Evolution: Strange Inversion Of Reasoning

Dan Dennet at TED

“In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer, so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system that, in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine it is not necessary to know how to make it. The proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express in condensed form the essential purport of the theory and to express in a few words all of Mr Darwin’s meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievement of creative skill.”

Ok, great... You posted a video and an excerpt of what was said.

We still don't know where YOU stand, or what YOU think about the video.

What do we discuss?

Normally, one would wait for a mod to chew ya up, but I've got things to do
today, so I'll just say- Whoever STILL doesn't believe evolution is real, and
that some guy with a long white beard and robes created everything with his
absolute wisdom, clearly suffers from an inversion of reasoning.

Originally posted by aecreate
Ok, great... You posted a video and an excerpt of what was said.

We still don't know where YOU stand, or what YOU think about the video.

What do we discuss?

The video addresses and rebuts some common arguments presented from creationists in an entertaining and sometimes humorous fashion. Since there are so many on this board with these arguments, certainly some of them will have an opinion to express on the content.

Fact: evolution does not theorize on the origin of all life, as that is the realm of abiogenesis (or so the atheists tell me from yahoo religion and spirituality section, they seem to unanimously agree (even though atheists supposedly only not believe in God and have no other unifying beliefs but we all know that's not true)).

So as far as I'm concerned, Evolution should not be debated alongside of Creationism. That would be like Biology being debated alongside Mathematics as to which theory is the most numerical.

Still, I don't believe in Creationism, as that would assume that a Creator God chooses to create the universe based upon a specific plan. However, I also don't believe in the materialistic notion that people do not have a soul or even a mind. Thus, I believe that the Absolute Soul becomes embodied and it is our quest to uncover the immaterial and transcendent aspect of our nature. Everything physical is impermanent and not as important.

Originally posted by filosophia
However, I also don't believe in the materialistic notion that people do not have a soul or even a mind. Thus, I believe that the Absolute Soul becomes embodied and it is our quest to uncover the immaterial and transcendent aspect of our nature. Everything physical is impermanent and not as important.

Who suggests that people have no minds?

I don't accept the concept of a soul. As you've referenced, it's usually mentioned in relation to a transcendental experience. If you suggest that the physical is not important, but the idea of a soul is, I suspect you have a fear that our existence has no particular meaning.

Guess everyone knows this question but: (about life as a whole) If we came from a one-celled organism, where did that come from. If it came here through an asteroid crashing down or aliens planted them here, where did that first one-celled organism come from? I guess it had to morph from the big-bang like all other atoms and molecules did in those forst seconds?

Serious question, I believe in evolution but this question is sort of beyond my low thinking-brain

Originally posted by svante

Serious question, I believe in evolution but this question is sort of beyond my low thinking-brain

The science involved in understanding evolution is immense and it is still developing. You may wish to start with researching the topic of biochemistry and subtopics such as protein folding.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Short answer: Yet to be explained.

Seriously though this is an important question. The answer to how the complexity seen in the human body could be arrived at by random chance is the notion that it happens through a series of small changes over an immensely long peiod of time. This can not, howover, answer the question of how the first cell came into being.
A cell is a seriously complex little machine. Arguably more complex than anything man has ever created. There are large numbers of functioning proteins in a cell, any one of which the cell could not function without. This can't be arrived at over a series of small steps because it must be at least this complex, even for minimal function, and minimal function is the prerequisite for natural selection.
This is quite a hurdle but we're even ignoring one other major problem... DNA. The DNA molecule builds proteins in unison with enzymes and RNA When the Bits of RNA arrange to fit to a strand of DNA they have then formed a protein which then folds to it's functioning shape.
a DNA molecule, That perfectly codes for all the proteins present in our first cell, would have had to be created by chance, at the exact time that the cell was created. Then it would have had to Find its way into the nuclues of said Cell.
Sounds almost insurmountable

Originally posted by renegadeloser

Sounds almost insurmountable

Two words often appear when contemplating origins: "random" and "chance". I don't believe that either are primary causes nor do I believe that many scientists do either.

A common argument seen is what I believe you've touched on: irreducible complexity. The question of origins of the first cell is an extremely difficult problem. However, a suggestion of creationism is a circuitous route around discovering the answer.

Originally posted by filosophia
Fact: evolution does not theorize on the origin of all life, as that is the realm of abiogenesis (or so the atheists tell me from yahoo religion and spirituality section, they seem to unanimously agree (even though atheists supposedly only not believe in God and have no other unifying beliefs but we all know that's not true)).

None of those stuff that you stated are beliefs. It's like saying that all atheists have a unifying belief that the earth is round.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by NegativeBeef]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Great post. Definitely interesting that we have created some supernormal stimuli to manipulate our genetic programming and make life more fun. I wish he could have elaborated on the evolution of humor its a topic we don't hear much about.

Originally posted by filosophia
Fact: evolution does not theorize on the origin of all life, as that is the realm of abiogenesis (or so the atheists tell me from yahoo religion and spirituality section, they seem to unanimously agree (even though atheists supposedly only not believe in God and have no other unifying beliefs but we all know that's not true)).

So as far as I'm concerned, Evolution should not be debated alongside of Creationism. That would be like Biology being debated alongside Mathematics as to which theory is the most numerical.

I disagree. Creationism proper (i.e., special creation) and evolution are at complete odds. Evolution says that all life is related via The Theory of Common Descent while creationists believe evolution only happens 'within kinds' which they term Baraminology. They are mutually exclusive ideas about the same process (i.e., the origin of species)

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by filosophia
However, I also don't believe in the materialistic notion that people do not have a soul or even a mind. Thus, I believe that the Absolute Soul becomes embodied and it is our quest to uncover the immaterial and transcendent aspect of our nature. Everything physical is impermanent and not as important.

Who suggests that people have no minds?

I believe (s)he meant that in the Philosophy of Mind/dualism sense. We are more than the sum of our parts, etc. Apropos considering what your OP subject Dennet has had to say on the matter, no?

I don't accept the concept of a soul. As you've referenced, it's usually mentioned in relation to a transcendental experience. If you suggest that the physical is not important, but the idea of a soul is, I suspect you have a fear that our existence has no particular meaning.

We will all die. Our sun will one day run out of fuel and absorb the Earth when it does. Both the Earth and Sol will die. The universe too will one day die. What's the point if it's all material? What meaning is there if guys like you are right?

Originally posted by svante
Guess everyone knows this question but: (about life as a whole) If we came from a one-celled organism, where did that come from. If it came here through an asteroid crashing down or aliens planted them here, where did that first one-celled organism come from? I guess it had to morph from the big-bang like all other atoms and molecules did in those forst seconds?

No, actually, nobody knows for sure. To read about 'life came from asteroids/comets' google "panspermia". So far as abiogenisis here on earth, there are a million and one ideas out there. No theory. Nobody really knows... researchers have barely scratched the surface lo these many decades. The idea is that some sort of 'simple' chemical replicators (non-living) led to life [eg: "one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms"]


... Um, just so as the stories go.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by svante

Serious question, I believe in evolution but this question is sort of beyond my low thinking-brain

The science involved in understanding evolution is immense and it is still developing. You may wish to start with researching the topic of biochemistry and subtopics such as protein folding.

What the heck does protein folding have to do with abiogenesis? Just throwing out sciency sounding concepts hoping something sticks? It [origins] would have to happen way before the proto-cell had the ability to fold/construct proteins.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by renegadeloser

Sounds almost insurmountable

Two words often appear when contemplating origins: "random" and "chance". I don't believe that either are primary causes nor do I believe that many scientists do either.

Oh, really? So the opposite is true then - Origins is the result of a methodical(random's antonym) and designed(chance's antonym) process? Got a link to those "many scientists" whom would agree that it's not the result of random chance chemical interactions?

A common argument seen is what I believe you've touched on: irreducible complexity. The question of origins of the first cell is an extremely difficult problem. However, a suggestion of creationism is a circuitous route around discovering the answer.

What does Irreducible Complexity have to do with creationism (i.e, special creation/common ancestry) and what the heck does "a suggestion of creationism is a circuitous route around discovering the answer" mean with regards to the topic at hand (or any topic really... having trouble parsing that one.)




You usually just post an article or video and don't say much, if anything at all. I think I see why. Thank Dennett for the stars and flags, eh!


[edit on Sun May 23 2010 by Rren]

If one wants to discuss origins of life one ought to know a thing or two about biochemistry. At the moment the most plausible explanation of origins is called RNA world hypothesis. It has already been shown that 2 (out of 4) nucleotide types can form naturally. These nucleotides will stick together spontaneously. In early RNA world these nucleotides didn't code for proteins (there was no genetic code). Instead they folded on themselves (like ribosomes) and catalysed production of more molecules like themselves (autocatalysis). Forces already selected (natural selection) what molecules were better than others. From there it's still a long way to cellular life, but this is one way how things might have started in 100 % natural way.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


For me, one idea can't exist without the other. If you choose to deny that you have a soul, it's fine. The reason a majority of people feel that they have a soul, is the fact that they feel it. I just find life has too many mysteries to just classify everything as one way. I was taught in school that humans came around in the ice age or so. Now we have evidence that suggests we cam about 100,00 years ago. If they were wrong about that, what else could they have been wrong about? You should youtube Joe Rogan talking about '___', a very interesting video i find kind of pertinent to this thread...if you want I can find it for you.

Originally posted by Rren
What meaning is there if guys like you are right?

Go ahead and make up some meaning if it's important to you.

What the heck does protein folding have to do with abiogenesis? Just throwing out sciency sounding concepts hoping something sticks? It [origins] would have to happen way before the proto-cell had the ability to fold/construct proteins.

What does protein folding have to do with abiogenesis? Hmm.. let's check your link to abiogenesis:

In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

Oh, really? So the opposite is true then - Origins is the result of a methodical(random's antonym) and designed(chance's antonym) process? Got a link to those "many scientists" whom would agree that it's not the result of random chance chemical interactions?

Taken from this site:

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

Here's another:

[creationist claim:]
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution.

from the first link:

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

What does Irreducible Complexity have to do with creationism (i.e, special creation/common ancestry) and what the heck does "a suggestion of creationism is a circuitous route around discovering the answer" mean with regards to the topic at hand (or any topic really... having trouble parsing that one.)

Irreducible complexity is a commonly employed argument from creationists. Creationism is a shortcut answer to the difficult question of origins. I hope that clears things up.

You usually just post an article or video and don't say much, if anything at all. I think I see why. Thank Dennett for the stars and flags, eh!

I try to post things that don't need to be substantiated with my opinions and hope that the topic will generate conversations that I can later participate in. Sorry that you see it otherwise but I suspect that if you focused more on reading comprehension than smug oneupmanship you could avoid such misconceptions.

Originally posted by agentofchaos
The reason a majority of people feel that they have a soul, is the fact that they feel it.

Perception is a strong thing but it provides no objective evidence of any kind of "soul". Perception can trick us into thinking all kinds of weird things.

You should youtube Joe Rogan talking about '___'

Drug induced states alter one's perception. Experiences on '___', mushrooms, acid... none of which confirms existence of "souls".

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Rren
What meaning is there if guys like you are right?

Go ahead and make up some meaning if it's important to you.

Thanks. You're a real sweetheart.

What the heck does protein folding have to do with abiogenesis? Just throwing out sciency sounding concepts hoping something sticks? It [origins] would have to happen way before the proto-cell had the ability to fold/construct proteins.

What does protein folding have to do with abiogenesis? Hmm.. let's check your link to abiogenesis:

In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

So, you're saying, again (and using that quote) that protein folding is crucial to abiogenesis. Seriously? And you think I should focus on reading comprehension? [I should let you finish the first paragraph atleast I guess]

Oh, really? So the opposite is true then - Origins is the result of a methodical(random's antonym) and designed(chance's antonym) process? Got a link to those "many scientists" whom would agree that it's not the result of random chance chemical interactions?

Taken from this site:

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

Yes the author is complaining about some creationist making an 'abiogenesis probability calculation' based on the assumption that it went from simple chemisty to *poof* a modern cell (e.g., the Tornado in a Junkyard analogy.) [Did they have to fold proteins!... but, I digress] That's not what you said nor what I responded to. Was origins random or planned? You say real scientists don't say it's random or chance. Without design/planning that's exactly what it is. Unless we have different dictionaries.

Here's another:

[creationist claim:]
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution.

Oh really? 38 Nobel Laureates Disagree:

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

There are quotes like that for days. You are being intellectually dishonest. Playing semantic games with "random" knowing full well what the debate is about (either that or you're ignorant and just pretending to know because you think it popular... not sure which is worst).

from the first link:

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Semantics. You'd no doubt argue if I took that to its logical conclusion - they are non-random indeed. They are wonderfully made.

What does Irreducible Complexity have to do with creationism (i.e, special creation/common ancestry) and what the heck does "a suggestion of creationism is a circuitous route around discovering the answer" mean with regards to the topic at hand (or any topic really... having trouble parsing that one.)

Irreducible complexity is a commonly employed argument from creationists. Creationism is a shortcut answer to the difficult question of origins. I hope that clears things up.

Creationism is the belief that the Bible (especially the book of Genesis) gives an accurate scientific model for origins and evolution. It specifically denies Common Descent (the centrel tenet of the ToE). Irreducible Complexity does neither and neither does its author (Michael Behe) whom accepts an Old Earth, common ancestry and denies the scientific authority/accuracy of Scripture. You're playing dishonest semantic games to score culture war points. Some old tired chit.

I try to post things that don't need to be substantiated with my opinions and hope that the topic will generate conversations that I can later participate in. Sorry that you see it otherwise but I suspect that if you focused more on reading comprehension than smug oneupmanship you could avoid such misconceptions.

Aint you clever. There are rules/etiquette around ATS. SkepticOverlord:

1) Simple links with no comment: we don't want to see posts that are simply "look at this" then a link or embedded video.

Every thread you have in this forum breaks the rules and it's just now I've said a thing. Mostly because I've been around long enough to know the mods don't spend much time in this forum and it (always) eventually gets over-run with trolls. Can't stand this kind of obfuscating thoughtless culture warrior BS... the least you could do is put some thought and time into your threads before spamming the boards with them.


One Guys Opinion. But, you're a drummer, everyone knows how slow they are.







[edit on Sun May 23 2010 by Rren]

Originally posted by Rren
One Guys Opinion. But, you're a drummer, everyone knows how slow they are.

Awesome! Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have enjoyed the exchange. Have a great rest of the weekend.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Rren
One Guys Opinion. But, you're a drummer, everyone knows how slow they are.

Awesome! Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have enjoyed the exchange. Have a great rest of the weekend.

Some of my best friends are drummers! Sorry for getting all upitty in your thread. Something about this debate gets my panties all in a bunch. I'm working on it.

I'll leave you to it. Enjoy your weekend's end too.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Funny you had a whole lot to say to my post, why didn't you have a much to say to his? I'm curious on exactly how what he said applies to your thread, other thank you have a nice day...is it that it has no place in your thread? or is it that you just don't have anything to say?