Eternity

[Stranger]

I don't need to answer anything. 

No you don't, but you keep on presenting things as if they were thought out, intellectually and even scientifically justifiable. Your whole blog is set up like that too, not only your posts here. It's not a good look when it all collapses into blind faith and ignoring the evidence as soon as you get challenged.

I believe that intelligent intervention is necessary for emergent properties to arise. You are free to believe that chance factors are enough.

Natural selection is not chance. Saying that it is is blatantly dishonest, especially when you've been given a full description of the process that shows that it's not chance and all you can do is ignore it.

[Outrider]

You cannot compare repetitive natural phenomena such as the water cycle with complex and developing phenomena such as evolution.

Because both appear to be orderly natural phenomena devoid of any guiding intelligence, you mean? Because of that similarity I can't compare them?

Unicellular organisms haven't evolved into complex humans through repetitive cyclical processes.

Oh, well why didn't you say so earlier, if you knew that already you should have published your rigorously researched and evidence demonstration of that otherwise fantastically unsupported assertion of your personal incredulity as universal law.

There are several emergent properties that have arisen at different stages which call for intelligent intervention.

There are innumerable instances where you could conjecture purely on the effects that an intelligent guide was involved, you might even suspect it had a fondness for crabs. But if you look anything more that superficially you see a system that doesn't actually require that intelligence that we have copious evidence for, and an at least equally vast number of examples where we don't suspect an underlying intelligence.

There is clearly some feed back and change mechanism that exists within organisms that you are reluctant to accept as the driver of evolution.

No, there isn't 'clearly' any such thing - please, give an example.

Phenotypic plasticity makes such intervention and feedback possible.  It cannot be dismissed as some one off phenomenon.

It is not being dismissed as anything of the sort, it's a trait that we see in a number of species that has an explanatory mechanism for why it has been selected for, but it doesn't do anything to undermine the theory of evolution by natural selection, it's a phenomenon that's explained by the process, not some magical cypher which disproves it.

O.

[Sriram]

Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.

I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans. Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life.  Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.

Clearly there is some form of consciousness  and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means.  The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here. 

There is enough reason for me to believe that  an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.

That is it.   

[Maeght]

Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.

I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans. Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life.  Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.

Clearly there is some form of consciousness  and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means.  The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here. 

There is enough reason for me to believe that  an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.

That is it.

That's not it.

[Stranger]

Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.

Hum. It really is quite difficult to know how to respond to such utter nonsense; especially as you have a been given a full explanation of natural selection as a real and process that clearly isn't 'chance'.

Perhaps an instance of this:



Really, the only other explanations seem to be fear - you won't even look at the explanation for fear of shattering your cosy fantasy world - or simple stupidity - you just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it.

Ho hum.

I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans. Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life.  Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.

Clearly there is some form of consciousness  and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means.  The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here. 

There is enough reason for me to believe that  an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.

Pure, baseless fantasy.

[Alan Burns]

Clearly there is some form of consciousness  and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means.  The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here. 

There is enough reason for me to believe that  an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.

That is it.

This is reflected in the profound, inspired opening words of John's Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word

A word can convey meaning and conscious intent.
Could the concepts of meaning and intent evolve from unconscious material entities?  I think not.
Or were the concepts of meaning and intent there from the beginning?

[Stranger]

Could the concepts of meaning and intent evolve from unconscious material entities?  I think not.

Argument from personal incredulity fallacy (silly logical blunder). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hum. It really is quite difficult to know how to respond to such utter nonsense; especially as you have a been given a full explanation of natural selection as a real and process that clearly isn't 'chance'.

Perhaps an instance of this:



Really, the only other explanations seem to be fear - you won't even look at the explanation for fear of shattering your cosy fantasy world - or simple stupidity - you just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it.

Ho hum.

Pure, baseless fantasy.

Outrageous ad hominem.

[Sriram]

Outrageous ad hominem.

Some people are allowed to do anything...

[Stranger]

Outrageous ad hominem.

Some people are allowed to do anything...

When you've given somebody a full explanation of something, compete with real world observed example, and they still flatly refuse to accept it without even attempting to address the explanation or say why they disagree with the observations, what exactly are people supposed to conclude?

Even Answers in Genesis, well known mouthpiece of batshit crazy 6,000 years ago, six literal 24 hour day creationism, aren't daft enough to try to deny that natural selections is a real process: "The claim that biblical creationists reject natural selection is based on an outdated notion." This level of staggering reality denial has to have some explanation...

[Sriram]

This is reflected in the profound, inspired opening words of John's Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word

A word can convey meaning and conscious intent.
Could the concepts of meaning and intent evolve from unconscious material entities?  I think not.
Or were the concepts of meaning and intent there from the beginning?

Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life. 

I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life. 

I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

'Outrageous ad hominem' 

[Bramble]

Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life. 

I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

Actually not true, though I suppose it depends on how one defines 'religions and spiritual philosophies'. Early Chinese philosophy (as represented for example by the proto-Daoist texts, the Dao de jing & Zhuangzi) did not see any kind of guiding mind behind the natural world. Perhaps the Chinese were just blind, as you say, or maybe one needs a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

[Maeght]

Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life. 

I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

A vivid imagination?

Essentially because of your beliefs (nature & nurture) you interpret things as evidence to support those beliefs. It seems clear and obvious to you. Those who don't share your beliefs don't see it that way. It means your brain is different but not that you have some faculty to see what is there that others lack. It's just different.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are a school teacher too?!    I don't need to answer anything.

Your beliefs are dim-witted and your attempts at producing evidence to justify them are idiotic. The reasons your beliefs are dim-witted and your attempts at producing evidence to justify them have been explained you many times here without you bothering to engage with those reasons so no, apparently you don’t have to answer.

Your non-answering does not though make your beliefs any less dim-witted and nor your attempts to justify them any less idiotic. 

I believe that intelligent intervention is necessary for emergent properties to arise. You are free to believe that chance factors are enough.

It’s not just “chance factors” for the reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep just ignoring, but you are of course entitled to believe whatever nonsense takes your fancy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life.

Not all of them do that. 

I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

Did you know that people are in fact shape-shifting lizards from Alpha Centauri with a penchant for tiddledywinks? I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.

Ooh it’s fun this isn’t it – just asserting any old drivel to be true, and then further asserting that the reason others can’t see the truth of it too is that they’re blind to it.

OK, your turn again…     

[Outrider]

Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.

No, it appears that you aren't. The environment is, and the variations are, and there's no evidence to suggest that either of those is deliberately caused in advance. Environment acting on variation exerts selective pressures which are NOT RANDOM, hence evolution.

I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans.

That's more about you than it is about evolutionary science.

Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life.

No, there aren't. There are EXPERIENCES which people interpret as indicators of something supernatural and 'spiritual', but there are not confirmed phenomena.

Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.

So you unleash the fully devastating power of unsupported assertions and your incapacity to accept evidence, instead?
 

Clearly there is some form of consciousness  and intelligence at work at deeper levels.

Clearly there isn't, or this conversation would have moved forward by now.

What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means.

You have to establish that intelligence first, not just assert it. If you can't demonstrate it, how can you hope to start investigating it?

The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here.

Yes, and at no point was it resolved that it has the capacity to directly influence the underpinnings of reality. 

There is enough reason for me to believe that  an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.

Then your incredulity appears to be selective.
 

That is it.

I know, that's what's disappointing. That's it, that's still, after all this time, all that you have. 'I don't like that conclusion' and new age woo.

O.

[Sriram]

The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up. Almost a religious reaction.

The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality when in fact you are merely fighting for your beliefs.

Anyway...I have put my views here. How you take it is up to you.

Thanks.

[Outrider]

The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up.

The consistency with which you post woo shows your fight for irrationality in the face of evidence is strong.

Almost a religious reaction.

Except in its foundation, formulation and execution, but apart from that...

The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality when in fact you are merely fighting for your beliefs.

The problem is that you think we're arguing for our beliefs instead of actually listening and realising that we're arguing from our deductions - those deductions might be wrong, but they're a whole different category to your speculative faith claims.

Anyway...I have put my views here. How you take it is up to you.

Until and unless you give us some more reason to accept than 'but Sriram says', we'll likely continue to choose not to take it at all, thanks very much, and we'll probably continue to point out the flaws in your lack of reasoning to ensure that others are adequately informed about your complete lack of any rational basis for your assertions.

Thanks.

No problem.

O.

[Stranger]

The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up. Almost a religious reaction.

Rather ironically, and not a little amusingly, 'meme' is another concept you've totally misunderstood. Although you cite The Selfish Gene on your blog, you've obviously been too lazy to go as far as to actually read it. If you had, you'd understand that the scientific method and critical thinking are memes, not just the sort of superstitious nonsense that you keep peddling.

The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality...

Natural selection is exactly that, which is why even the crazies at AiG don't try to deny it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up. Almost a religious reaction.

No, there’s no “vehemence” – at most there are expressions sheer frustration at your dishonest refusal ever even to try to engage with the falsifying arguments you’re given. When someone asserts 2 + 2 = 5 and cites a dodgy website report of someone’s second cousin twice removed making the same assertion for his evidence, is then corrected multiple times with reason and arguments, then ignores everything that’s been said and just accuses the people who have corrected him of being “blind” to his “obvious” truth, then some frustration doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me.     

The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality…

That’s exactly what the T of E is, yes – why do you think that’s “the” problem rather than you endlessly peddling incoherent and un-evidenced woo being the actual problem?

…when in fact you are merely fighting for your beliefs.

Er, no – what people are actually “fighting” (ie, arguing) for is the conclusions that the reasoning and evidence leads too. You on the other hand are exactly “fighting” (ie, repeating endlessly reason-free and evidence-denying gibberish) for your beliefs.   

Anyway...I have put my views here. How you take it is up to you.

Thanks.

Yes, that’s what you always do when you’ve run out of road – run away. No doubt having taken such care to ignore all the arguments that falsify you here, you’ll feel emboldened to start another dim-witted “discussion” that repeats them yet again.

What’s the point of joining a discussion mb if you never actually want to discuss anything?     

[Sriram]

Take it easy Blue (and Stranger). I am not denying evolution or any scientific theory. Relax.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Take it easy Blue (and Stranger). I am not denying evolution or any scientific theory. Relax.

It's the theory of evolution, not "evolution" and you're misrepresenting it, not "denying" it.

And no-one needs to "calm down" - what you're seeing at most is some frustration at your continued misrepresentation of it despite that fact that some here have taken the time and trouble t explain it to you. Several times.   

[Sriram]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

Denis Noble on a new approach to evolution...

[Alan Burns]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

Denis Noble on a new approach to evolution...

A truly brilliant mind.
He has provoked predictable outrage from Neo Darwinists by providing evidence that the process of evolution involves more than random mutations combined with natural selection.