There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I take it you are refering to my Modern Synthesis religion line? It is not intended to be literal, It's just a bit of a joke really. I do know the difference.

Falsification is a basic principle of the scientific method as forwarded by Karl Popper.

Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities. A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has ``proved its mettle'' and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively. Later corroboration generates a series of hypothesis into a scientific theory.

Thus, the core element of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be capability of being proven false. For example, the hypothesis that ``atoms move because they are pushed by small, invisible, immaterial demons'' is pseudo-science since the existence of the demons cannot be proven false (i.e. cannot be tested at all).

Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica

If it's not falsifiable it's not science. This is not controversial. It's absolutely an essential part of the scientific method. I simply wanted to ask people what that test may be.

I believe in evolution as it is theorized to a certain point.
Homo sapien sapien.

That one defies the logic of evolution.

A sudden burst of intelligence,which keeps getting pushed back further and further as to when "modern intelligence" began.

Although scientists are aware that humans share the same biological heritage as do all other organisms on the planet, the reliance of Homo sapiens on culture and cooperation has resulted in what can best be described as

“a spectacular evolutionary anomaly.”

1:11 The extra-somatic adaptations, technological dominance, and success of our species in colonizing every terrestrial habitat have no parallel.2 Moreover, Homo sapiens accounts for about eight times as much biomass as do all other terrestrial wild vertebrates combined,3 an amount equivalent to the biomass of all 14,000+ species of ants,4 the most successful terrestrial invertebrates. Human societies are complex, with more specialized economic niches in the United States than the total number of mammalian species on the planet.5 While some might suggest that only post-industrial humans achieved stunning biological success, data suggest that humans living as hunter-gatherers would have attained a world population of more than 70 million individuals6 and a total biomass greater than that of any other large vertebrate on the planet if agriculture had not been repeatedly invented as they spread.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

A sudden burst of intelligence,which keeps getting pushed back further and further as to when "modern intelligence" began.

Define modern intelligence.. And this deals more with brain evolution.. Clearly they weren't using computers, or sending probes to mars 4,000 + years ago.. So when it hunter gathering suddenly an explosion of intelligence. Humans seem to have slowly progressed to the modern era. And that includes the evolution of language to which gives you something like the modern English language with 26 letters to which can sequence into an entire library of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, history, fantasy ect.. Evolution is a fundamental property of the world around you. Continents change, climate changes, organisms change with changes in their environments.. Birds evolving shorter wing spans in cities ect.. It's literally everywhere you look.

And squiz, your video belongs in the skunk category...

If it's not falsifiable it's not science. This is not controversial. It's absolutely an essential part of the scientific method. I simply wanted to ask people what that test may be.

You are talking about methodology, you can't however falsify a fact. Science is the attempt falsify, and in that processes establishes knowledge and factual information regarding reality.. And like I said before, facts are biased bastards that don't care what you or I believe. Our beliefs are irrelevant to facts... Facts are testable and open to falsifiability in the sense you can try to falsify them, but they are not subject to being falsifiable.


And if you understand the scientific method, then you ought to understand how weak an argument is regarding "ID" or the claim "GOD DONE IT".. These are appeals to ignorance and at best absolute negatives to which are akin to the invisible dragon in my Garage to which created existence, your GOD, and even itself from nothing because it's infinitely omnipotent.

reply to post by TheJackelantern

Define modern intelligence.. And this deals more with brain evolution.. Clearly they weren't using computers, or sending probes to mars 4,000 + years ago.. So when it hunter gathering suddenly an explosion of intelligence. Humans seem to have slowly progressed to the modern era. And that includes the evolution of language to which gives you something like the modern English language with 26 letters to which can sequence into an entire library of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, history, fantasy ect.. Evolution is a fundamental property of the world around you. Continents change, climate changes, organisms change with changes in their environments.. Birds evolving shorter wing spans in cities ect.. It's literally everywhere you look.

Lets begin with beads and cave art.

The earliest unambiguous evidence for modern human behaviour has been discovered by an international team of researchers in a South African cave.

The finds provide early evidence for the origin of modern human behaviour 44,000 years ago, over 20,000 years before other findings.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Computers and space travel was a result of a cumulative gathering of knowledge after the "spark" of modern human behavior.

Lets not forget that all of a sudden we were writing stuff down.

www.ancientscripts.com...

Originally posted by jheated5
It's funny that you use salmon as an example here because they are perfect examples of evolution, we're talking observable evolution here.... Within one generation of salmon born in a hatchery they changed their genes in order to excel in surviving there, at the cost of them not being able to mate in the wild... So thanks for playing...

Ummmm.............Therin lies the conundrum....you stated that "they changed their genes"...Lets have some fun and break this down...The salmon, changed, THEIR, genes...these biogeneticist salmon changed their genes to better fit into their new niche. So either the salmon knew how to effect this change, or their genes "knew" how to effect this change, or some other "principle", "knew" how to effect this single generational change. Lets for the sake of argument call this principle "natural selection". In essence your stating that "natural selection, "knew", therefore "it" had knowledge enough to effect this genetic change and once the niche perameters were filled it stopped the change............all in the span of a single generation.

Define for me if you will how natural selection "KNOWS" when to effectivly turn off and on genetic modification, then explain to me how it also chooses to NOT modify an organism once it has fitted the organism to it's niche. If the niche remains unchanged and the organism unchallenged, the organism ceases any bent for evolving and remains virtually stagnant, i.e., shark, crocodile, etc. You really need to define for me how this principle has this knowing ability, cause that sounds like your saying that the principle alone is "intelligent", in it's ability to initiate compell and stop genetic modification. All because of a singular environmental "trigger", a need for an otherwise non-intelligent species for survival modification....................please enlighten me.

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

Define modern intelligence.. And this deals more with brain evolution.. Clearly they weren't using computers, or sending probes to mars 4,000 + years ago.. So when it hunter gathering suddenly an explosion of intelligence. Humans seem to have slowly progressed to the modern era. And that includes the evolution of language to which gives you something like the modern English language with 26 letters to which can sequence into an entire library of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, history, fantasy ect.. Evolution is a fundamental property of the world around you. Continents change, climate changes, organisms change with changes in their environments.. Birds evolving shorter wing spans in cities ect.. It's literally everywhere you look.

Lets begin with beads and cave art.

The earliest unambiguous evidence for modern human behaviour has been discovered by an international team of researchers in a South African cave.

The finds provide early evidence for the origin of modern human behaviour 44,000 years ago, over 20,000 years before other findings.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Computers and space travel was a result of a cumulative gathering of knowledge after the "spark" of modern human behavior.

And yet the trend is consistent with human knowledge and ability being recessive the further you go back... And well, before beads and cave paintings you had what? Well, no science of such skill levels... So your idea of "modern" begins when there is signs in ability to paint pictures and make beads? .. Chimps could probably do that if they evolve to.. And that is an "IF" because evolution doesn't state they would.

www.treehugger.com...

But of course paints were probably invented when realizing that spreading flowers ectr on surfaces leave color streaks ect.. there is entirely a normal and natural evolutionary pathway for these things to happen.. And the 1 percent difference between us and our ancient ancestors was likely more than enough to bring us to where we are today. Hence, evolution can have a profound butterfly effect..

reply to post by TheJackelantern


How do you propose that happened,what set us apart from the chimps?
What was the human version of the "big bang" of modern human intelligence?
Think they were trained by a higher intelligence to paint pictures?

I feel that there is much left to discover in the archaeology world as far as anthropology are concerned.

So either the salmon knew how to effect this change, or their genes "knew" how to effect this change, or some other "principle", "knew" how to effect this single generational change. Lets for the sake of argument call this principle "natural selection". In essence your stating that "natural selection, "knew", therefore "it" had knowledge enough to effect this genetic change and once the niche perimeters were filled it stopped the change............all in the span of a single generation.

It would be an example of co-evolution.. And your argument doesn't make sense since most of evolution is pressure driven. I don't see you making arguments about how the weather "Knew" how to make snowflakes, or how the sand and wind knew how to make complex patterns of sand dunes. No, natural selection doesn't need to know anything... And this btw is also an example of natural selection... Yes humans can control genetics in species, But I don't recall humans being invisible pixie fairies either.. and on the evolution of salmon:

www.pbs.org...
www.oup.com...
www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

How do you propose that happened,what set us apart from the chimps?
What was the human version of the "big bang" of modern human intelligence?
Think they were trained by a higher intelligence to paint pictures?

I feel that there is much left to discover in the archaeology world as far as anthropology are concerned.

edit on 1-8-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

All it takes is how the brain develops over generations. And the fusion of chromosome #2 has a lot to play in our evolutionary differences. It doesn't take much change to have a huge impact.. hence it depends on what changes in the genome. The need to hunt and gather, and the eating of protein (meat) had changed our species quite a bit:

www.nasw.org...
news.harvard.edu...

And needing to hunt requires the development more social structure, rules, and use of the brain. Dolphins for example have their own languages, cultures, social rules ect... These are environmental pressures, and the diet has quite an effect on this. For example, horses:

iphes.blogspot.com...

reply to post by TheJackelantern

And needing to hunt requires the development more social structure, rules, and use of the brain. Dolphins for example have their own languages, cultures, social rules ect... T

I guess cheetahs and wolves are as smart as we humans,but yet we lost our hair.
Why is that?

I know,you are going,WTF are you talking about.

It ties in.

I like the term intelligent design rather than God (although I believe in God). There is a reason for this.

To say all we see came from nothing but a big bang of nothing and that animals grew lungs as they learned to walk on land (if your a fish and your out of water no amount of time will cure instant death), it is all far too unintelligent.

However, do believe that someone or something outside our time and space may have created everything or even started the process of (Bog Bang) is far more intelligent.

I actually thought the other day, "what if Adam actually lived millions of years before the fall"??

The universe fine-tunes itself? So in other words, you're saying that the universe is intelligent, which would imply that it's God.

To answer the question of how did God come into existence, the answer is that he evolved from nothing. What's the difference between saying God came from nothing vs the universe came from nothing? The difference is by using God as an intermediate, you have a transition from the simple to complex. How God can come into existence can roughly be described like this(although now it's a lot more complex with the multivese, but you can just replace energy with whatever "matter" is made of in the next-to-last dimension): nothing -> energy -> more energy -> almost infinite energy -> central memory -> energy expands to create mini-universe -> mini-universe collapses -> central memory "keeps track" of why universe(constants) fails(this is a key, you cannot say the universe "fine-tunes" itself without assuming that there's some kind of intelligence keeping track of why the previous constants fail. If you say there's no need for a memory, then how do you even get past the first constant? If there is nothing to keep track of the constants, then all the Big Bangs and Big Crunches are totally random, which means that there are an infinite number of values each constant can take after each Big Bang(remember, you cannot assume that it will continue where it "left off," which means that even with an infinite number of Big Bangs, you still might not get past the first constant) -> mini-universe succeeds(although I'm not sure why it would succeed. Why is there even a set of constants that allow the universe to exist? Remember, that God is still learning at this stage, so it appears to me that the simulation hypothesis fits best, and that the universe in the next-to-last dimension must be quite different, i.e not controlled by any constant or laws).

When scientists say, given enough time, anything can happen, they are wrong. Given enough time, any thing "sufficiently simple" and does not violate the laws within the "space" in which those laws exist can happen(e.g no matter how many times you punch a wall, you probably are never going to be able to punch through it). You cannot get to this complex universe from nothing, without "trials-and-errors," and a central intelligence keeping track of everything(similar to a cell nucleus), or most simply yet, without someone to program them.

reply to post by np6888

To answer the question of how did God come into existence, the answer is that he evolved from nothing. What's the difference between saying God came from nothing vs the universe came from nothing? The difference is by using God as an intermediate, you have a transition from the simple to complex.

I don't believe anything can come from nothing. Defies everything I hold true, everything I experience in reality. That's my belief.

That said there is another alternative to what you're saying that doesn't involve 'something coming from nothing' and that would be an eternal Universe(s). Space and time having no beginning as it always existed in some form as existence itself always existed as a physical Universe(s).

The idea of something not having an origin is hardly comprehensible which is why I used the words 'magical and impossible' earlier. I agree with you that the notion of the Universe fine-tuning itself is a proper and fitting enough description for God. I think intelligence (in an unimaginably more complex form) is intrinsic to the that eternal nature.

If I am following what you're talking about with the cycles of big bangs and big crunches correctly then I am thinking along those same lines. I myself belief in an eternal physical existence... but I don't believe the Universe is eternal per se as understand it and am inclined to believe it goes through infinite (defined potential infinity here) big bangs and big crunches. I think you're getting at what I believe. That there has to be a conservation of information that takes place during those transitions. In fact I think that infinite regression of big bangs and big crunches is merely a very macroscopic example of evolution. The collective conservation and guidance of the information is what I would call God.

Edit: added some thoughts

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I don't believe anything can come from nothing. Defies everything I hold true, everything I experience in reality. That's my belief.

So,where do you think everything came from?

A re-birth of a continuation of a process that was started very,very long ago?

reply to post by kdog1982


I added some thoughts to my post post-edit so I might have answered some of that.

In my belief 'very very long time ago' is rendered meaningless as the Universe itself is eternal. It's not a very satisfying answer, but neither is God (a traditional view of) in a similar respect...either forced to 1) thinking something came from nothing or 2) an eternal component to reality. Even if you say God exists outside of THIS Universe you are still stuck with the tired conundrum of 'but what before'. So yeah...at the end of the day it's eternal or something came from nothing. I myself believe Existence is eternal, had no beginning and that Space and Time were always a component of that in some physical form.

I would add to that by saying the conservation of information is an integral part of Existence, and borrowing the words of a friendly poster, allows for the emergent property that gives birth to consciousness right from the onset. Existence always was and so was intelligence so to speak.

I wrote that without backspace or pause so hope it's readable

As soon as the poster starts saying things like "John:1" the ignorant quack alert goes off. Religion is such a turn off.

I guess cheetahs and wolves are as smart as we humans,but yet we lost our hair.
Why is that?

Wolves are pretty damn intelligent, so are Orcas and Dolphins. Crows can use tools too. It's not the point, dietary habbits shape how things can evolve.. You can see it in finches, it's not something new to evolution or science regarding it. Our dietary changes effected how we work together as a species, and with tools and the ability to make them put us in a higher evolutionary pathway to which ultimately led us capable of sending a rover to mars...And mind you, we almost went extinct ourselves.. Wolves. dolphins ect don't have disposable thumbs.. And quite frankly, if dolphins did, they would likely be good candidates for evolving into a higher cognitive species like our selves. They are just sadly limited physically as they certainly have the brain for it.

And nobody stated our diet is the sole variable in how we evolved. It played a big role, but it's not the sole variable.

I don't believe anything can come from nothing. Defies everything I hold true, everything I experience in reality. That's my belief.

I agree, and I agree because not even scientists think that in the literal context. Nothing doesn't exist and can't, it's obvious..

That said there is another alternative to what you're saying that doesn't involve 'something coming from nothing' and that would be an eternal Universe(s). Space and time having no beginning as it always existed in some form as existence itself always existed as a physical Universe(s).

We aren't discussing "universes" :/, I don't know how we went from existence itself to universes. :/ At any rate, I personally was discussing existence itself as a whole..How many universes become emergent properties in existence is irrelevant to my position. But yes, you are right, this Universe existed in some other state before the inflationary event that caused it to become what it is today.

The idea of something not having an origin is hardly comprehensible which is why I used the words 'magical and impossible' earlier. I agree with you that the notion of the Universe fine-tuning itself is a proper and fitting enough description for God. I think intelligence (in an unimaginably more complex form) is intrinsic to the that eternal nature.

Well intelligence can't exist without cause, and to say a universe is fine tuned or that existence is fine tuned in the light of the fact that a conscious state can't exist without cause is a self-refuting argument. Provided of course that argument is being made. Hence what fine tuned existence so a conscious state could exist? You know there is a huge difference between a rock and something conscious like us... And the more complexity something has, the more cause is required to support it's existence. It's a backwards argument to say the complexity of this world must mean ID while trying to claim the complexity of a cognitive system magically doesn't.. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too . Well, you can't. And that was the point I was making.. Ultimately speaking, the concept of ID is flawed.

If I am following what you're talking about with the cycles of big bangs and big crunches correctly then I am thinking along those same lines. I myself belief in an eternal physical existence... but I don't believe the Universe is eternal per se as understand it and am inclined to believe it goes through infinite (defined potential infinity here) big bangs and big crunches.

Well, the Universe isn't going to have a big crunch.. It's measured to be flat and is thus is a type of open system. But no, the universe isn't eternal because that definition only relates to everything emergent from that inflationary event. It doesn't mean another event can't happen in it's place, or that there aren't trillions of others out in the infinite sea of existence.. Big Bangs could be as common as lightning out to sea and you wouldn't even know it.

I think you're getting at what I believe. That there has to be a conservation of information that takes place during those transitions. In fact I think that infinite regression of big bangs and big crunches is merely a very macroscopic example of evolution. The collective conservation and guidance of the information is what I would call God.

It would be a form of cosmic evolution, but GOD? Well ultimately existence is top dog in that arena.

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

I don't believe anything can come from nothing. Defies everything I hold true, everything I experience in reality. That's my belief.

So,where do you think everything came from?

A re-birth of a continuation of a process that was started very,very long ago?

To answer... Existence itself.. Hence, "where" is a good question... And right where the inflationary event occurred would be a very good location for where in existence it came from.