is dumb. If something survives, it survives. It doesn't have to "want" to survive. Lol
You definately sound like classic George Carlin here. He was great at pointing out complicated things as something contradictory. Meanwhile, I was up there debating with philosophy of mind and all that crap, haha.
JoeThreeBlah If something appears to specifically design itself to survive, then that suggests that there is some kind of "intent" involved. Maybe you should try applying your analysis of how life survives to yourself. Do you survive "just because you survive"? Is it random? For example, if you walk out onto a road and car comes speeding towards you, do your survive or not "just because", i.e. by random chance, or do you have some input into the outcome?
Cognitive science says your subconscious mind decides in that road situation and if you survive, the conscious mind creates a story to fill in the blanks.
So why did your subconcious mind decide to dodge. Why does it care if you live or die?
Do you need an answer for that? Anything that is, wants to be. The problem is that at our point of consciousness, people like Joe think that there's some higher rational choice to survive, when it is inherent even in plants that can't "think".
Instead they try to push the idea that something intelligent is what made us intelligent. Lol, so who the heck made that intelligence? You can't use circular reasoning and ignore the basics, just because evolution has unanswered questions.
Oh my... Trees have green leafs in summer because they just have green leafs in summer. Lol
How about finding out how and why? What creates self-replicating survival machines? The natural laws? Do they want it to survive? How do they do that? What's your theory?
luke I get what Gcarlin is pointing at. Basically the same thing I've tried to say.
Green leaves on trees and summer are co-emergent phenomena. They don't have to want to be there to be there.
Sometimes I lament, "Why do I have to suffer this mortal coil? I didn't ask for it!"
Alas, the inherent suffering of life (ala Gautama Buddha) is co-emergent with the acceptance of it.
Gcarlin "wants to be" implies intent. There is no intent in Darwinism. Plants are aware, btw.
Joe schmoe said:
You're really not getting it Joe.
You don't need intent to progress. A bunch of gas eventually becomes a galaxy by gravity alone.
Plants are indeed aware. They are aware because it helps them survive.
As I responded earlier:
"riddle me this:
Maybe I refuse to downplay the billions of years of struggle that lead to the consciousness that I have now, with some stupid bullcrap about a consciousness that seeded consciousness. How are you any different than religion/new age nonsense?"
Mr Reynard · 2019-03-13T03:59:48Z
We in the west,can't STOP of making stupid people famous ??
Moron of XIX Century.. C Darwin ...
Moron of XX Century A Einstein ..... (Aber Zweistein ist besser )
But the forgotten genius Nicholas Tesla, name was suppressed ?? Wonder why ??
MSimon · 2019-03-13T08:40:34Z
800 years of natural selection and what do you get?
Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence - pdf
Nicola Tesla left out the R in RLC circuits. That is where the "free energy" comes from.
You would know this if you were technically inclined and read his books.
Cascadian · 2019-03-13T09:11:06Z
A subtle, perhaps you missed it, point regarding scientific "proof".
THERE IS NO SUCH THING - scientific theories don't seek to prove anything. Evidence gathered and analysed is then used to deduce and propose a model (a theory) which matches those observations. The model is then used to predict the result of further observations - if the evidence gathered from those observations matches the the predictions then the gathered evidence is said to corroborate the theory. If the evidence gathered does not match predictions made by the model, then the model is either adjusted or (in mild cases) restricted in the scope of its application (e.g. Newtons theory of gravity vs Einsteins General Relativity, Classical Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics), or (in extreme cases) abandoned.
Note the theme, THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!
One the other hand ID seeks to PROVE.
You missed the point Mr. Baier.
Cascadian Note the theme, THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!
Yeah. That's all I was trying to impart was that in spite of Darwinisms obvious failings, ID has it's own problems and my intention (survival instinct, aka wanting enough high-fives to feel like I could go on living) was to simply show that there are many, many questions about ID that have not been satisfactorily resolved.
ge0m0 In reference to ID - Mr. Baier mentions Paley's argument. Given that Paley, and now Mr. Baier, take the argument as stunning evidence for ID, let us examine it. The human eye: an example of intelligent design? Perhaps, but very bad engineering, the data collection cables (nerves) are run in front of the sensing devices (rods and cones). But, we may not be the apple of God's eye, because birds eyes are clearly built with more insight (the cables run behind the sensors, thus giving sharper and more acute vision).
But perhaps that's not enough - what clown would design the prostate so that the urethra runs right through the middle of it instead of to one side (which would then avoid the urination problems that result from an enlarged prostate).
There may be a God, I don't believe there is, but, as an engineer, he sucks. And he really wants us to worship such a clown?
Thanks for your other post too.
But yeah, if there was an intelligent designer, he/she/it is a ducking lazy moron.
Cascadian The "idea" of an intelligent designer co-emerges with the "idea" of the design. They are inseparable.
Material co-emerges with the notion that such emergence was caused. It was not. It just is.
The idea of causation is what gets all this mess starting in the first place.
The question and the answer co-emerge. The only way to ask the right question is to already know the answer.
Gcarlin Your comments are the best argument for the absence of an intelligent designer.
hkoehli · 2019-03-14T15:37:12Z
Joe Since ge0m0 won't read it, anyone else with interest should check out Behe's latest book, Darwin Devolves, where he responds to some of the points made above. It's funny how folks like go0m0 argue against ID using theological arguments, as if they know what a higher intelligence would or wouldn't do, let alone what such an intelligence COULD or COULDN'T do. As far as I can tell, most arguments from 'bad design' are arguments from ignorance ("I can't see why it should be this way, and not that way, so it must be a mistake"). But even if they are right on some examples, bad design is still DESIGN. And when a new functional protein form requiring just 2 targeted point mutations is astronomically improbable, you've gotta wonder how neo-Darwinists can be so confident in the powers of random mutation and natural selection.
Playing with definitions of science is just a irrelevant side shows here. The article argues why a) Darwinism simply cannot possibly be true and b) why additional information must be part of evolution. You can attack the arguments made if you like, but just saying "it's unscientific" or "it sets out to prove something when proof is impossible" etc. doesn't cut it, sorry. Talk about missing the point!
Thanks. You explain to me how some kind of intelligence comes and creates a half assed system that leads to war/destruction and so on.
I'm sick of flat earthers, IDers, and so on putting a bad name on those of us that have legit doubts.
I don't think darwin's theories are complete. But as cascadian previously posted, a theory is a model, not a proof. You can read all the Behe you want, but all Behe does is mix up what entropy is in relation to devolution. Despite this idea that entropy leads to "chaos" it is not that juvenile. It's actually the same thing that is used by random number generators that give UNIQUENESS.
What I see believers like you, etc show is that the idea of a creator negates the idea that work had to be done to get to the point of consciousness. You are just throwing another loop to justify that you are somehow special for being created.
What we know is that feeling special is the same reason why we have groups on earth that do black magic, white magic, whatever- in order to help their "tribe" at the cost of everyone else. That same thing goes for the atheist transhumanists... who are as scummy as believers such as you and Behe.
hkoehli (this site is retarded as I can't have more than one quote here)
You're doing what the atheists and religious people do, by lumping any doubter as a that, or a this.
Behe is nowhere correct on his delusion about entropy. Go read about what entropy is and you will realize that is the mathematical explanation for uniqueness, in random and prime numbers. Maybe you can ask a mathematician at how important prime numbers/random numbers are in the frame of things.
Where you criticize ge0m0 about doubting what it could not do, Behe and other ID people, doubt that probability of billions, or even relatively- infinite chances COULD and HAVE lead to where we are. If not us, lead to creating this supposed intelligence that created intelligence. Pfft, I HATE CIRCULAR REASONING AND RECURSION. You religious people love that crap because it takes away the magic of life- that given enough time, LIFE HAPPENS. No god or whatever idiot designer /intelligence needed.
Gcarlin
given enough time, LIFE HAPPENS. No god or whatever idiot designer /intelligence needed.
Well, I'm still waiting for ANYONE to explain how "life happens" by means of Darwinism. Nobody has ever been able to explain that.
Life happens, yes. It's just impossible for it to "happen" by means of Darwinian progression.
(PS: I don't really give a shit about ID, so don't even mention it. I just see that Darwinism can not explain things it claims to explain.)
Nicola Tesla was an idiot who wanted to destroy all microbes. That's not the only kind of idiot he was either.
codis · 2019-03-13T10:07:33Z
Highland Fleet Lute Some source ?
But it would match my experience that "geniuses" of one field tend to be total ignorants in other fields. And don't realize what fools they make of themselves.
The guy who invented alternating current, radio and wireless, and is probably the single most important human being for the development of modern civilization is an idiot? How about you get off your computer and go live in the 18th century? If Nikola Tesla is an idiot then you are a brainless maggot who somehow learned to write.
By calling Tesla an idiot, I'm assuming you want to say you're smarter than Tesla was? Or do you admit you're an even bigger idiot? I mean, if you are smarter, I'm expecting some great things.
Rincewind "The guy who invented alternating current, radio and wireless."
Natural electricity, geo-electricity, solar electricity is 'direct current'.
'Alternating current' is pulsed electricity. Not good. Nikola Tesla is pretty much the guy who, in the 20th century, invented cancer.
Irresponsible idiot....[Link]
Tesla worshippers tend to be weak, unquestioning, absent-daddy-saviour fetishists.
He was in love with a bird, thought she was his soul mate or some thing...
He also didn't invent free energy. He invented a way to transmit and receive energy but apparently all his followers think otherwise. I always tell them that if it's doable, why can't we do it with the materials we have now...?
Gcarlin Wait 'til the smart city programmes are fully up and running.
We'll see how much dumb-ass Nikola Tesla cultists end up loving dumb-ass Nikola Tesla.
HFL, turn off your electricuty immediately since it's AC. Without AC, there would be no universally available power. AC causes cancer? What a numpty.
Actually, who says it even evolved? Evolved from what? What was the giraffe before it was a giraffe? Nobody has the slightest clue.
Mandatory Intellectomy For a giraffe to survive with such a long neck, it needs to simultaneously develop several other processes
It had to create special valves to prevent blood rushing to its head when it drink and another trick to prevent blacking out when it lifts its head up ....
The giraffe is an example of an animal the defies evolution as the working version needs several inter-dependent components
Until all those components were fully developed, any giraffe with any part modification would have died
Hash, you are wrongly assuming that this giraffe always had a neck that was this long... It progressed with time...
HashAttack2 How does any of that relate to what I said? Where is the evidence that giraffes ever had short necks and "evolved" to have long ones?
Also, unlike other animals, the giraffe cannot reach the ground with its head without spreading its front legs, so one might argue it actually has a short neck in proportion to the rest of its body.
Mandatory Intellectomy you said "Actually, who says it even evolved? Evolved from what ..."
I was merely stating (in agreement?) that evolution cannot justify the existence of the giraffe
A giraffe's long neck gets the top fruit. Easy!
Boottosser6000 · 2019-03-13T17:27:17Z
Good freaking grief.
If there was a group that could contend with flat-earthers for the title of most inbred, low IQ, useless air breathers you Intelligent design tossers win the prize. I can't think of one other group that has had more success in putting a spoke in humanity's wheel of progress than you lot.
You have zero concept of how evolution work, how fossils work, how much time actually passes in each era of history or posses one iota of fundamental understanding of biological difference between species and their rate of reproduction. But that is what happens when you get your entire knowledge from a book written by stone age peasants living in cages and barns while dreaming of floating naked into space while the world burns. Your lack of scientific drive and your laziness is so massive, that anything you see around you that you can't understand, you just assign off as the work of an all powerful, invisible being and call it a day.
Five hundred years ago, you lot would have been the ones who burnt books and people for daring to question the lies and falsehoods of your religion.
Today you just hold the rest of humanity back.
Tomorrow, with luck, you will all be gone.
Boottosser6000 I think you got that the wrong way around ...
Are you seriously proposing that one either believes in Darwin or believes in Judaic scripture (or do you also think the Upanishads were also written by cave men)
Humanity's wheel of progress can only roll along if we all have faith and believe that random mutations will see us alright
I'm glad I do not feel the urge to make such "intelligent" comments
No, Boot, you are the one that doesn't understand evolutionary theory. Your comment shows it clearly.
Boottosser6000 Do you actually have a valid argument or just name-calling and unfounded and sweeping generalizations?
It's interesting to see how we're herded into Darwinist talking points. The main question about giraffes should be: Where are the intermediary forms? Show me a fossil of a short-er necked giraffe, nay, show me 10 fossils with progressively longer necks, and I will believe that the neck got gradually longer. There are NO such fossils, not for ANY other species we can think of, either.
Rincewind The Bombardier Beetle seems an even better example to work with
Playing with explosives is not going to assist evolution until the whole process is fully designed and debugged
Its never going to happen via random steps
I think some people are missing the concept ...
I f a object has to be built from two or more fully functional sub-assemblies, which have to be interactive and are interdependent, and any non-compatibility in the design will lead to death, how does random mutations achieve this
There cannot be any intermediate steps and the lineage dies instantly
Rincewind ·
Interesting to see how some people look at some of the things that nature do, (eg. like "darwinism", "plain nature things", or whatever);
It, (Darwinism), is philosophically wrong , because...
Well, humans may have some kind of philosophy, but do "nature"?
It is scientifically wrong , because the more science progresses (the more we discover about molecular biology, for example), the more Darwinism loses the little plausibility it had left.
My cat's shit makes more sence ;-)
It is morally wrong...
What has (human) "moral" to do with things found in nature?
Brakar, I think I learned a good lesson here. You can't have a discussion with someone that knows the answers already if you are questioning and still open to what may be.
The spiritual/religious mindset has been shown in tribes and modern day to be a variation of schizophrenia. With the "benefit" of feeling right, anything you say can and will be used against you, unlike the Miranda law.
I give up, how about you ID people who believe in god(s) ask that idiot engineer to haunt me. I'm down for some entertainment! Bring it... Cause you guys are the one who claim psi is real, magic, and so on. Teach me a lesson!
Brakar Humans are found in nature. Humans came up with Darwinism in its various forms. Humans believe in Darwinism to varying degrees. Darwinism affects their actions as a result. Darwinism thus has moral implications. Unless you are denying morality even in the realm of humanity (which again, is a part of nature), in which case, perhaps the materialism of Darwinism has too strong a hold on your psyche. Which would just prove the point.
Hkeohli said
Humans are found in nature. Humans came up with Religion/Spirituality in its various forms. Humans believe in Religion/Spirituality to varying degrees. Religion/Spirituality affects their actions as a result.Religion/Spirituality thus has moral implications. Unless you are denying morality even in the realm of humanity (which again, is a part of nature), in which case, perhaps the subjectivity of Religion/Spirituality has too strong a hold on your psyche. Which would just prove the point.
You never made a point by my example, both atheism and spirituality are lost in their own need to feel "special".
Atheists feel special because they existed to this point. (no its not a miracle)
Spiritual people feel special because they are somehow this part of a creator (no you aren't).
Non anticipation means we should stop ASSuming and start saying that there's no proof either way. You can't negate darwinism just because it's wrong. ITS A FREAKING THEORY, not a proof. But you come here with proof? Go home.
Gcarlin "You can't negate darwinism just because it's wrong."
Read that again, slowly.
It's rather funny (and sad) to watch how the die-hard materialists here are ranting in precisely the way the article predicted. They can't formulate their philosophy coherently, because they don't even know they have a philosophy! And it's further proof that Darwinism is, indeed, an avatar for materialism.
I wonder what's so terrifying about the idea that there's a whole lot we don't know about the cosmos yet, that things might turn out to be very different from the current scientific dogma? The ID argument says nothing about God or magic or whatever. Just that there is some kind of mind involved in evolution. Perhaps the "natural laws" are just more complex than we thought and represent something more akin to a mind? Maybe time and space are not as clear-cut as we think? Maybe there's more to consciousness than we think? Maybe the material universe is connected to consciousness in interesting ways? So many possibilities and so much to find out - if you're curious and even want to find out, that is.
luke They abhor suggestions of a higher power. It brings on fear of 'loss of freedom'. They don't yet realize they have none. So what is it they're afraid of losing? Something illusory anyway.
It reminds me of liberal-democrats' terror of 'authoritarian regimes'. They'd rather wreck the world than see 'Putins' proliferate.
Niall It's funny, Niall, because their materialistic beliefs deny them any degree of freedom in the first place. Freedom is impossible in a materialistic world. So it seems like the are afraid of living in a world where freedom is actually possible. Because maybe then they'd actually have to be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.
Niall Loss of 'freedom' is one aspect, and they also fear the implied responsibility they must shoulder in a conscious universe. They'd much prefer Aleister Crowley's universe where "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
Joe So they want the rights (i.e. freedom) without the responsibilities. But you can't have one without the other. And freedom without responsibility is just license, not freedom. And license isn't true freedom - it is simply to be ruled by whims.
What kind of freedom do you think you have if you have this excuse that you were created by something smarter?
If anything, the idea that I am conscious by billions/trillions of years of activity is less ego filling.
I am who I am, because I am here. I try to be a fair person because I WANT TO BE, not because I fear punishment here or after death.
What you described is the same thing that sott wrote about a while ago "AUTHORITARIAN FOLLOWER" Key word follower.
Where have I heard that logic that one needs to be told how to behave, otherwise they shall be unruly?
Oh yes, black magic control systems and religions.
Nature takes care of itself. If we had more people that didn't think of some bullshit idea of higher dimensional justice, then maybe we would have people that would stand up against tyrants and phonies (like Obama, Trump, etc) more.
But you just repeat the same illogical shit, that morality has to be taught by someone higher. Sorry bro, but when I was an infant, I learned that it wasn't cool to take my sister's toy, because she cried. Why did I know that? Because I have awareness. Maybe you don't, or maybe you serve some higher awareness- aka slave.
Because I have awareness.
I'd be curious to hear how this awareness evolved by Darwinian fashion.
binra · 2019-03-14T09:41:10Z
Anything-ism is an invested identity shortcut or symbol of association with what a chosen idea or theory is being used FOR - or what is gotten (or got rid off) as a result of investing or identifying in it. Identity assertion is always polarised and polarising because it elevates some to special or unchallengable status and rejects or denies others.
Bruce Lipton discovered things by repeated experimental observation about cells and DNA that undermined the emergent DNA 'revolution' in biology. On sharing the information to peers he was stonewalled. After deeply rechecking everything and finding no error he sought a trusted mentor in private, explained the whole situation ans asked what was going on. "Well it isn't what we are thinking" was the reply. I feel that sums something up - not just as arbitrary thought - but as a wave that has gathered investment, funding, a career on a cutting edge and prospects of fame and fortune - and which has done so as an expression of corporate and political establishment expansion.
The archetype of raising a new god, king, or idea on the death of the old is 'alive and well' as the mutually exclusive mind of good over evil - where the good is assigned to forms of associated power and protection and the evil to a powerlessness or exposure in loss of self, and to anything that brings change to the underlying identity assertion.
The struggle for authority is the issue of author-ship.
Attempts to self-author reality or create ourself in our own image, are investments in self-image given priority and protection. They run as augmented or distorted reality experience from which their judge and subject cannot be separated, being two facets of one intent; doing and being done by.
The survival of the fitting begs the question as to what is being fitted to what. In linear chains of cause and effect is the idea of what caused an outcome. This is a very specialised form of 'consciousness' or 'model' to which a 'mind' is 'fitted' and adapts to. I suggest that this is not what Life is - but it is how we are choosing to experience ourselves in our thought or modelling of it - and so this is the unfolding of a journey that evolves - and yet operates in shifts into and from the formless and timeless that may be hidden beneath what seems a gradual incremental flow or sudden jumps to an expansive (or contracted) perspective, embrace or beholding.
The nature of being is un-separate from its attributes - but a the development of a mind beside or outside itself is the experience of being Humpty Dumped - that is a fragmented or split dissociation of self loss within an environment of lack, threat, scarcity, otherness, adversity, and rivalry for existence. This environment is synchronous to it causal idea of self-separateness or otherness and differentiation - which is the persistence in the idea of self in image becoming conscious as a sense of lack or differentiation with the Source-Nature reflected.
The oppositional will - or rather the idea in mind that generates such an experience as one's be-lived reality - is a structure through which to explore the nature of conflict as a 'creative' source or power. It gives 'survival' as a sense of temporary existence in forms or bodies, that seem to exist in and of themselves under or within a 'world' ruled by death.
There is another way of seeing this.
A reintegrative movement is not the destruction of the separate thing seeking to become power in its own right, but accepted alignment and embrace of unified purpose in which integrity or integrality resonates 'self-recognition' of shared worth.
What do I take from Darwin? I read he abhorred slavery and sought to prove all men brothers. That the idea of slavery is more deeply predicated in our mind, is the deceiver who is always ahead of anything we attempt of ourselves - because as we judge, so are we judged. No need to interject a god of punishment to the nature of sowing and reaping as one.
Indeed did Darwin not serve the idea all life is one? And from the development of exploring 'mechanism' are we not finding a Living Universe of not just energy but information as the field or structuring of trans-formational exchange that is projected WITHIN an embracing intent, desire or purpose?
What 'purpose' can be assigned anything and everything without exception, but 'know thyself!'.
This is not 'added to' but is inherency of being.
Where you look to find yourself is up to you. But a self-apart can only see a world apart in which other 'self-things' or 'things' seem to exist in relation to and in reinforcement of the active self-definition.
Nothing is truly 'out of communication' so much as a filtering distortion of Universal Communication structures the mind of 'alien will', unlike its father. Jesus implied genetic integrity often and so figs come from - and seed - fig trees. The lie and the father of it is a false premis from which to seem to 'live' as one who knows not what they do - because they embody the idea of a 'separate doer' and fear a separate and separating god of vengeance.
The spirit is revealed in what the idea or thing is being USED FOR and is never contained IN the form. Look then each to their own purpose and test the 'spirits' as to whether we are struggling under the idea of conflicted purpose or aligned in the movement of a truly shared appreciation.
Then we also 'do science' or anything else - as an expression of wholeness of desire, instead of being driven by undercurrent of self-lack, however that masks itself to its world.
Good show binra
Dieu créa le Jour et la Nuit
klokman · 2019-03-14T17:04:01Z
"We used to think that if we put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, eventually they would produce the works of Shakespeare. Now that we have the Internet, we know that isn't so." --Unknown
Based on the content and progression of this thread, I'm inclined put it into a subset of "Internet" in the preceding aphorism.
No clarity of information or revolutionary insight has arisen in this thread, WRT Evolution or Intelligent Design. It reminds me of the conclusion many of my fellow students came to at the conclusion of Philosophy 101.
"Philosophy is the love of knowledge or truth; its aim is personal salvation. Gnosticism is the claim to having knowledge or truth; its aim is not personal salvation, but domination over others." Anti-Freud p77; Thomas Szasz
Instead we found the philosophers only succeeded in working themselves into logical corners from which they could not escape.
If I wished to punish a province, I would have it governed by philosophers. - Frederick the Great
There's a metaphor applicable here...
The impossibility of irreducibly complex systems arising step by step, where each step is useful on its own, is direct proof that evolution as described by Darwinism is impossible. And it's rather easy to understand.
Unfortunately, some people either fail to read anything on the topic so that they could understand what's even being talked about, or, as Behe showed, they redefine things he had explained and disprove something completely different and irrelevant and go on to smile like they've won.
I think the next article might benefit from being shorter, clearer, and more simple. The more stuff you write about, the more people have to attack.
Simple fact: Darwinists have not and can not explain how blot clotting came to be step by step. Period. (Just one out of thousands of examples.)
Mandatory Intellectomy Well said! As for the length of the article - I get your point, but you know, these die-hard materialists are so incredibly invested in their beliefs, they show such an incredible inability to follow even basic reason, that nothing ever will ever get through to them. They just kick and scream. So these articles are for those genuinely interested, perhaps those sitting on the fence, and are intended to provide food for thought for those people. There will always be those who dismiss 99% of the argument and try to "debunk" the 1% they think they can debunk, but these are just lost in their fundie-religion called materialism.
Illusionoffreedom · 2019-03-14T22:07:26Z
Funny that there would be any Darwin's here, Didn't most here on SOTT come from Cassiopia...?
Ahh natural selection...And as to what/who exactly is doing this selecting...?
Those scientifically dreaded three words: I DON'T KNOW.
Their word for god is just spelled different;
'natural selection'.
Natural selection did it!
God/other intelligence did it!
And what is with people (scientific worship types mostly) getting so upset because they don't know EVERY damn thing?...That's what this argument is mostly about. Unexplained things upset some people to no end... So they need to get together and construct a step-by-step story on how everything they see and touch and taste came to be. But its full of holes and always will be. Because that's all it is, a story.
Illusionoffreedom Yes, people have always preferred to have a crappy explanation that doesn't make any sense and is patently wrong, rather than admit that they just don't have a fucking clue.
I don't care what replaces Darwinism, but something has to, because that shit just doesn't work. I'm OK with a period of time when we just admit we don't know. But yeah, as you said, scientists dread that notion.
What I got out of reading darwin a quater of a century ago was basically; "life evolves and adapts". [Link] (No mumbo jumbo about moral, philosophy, science, gods, beliefs, etc).
From where is the idea to mix in those things?
You honestly made me curious.
Brakar Darwin postponed publishing his work on evolution back when it was still dangerous to even discuss the possibility that most of religion is arbitrary and untrue, plus his wife was a devout believer, i.e. because of evolution's implied threat to religion. So evolutionary theory - which credits nature with all the adaptations, intricacies, and wonders of our world - did and still does threaten some religionists as is obvious on this site.
Believers and controversy-lovers are currently attempting a big attack on evolution in Very Serious ways, but I think it's nothing to worry about. Xtianity is declining, and no doubt the other religions will eventually fade away, too. To paraphrase Gandhi, First they punish and kill you, then they ostracize you, then they mock and fiercely argue against you, then you win.
Dus7 I don't quite get why anyone who sees a problem with Darwinism is accused of being religious.
Here are my two cents:
1. Darwinism is bullshit.
2. Religion is bullshit.
Darwinism provably doesn't work, and religion is mostly made up stuff supported only by belief and no facts.
Mandatory Intellectomy The argument against evolution is the apparent design of everything, and if there's design, it follows in some thinking that there must be a Designer, and that entity is usually called god or similar.
So does 'design' strongly imply a 'designer'? Ditto for 'intelligence', both of which, of course, remind us of the old argument in favor of, ta-da, Intelligent Design - which was/is promoted by religious people. It's not a big leap to suspect 'believers' of waging a persistent (on SOTT) if not strong attack on evolution (under the rubric, Darwinism) one more time.
I think there's a lot of evidence for evolution; if others don't, fine. I think there's no god; if others do, fine. In my view, no depth of emotion, belief, and argument will prove the latter, but as science, evolutionary theory is subject to examination, proofs, and upgrade.
I'm sorry I didn't return when there were so many comments added. I may well be missing a lot of the discussion anyway because half the time I don't know what people are (really) talking about, especially when there's a fog of emotion covering clarity and sincerity with random ad homs and other uncourteous behavior included.
TY for your comment.
The argument against evolution is the apparent design of everything
This is where, at least as far as I'm concerned, you're starting with a false premise.
1. The argument is not against evolution . The argument is against Darwinism , ie. evolution by random mutations, one at a time.
2. The argument is not the apparent design of everything. The main argument is that Darwinism, by its described mechanism (random mutations + natural selection), can only account for about 0.001% of evolution. 99,999% of evolution can not be explained by random mutations. (Those are my numbers - I don't know what the ration really is, but it's huge.)
In other words, no matter what other options (like design) we may have, the fact is that Darwinism, as an explanation for how things have evolved, doesn't work. Darwinists have not been able to explain anything more complex that one single mutation, possibly a second one adding to it, and evolution of irreducibly complex systems by random mutations and natural selection is logically impossible .
There may have been all kinds of other arguments made by other people, and things get muddy, and people get sidetracked and throw out the baby with the bathwater. So let me make a small overview. Darwinism has 3 parts: common ancestry, random mutation, and natural selection.
1. While Darwinism relies on common ancestry, common ancestry in no way relies on Darwinism. Common ancestry is possible by all kinds of other means, including magic. So nobody really disputes that part, as there's plenty of evidence for it. It works without Darwinism.
2. Does natural selection work? Yes. This, again, is not something limited to Darwinism. It's quite logical, and honestly pretty obvious.
3. Can random mutations improve organisms? Yes, they can and do. This part, as a principle, also works. We see it in adaptation of viruses to our drugs, for example.
So what's the problem with Darwinism when all its parts seem to work? The problem is with the limitations they have. Other than astronomical odds being stacked against this theory (when you do the math), the main limitations are:
1. One random mutation at a time.
2. Natural selection means each single mutation has to improve the organism.
So if there's a biological system that has 20 parts that are all needed for the system to work (a complex organ or a convoluted process), and the whole system fails when you take out any of the 20 parts, there's no way this system could have evolved one mutation at a time, because with any 19 (or 18, 17,...) parts, it's completely useless, and thus the intermediate steps would never be "naturally selected".
Darwinists argue with things like that the parts could have been useful for something else, but while this may be plausible for a system of three parts, it's literally impossible with something complex like blood clotting, and Darwinists, while convinced it's possible, have never been able to present a single example of how it would be possible with a concrete example.
They use vague explanations with things like Part A, Part B, and Part C, and how they may have been and done something or other, but that has really nothing to do with anything real. It's one thing to say that Part B (whatever the hell it is) could have been useful for "something" and when Part C came along, they together joined Part A to form something amazing. It's another thing to explain how any part of the blood clotting process could have been useful before it became part of blood clotting. And there are biological systems with dozens of parts that are all necessary for the system to work.
To give a simplified example that anyone can understand, take a table. You have 4 legs and a desk, so 5 parts. Random mutation means you can only add one part at a time. Natural selection means each part must make it reasonably more useful than it was before.
So how do you make this table according to these rules? The only step I can imagine that would comply with these rules is from desk with 3 legs to desk with 4 legs. The former works, and the latter is more stable. But what good is a desk with 2 legs? How is it better than a desk with 1 leg, and how was that useful in the first place? If you start with the desk, adding 1 or 2 legs is useless. If you start with a leg, adding either another leg or the desk is useless. There's no way to build this in a Darwinian fashion, and this is a super-simple example. Biological systems are dozens of times more complex.
Darwin may be excused for his inadequate theory because in his time, biology knew nothing about what's inside a cell, and they imagined it to be totally simple. Yet science has since shown that things are infinitely more complicated than previously thought, and that Darwin's theory, while sound at first glance, can not only not explain everything, but actually fails to explain even the tip of the iceberg of evolution.
I don't know what the ration really is
*ratio
anything more complex that one single mutation
(Also Sott, your comment formatting seems to add a space between end of italics/bold and punctuation.)
Aspera19 · 2019-03-17T16:45:09Z
I find the debates surrounding Darwinism, Intelligent Design and Creationism rather futile. Except for one interesting point, the article seemed mundane to me. The heated, ego-driven comments it sparked may indicate that, on some level, these three concepts are an attempt to answer the most basic questions that most of us have asked ourselves at some point, in one way or another: Why are we alive? How did we get here? What is the purpose of life? What is the full nature of the universe?
We forget that, no matter how desperate we are for answers, these questions may not be answerable while we are in 3D bodies with a limited viewpoint of the whole.
I am no less a seeker than all of you. For me the most interesting point in this article was this:
"...as if the collective mind of the giraffe-species somehow decided it would be a good idea to 'evolve' a long neck."
Like Highland Fleet, this got me thinking about Rupert Sheldrake's ideas. That lead to wondering if perhaps we are all part of a greater collective consciousness - the sea of awareness described by don Juan. Suppose Life or the sea of awareness sends bits of itself to places (1D, 2D, 3D, or wherever) where it can take various forms for some reason(s). Perhaps before we came to Earth we designed these forms to carry out whatever the purpose(s) is/are.
Woman who suffered convulsions after taking Pfizer Covid jab being screened for permanent neurological damage, son tells RT
'The glorification of violence and domination': Politician mocked for going on hysterical rant against pickup trucks
A SOTT exclusive this Greenwald article??
Everyone disagreeing with the government and Our Beloved Great Leader is a terrorist. Everyone disobeying the laws of the government and Our...
The whole bathroom thing, to me, boils down to this: pedos and perverts in general will use the 'law' to their advantage to target and assault the...
balboa schwartz
The Lock down has caused our world to heat up instead of cool down... Why is that? Check out: Heading For An Ice Age | Top Journal Selections...