The Triune system

[SusanDoris]

I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

Totally unsupported assertion, following a totally biased belief. On what tests, reliability of test results, etc do you base the statement that you have no doubts at all that evolution has direction? 

quote]

[Stranger]

I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

Dogmatic assertion of superstition.

Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. Not necessarily.

I don't know how educated most people here are (not much I gather).... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.

More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture and how things fit together!!!  That's the problem.

Confusion, assertion, superstition, and rather comical, affected superiority.

But then...that's too much for many people here I realize. 

It's everybody else! Honest!

[torridon]

I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions.  A clear case of biology being  created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. 

If that is your grand theory then you need to justify it, merely asserting it without evidence is not going to cut it.  If you were right everlasting fame and a Nobel prize no doubt would be yours for the taking.  Step up to the mark and show us what it is that 150 years of biologists have failed to notice.

[Leonard James]

But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. 

What you don't realise is that many of us are less susceptible to believing stuff for which there is zero testable evidence.

[ippy]

I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions.  A clear case of biology being  created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. 

Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.

I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here,  not much, I gather)...... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.

More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture or how things fit together!!!  That's the problem.

But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. 

All sorts of people can be very well educated and at the same time be left seriously wanting in the intellect area.

ippy

[Sriram]

If that is your grand theory then you need to justify it, merely asserting it without evidence is not going to cut it.  If you were right everlasting fame and a Nobel prize no doubt would be yours for the taking.  Step up to the mark and show us what it is that 150 years of biologists have failed to notice.

torridon,

I have written many times earlier about two types of people. Those with the Zoom-In mind and those with the Zoom-Out mind.

The Zoom-In mind is which zooms into things. Details, separating, differentiating, categorizing, specializing, splitting apart and so on. This is the mind  of the average scientist. Always seeing differences.....rarely integrating.

The Zoom-out mind is that which zooms out like a TV camera. Its puts together things that seem different. It integrates, finds similarities, sees everything as parts of a whole.  This is the mind of a philosopher. Always looking for the Big Picture.

Most people here (needless to say) are of the Zoom-In variety. All science enthusiasts,  but by their very nature and nurture only zoom-in people. They will never be able to integrate ideas and  put together seemingly disparate  phenomena.

As far as evidence for direction to evolution is concerned. Its everywhere....most people of the zoom-out variety will be able to see it at once. Those of the zoom-in variety sadly, will not be able to put them together.....that is all.  It is unfortunate but true.   

1. The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!

2. The Survival instinct and procreation instincts  born from DNA replication is another evidence of a goal.

3. Epigenetics/neo-Lamarckism are probably the mechanism (besides other unknowns) by which information gathered during ones life time are passed on to the progeny facilitating active adaptation. No need for random stuff.

4. Many other well known ideas such as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, Anthropic Principle, Gaia hypothesis all point to an active participation of Consciousness in the world....and to the world being a living system with constant feed back and regulation.

All this is enough evidence for a direction to evolution, according to me....certainly much more than is available for Dark Matter and Dark Energy......but I know that with the Zoom-In mindset of most people here none of this will make any sense. They will be back to baring their fangs with their crass and scornful remarks.    Unfortunate!

Cheers.

Sriram     

[Leonard James]

Blimey ... yet another suitable partner for Sass. The dear girl is going to be overwhelmed with possible suitors. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

All sorts of people can be very well educated and at the same time be left seriously wanting in the intellect area.

Veeerrry! true old son, for instance, there are some people who understand words like, genotype, genome, melanism, phenotype, allele, homozygous, heterozygous, autosomal dominants, macroevolution, microevolution, speciation, etc etc etc, but then proceed to tell me that it is all veeerrry simple.

And I am still waiting for these great well educated minds who have voiced an opinion on this thread to show me in a few paragraphs how veerrry simple it all is, hell!! ippy old chum did you yourself not describe it as  "beautifully simple".

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

There are few things sadder than the lone crank convinced that he's hugging the truth to himself while the entire scientific community of the planet are in the wrong.

[Stranger]

I have written many times... [blah, blah...]

A very long version of "It's everybody else, Honest!".

Can't be bothered to type detail as you don't take any notice anyway....

1/ Personal incredulity.

2/ Misunderstanding and superstition.

3/ More misunderstanding.

4/ More terms you've misunderstood.

5/ [The bit at the end] Empty assertion and a bizarre comparison to more things you've misunderstood.

[Stranger]

And I am still waiting for these great well educated minds who have voiced an opinion on this thread to show me in a few paragraphs how veerrry simple it all is, hell!! ippy old chum did you yourself not describe it as  "beautifully simple".

What is it you are having trouble understanding? There are two or three basic explanations of natural selection in the thread. Perhaps Darwin's own definition would help...

Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

I do that, if I can't find the words, my favourite is using an Einstein quote, here's one,

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Oh! and BTW I get the gist of natural selection, life changes if our environment changes, but when you start to get into the detail and I would like to thank you, your 101 evolution link is very useful.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

I do that, if I can't find the words...

I assumed you didn't understand by attempts (#37 #43 #62).

Oh! and BTW I get the gist of natural selection, life changes if our environment changes, but when you start to get into the detail and I would like to thank you, your 101 evolution link is very useful.

   I'm glad, and to be honest the detail can get complicated, especially now we know about genetics, but the basic principle was, and remains, simple...

[jeremyp]

I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction.

So you are certain that a falsehood is true in your mind. Unfortunately, reality doesn't take any notice of your opinion.

The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

Again you are wrong.

The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions.  A clear case of biology being  created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. 

Didn't you notice the other posts in the thread that demonstrate the triune system is a massive oversimplification at best.

Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.

Materialism is a philosophical position, science is a method for finding things out. Can you point out who on this board has confused the two?

I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here,  not much, I gather)

I suspect most of us are educated to around the same level as you (with one or two notable excepts like Prof D). However, some of us took notice of the things we were being taught. You should try it.

But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. 

I understand that you want your particular world view to be true. Unfortunately, wanting doesn't make it so.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Veeerrry! true old son, for instance, there are some people who understand words like, genotype, genome, melanism, phenotype, allele, homozygous, heterozygous, autosomal dominants, macroevolution, microevolution, speciation, etc etc etc, but then proceed to tell me that it is all veeerrry simple.

And I am still waiting for these great well educated minds who have voiced an opinion on this thread to show me in a few paragraphs how veerrry simple it all is, hell!! ippy old chum did you yourself not describe it as  "beautifully simple".
C
Gonnagle.

The terms you're referring to as you no doubt know can be looked up in a combination of the dictionary and Google.

If as it seems to me you don't want to understand how evolution is described by Darwin, I can't make you and don't really have any need to do so.

Understanding evolution as described by Darwin doesn't really require any kind of super brain, the way you write and put together your posts doesn't suggest any lack of the grey stuff in your head, assuming that's so I can only think that for reasons of you own the accepted version of how evolution works doesn't suit you, I've no idea why?

ippy

[torridon]

torridon,

I have written many times earlier about two types of people. Those with the Zoom-In mind and those with the Zoom-Out mind.

The Zoom-In mind is which zooms into things. Details, separating, differentiating, categorizing, specializing, splitting apart and so on. This is the mind  of the average scientist. Always seeing differences.....rarely integrating.

The Zoom-out mind is that which zooms out like a TV camera. Its puts together things that seem different. It integrates, finds similarities, sees everything as parts of a whole.  This is the mind of a philosopher. Always looking for the Big Picture.

Most people here (needless to say) are of the Zoom-In variety. All science enthusiasts,  but by their very nature and nurture only zoom-in people. They will never be able to integrate ideas and  put together seemingly disparate  phenomena.

As far as evidence for direction to evolution is concerned. Its everywhere....most people of the zoom-out variety will be able to see it at once. Those of the zoom-in variety sadly, will not be able to put them together.....that is all.  It is unfortunate but true.   

1. The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!

2. The Survival instinct and procreation instincts  born from DNA replication is another evidence of a goal.

3. Epigenetics/neo-Lamarckism are probably the mechanism (besides other unknowns) by which information gathered during ones life time are passed on to the progeny facilitating active adaptation. No need for random stuff.

4. Many other well known ideas such as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, Anthropic Principle, Gaia hypothesis all point to an active participation of Consciousness in the world....and to the world being a living system with constant feed back and regulation.

All this is enough evidence for a direction to evolution, according to me....certainly much more than is available for Dark Matter and Dark Energy......but I know that with the Zoom-In mindset of most people here none of this will make any sense. They will be back to baring their fangs with their crass and scornful remarks.    Unfortunate!

Cheers.

Sriram   

This is not so much evidence, as patronising rant. For sure there are lots of things we don't understand, that will always be the case.  But that shouldn't licence us to throw out all the insights we have accumulated to date.

As far as a direction to evolution goes, we could say there is some direction in terms of increasing complexity of life forms over time but I don't see that the particular trajectory of the evolution of complexity on this planet suggests that some hidden guiding hand is at work. 'Progress' if we can call it that, has been hit and miss, sometimes one step forward and two steps back with often enormous periods of no change in between.  A truer model to explain this pattern is given already by understanding that life finds explanations in terms of chemistry and chemistry arises out of physics, and armed with that understanding we would predict that carbon based life forms would tend to increase in complexity as a direct consequence of the observed bonding promiscuity of carbon. It comes down to the particular quirks of the periodic table.  If we discover silicon based life on other planets, the prediction from the universal periodic table would be that it will achieve nothing like the levels of complexity achieved by carbon. Of course you could argue that the periodic table must then have been architected specifically by some arch-chemist in the sky such that it would produce bankers and playwrights somewhere or other sooner or later.  But that too is something of a philosophical dead end eventually because it pointedly fails to explain the origin of the arch chemist in the sky.  It's not an explanation at all, in other words, just something that very superficially looks like one.

[ippy]

This is not so much evidence, as patronising rant. For sure there are lots of things we don't understand, that will always be the case.  But that shouldn't licence us to throw out all the insights we have accumulated to date.

As far as a direction to evolution goes, we could say there is some direction in terms of increasing complexity of life forms over time but I don't see that the particular trajectory of the evolution of complexity on this planet suggests that some hidden guiding hand is at work. 'Progress' if we can call it that, has been hit and miss, sometimes one step forward and two steps back with often enormous periods of no change in between.  A truer model to explain this pattern is given already by understanding that life finds explanations in terms of chemistry and chemistry arises out of physics, and armed with that understanding we would predict that carbon based life forms would tend to increase in complexity as a direct consequence of the observed bonding promiscuity of carbon. It comes down to the particular quirks of the periodic table.  If we discover silicon based life on other planets, the prediction from the universal periodic table would be that it will achieve nothing like the levels of complexity achieved by carbon. Of course you could argue that the periodic table must then have been architected specifically by some arch-chemist in the sky such that it would produce bankers and playwrights somewhere or other sooner or later.  But that too is something of a philosophical dead end eventually because it pointedly fails to explain the origin of the arch chemist in the sky.  It's not an explanation at all, in other words, just something that very superficially looks like one.

Sriram, it's pretty obvious you're not completely brain dead, but to be fair I think the way you're trying to convey these thoughts of yours  about evolution are more indicative of some sort of childhood indoctrination, than a reasoned out chain of thoughts about the subject. Well whatever, that's how I read you.

ippy

[Sriram]

Sriram, it's pretty obvious you're not completely brain dead, but to be fair I think the way you're trying to convey these thoughts of yours  about evolution are more indicative of some sort of childhood indoctrination, than a reasoned out chain of thoughts about the subject. Well whatever, that's how I read you.

ippy

Thanks for having faith in my abilities ippy. Nice of you.   So....try to think through what I say and see if you mind opens up. That's the whole point of faith...you know. 

[SusanDoris]

Thanks for having faith in my abilities ippy. Nice of you.   So....try to think through what I say and see if you mind opens up. That's the whole point of faith...you know. 

Translation: Accept my entirely unevidenced views on thoughts to do with God/god/s, the supernatural, and this will mean you have an open mind according to Sriram's definition (and AB's Sassy's et all).

[Stranger]

So....try to think through what I say and see if you mind opens up.

Sriram, what you have said in this thread demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the subject. You seem to be engaged in the time-honoured practice of trying to destroy that which you do not understand.

[Sriram]

Sriram, what you have said in this thread demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the subject. You seem to be engaged in the time-honoured practice of trying to destroy that which you do not understand.

So you like to believe!!! 

[Stranger]

So you like to believe!!! 

I know, from the evidence of your posts, that don't understand the theory of evolution (so does everybody else who has read this thread and does understand it) - yet you are obviously trying to discredit it and replace it with your own 'ideas'.

If you really want your 'ideas' to be taken (slightly more) seriously you should at least do your homework and understand that which you want to oppose.

[Sriram]

I know, from the evidence of your posts, that don't understand the theory of evolution (so does everybody else who has read this thread and does understand it) - yet you are obviously trying to discredit it and replace it with your own 'ideas'.

If you really want your 'ideas' to be taken (slightly more) seriously you should at least do your homework and understand that which you want to oppose.

You yourself keep saying it is simple. Just a case of random mutations.....environmental pressure....and NS.    Big deal!!   

Point is that I don't agree that complexity can arise due to this so called 'process'. Now that's simple too......you know!!   

[Shaker]

So present your evidence.

Hand-waving won't cut it here.

[Leonard James]

Point is that I don't agree that complexity can arise due to this so called 'process'. Now that's simple too......you know!!   

The fact that you don't agree with an established fact makes you look a tad stupid.