No Intelligence in evolutionary branches?

a reply to: cooperton

Happy Jewish Zombie day!

originally posted by: cooperton

Explain the dilemma with the biochemical cascade I described above. It's one of the smaller cascades, yet even that is totally insurmountable by the theorized evolutionary mechanisms

I did...

Your dilemma is based on using pure randomness in saying it is an impossible biochemical cascade and I agree, but as I said there is very little PURE randomness in either intelligent design or non-intelligent design. The only difference between you and I is that I see the end products never being pre-determine and you do see it all as pre-determine, but the processes are the same for both unless you think life was created spontaneously in their end state.

There is a very good chance that life is throughout the universe anywhere the conditions are acceptable for it to happen, and all of that life will to some degree most likely have similar biochemical patterns even though very different in the end. What are you going to do if we find microbial life patterns on Mars or maybe even something a little more advance than microbial on Titan or Europa?

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

They assume evolution to be true and force all observable evidence into that framework. It is literally backwards science. They do not prove evolution simply by calling it evolution.

I dare you to write them a letter advising them how wrong they are. While you're at it, you can send a copy to the 650 journals on evolutionary biology and the thousands of peer-reviewed, research articles which have appeared for decades.

You've made a career out of looking like a fool. And it hasn't even been profitable!

You didn't evolve the way you should've.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

According to whom?

a reply to: NoConspiracy

You're saying you evolved the way you should've?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I'm not saying anything, I asked a question.

are you saying there is a prefixed pattern about how things have to evolve, and if so who is determining that course?

That's all I wanted to know.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You hear what you want.
But
Glad I could help....

NC

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Your dilemma is based on using pure randomness in saying it is an impossible biochemical cascade and I agree, but as I said there is very little PURE randomness in either intelligent design or non-intelligent design.

So you admit that biological life is clearly not generated by randomness? Are you admitting it is a purposefully contrived system?

originally posted by: Phantom423

I dare you to write them a letter advising them how wrong they are. While you're at it, you can send a copy to the 650 journals on evolutionary biology and the thousands of peer-reviewed, research articles which have appeared for decades.

I dare you to dig into your own scientific knowledge and explain to me how biochemical cascades could have formed by evolutionary mechanisms given the fact that all cascades require a multitude of interdependent proteins working in synchrony. You'll also have to explain how the homeostatic control mechanisms were generated simultaneously alongside the protein itself. You'd also have to explain how the chaperone proteins and other necessary co-enzymes which assemble the proteins to prepare them for proper functioning in the cascade. How did all of this form in synchrony given the limitations of the mechanisms described in evolution theory?

You've made a career out of looking like a fool. And it hasn't even been profitable!

I do this as a hobby, whereas your demi-gods - the white coats - need to attend to a certain narrative in order to get grant money. For this reason they can never displease the peer-review board with anything that defies evolutionary dogma. This is why such a garbage theory is still taught in school, despite no actual empirical evidence to prove it is remotely possible.

originally posted by: cooperton

So you admit that biological life is clearly not generated by randomness? Are you admitting it is a purposefully contrived system?

Yes and no... Some is randomness that reacts with the non-randomness of the natural order/physics of our universe. I disagree with "purposefully" since there can be infinite universes with infinite variables to the order/physics of each one of them. As example with the force of gravity, if it was slightly different we would not be here... This doesn't mean that God needed to provide just that right force to create life, it just means that life has reacted to that force as it is in our universe. This is more of a cause and effect event than intelligent design.

a reply to: cooperton

I do this as a hobby, whereas your demi-gods - the white coats - need to attend to a certain narrative in order to get grant money. For this reason they can never displease the peer-review board with anything that defies evolutionary dogma. This is why such a garbage theory is still taught in school, despite no actual empirical evidence to prove it is remotely possible.

That statement is true, and if you change the terms white coat with priests, pier review with Vatican, evolutionary with religious, and school with church, it still is true.

Dogmatism is always problematic in the search of knowledge.

Sincerely NC

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Yes and no... Some is randomness that reacts with the non-randomness of the natural order/physics of our universe. I disagree with "purposefully" since there can be infinite universes with infinite variables to the order/physics of each one of them. As example with the force of gravity, if it was slightly different we would not be here... This doesn't mean that God needed to provide just that right force to create life, it just means that life has reacted to that force as it is in our universe. This is more of a cause and effect event than intelligent design.

Laws, by definition, are implemented by intelligence. Biology has such intricacies that it requires something to have designed it. Even with the extent that technology has advanced, we still cannot replicate many of the biological functions. This indicates the intelligence that made us is beyond our current comprehension.

To even appease the idea of evolution would be a great disservice to the intelligence that we were born with.

originally posted by: cooperton
Laws, by definition, are implemented by intelligence.

Here is your problem... Words like Laws and Life are human abstracts only. The universe doesn't define these things, but we humans feel the need to label this natural order around us. We created these abstract thoughts then we suggest only an intelligence can make them... yep you are right but that intelligence is all in our heads.

Biology has such intricacies that it requires something to have designed it.

So says who.... you? At one time there was a lot of intricacies in our lives and we had 100s of Gods to explain them... We had a big bang and with that came a set amount of matter and a consistent natural order to everything. If you want to suggest God created that part then have at it. That consistent natural order started the cause and effect that has materialized around us starting with the creation of the natural elements past the first 2.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Here is your problem... Words like Laws are human abstracts only

Tell that to the judge. It requires intelligence. You can dance around the obvious conclusion all you want, just remember it is the remarkably less logical conclusion.

The universe doesn't define these things

Yes it does, all these physical laws have been unchanging since human history. These implemented systems are very well defined. We as intelligent beings have the ability to discern and uncover these well defined systems through mathematical equations.

originally posted by: cooperton

Yes it does, all these physical laws have been unchanging since human history. These implemented systems are very well defined. We as intelligent beings have the ability to discern and uncover these well defined systems through mathematical equations.

They are there but what we see them as and what we call them are all human abstracts.

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
Why havent there been other evolutionary branches that evolved similarly intelligent beeings like the mammal branch did?

We really don't have a good understanding about what constitutes intelligence, and when we consider non-human creatures we can only compare them to ourselves. We tend to look at intelligence as being related to problem-solving, but that's just the way we are. Always in trouble. Always facing possible pain or death. But a "living" thing might have no problems existing forever in perfect balance with the universe but still be able to perceive their reality, recognize patterns, and formulate an understanding of the relationships between those patterns.

That seems like intelligence to me, but I'm just a clever ape so what do I know?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Hole in one.

Or was it a "birdie"?

Sincerely NC

Anyway, cephalopods are pretty smart even comparing them to people. If they had hands we'd probably be at war with them.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Tentacles.... Tentacles everywhere....let me take out my sword... Sssssing....

Sorry i was dreaming

Sincerely NC