125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[dlamberth]

Thanks, you put that well. What I meant to say is that if evolution is just a blind process, then there is nothing saying our reasoning should be acclimated to having accurate perceptions at all.

I may be alone with this here, but when looking at it from the perspective of what's really evolving is "consciousness". And with in that evolution process self-consciousness evolved and here we are. So the question out there is evolution of "blind process"? I'd say it's more of a testing process. If a change in the body doesn't work with the changes of the earth, lets throw it away and try something else. But along with the other physical pulls of evolution, there's also an evolving consciousness having it's effects as well. So I go with blind/not-blind process.

In other words, in a naturalistic universe, (if I get your sense of the word) there is no reason to think humans should be adept at truth-seeking.

Yet truth-seeking is something we do. I place the blame on self-consciousness. And I don't know how to separate that from the natural world( if I understand you usage of that word) . It feels like the window presented into the images of a natural universe, or at least how I'm seeing it here, is limited.

Is there some sort of boundary with in the Universe that can be pointed towards that says "natural universe"?
Honest question.

If the only thing that matters is survival, then we don't need to be able to perceive truth at all.

A perceived truth I have for my own survival is that if I do not eat I will die. I'd bet that's a pretty universal perceived truth for survival. We need it for survival.

 

[Occams Barber]

may be alone with this here, but when looking at it from the perspective of what's really evolving is "consciousness". And with in that evolution process self-consciousness evolved and here we are. So the question out there is evolution of "blind process"? I'd say it's more of a testing process. If a change in the body doesn't work with the changes of the earth, lets throw it away and try something else. But along with the other physical pulls of evolution, there's also an evolving consciousness having it's effects as well. So I go with blind/not-blind process.

"If a change in the body doesn't work" who (or what) gets to throw it away? In evolutionary terms, if a change doesn't work it is unlikely to find its way into the gene pool. The 'who' is the process of evolution. You seem to be anthropomorphising a natural process.

An evolving consciousness is an effect of evolution - not a cause.

Yet truth-seeking is something we do. I place the blame on self-consciousness. And I don't know how to separate that from the natural world( if I understand you usage of that word) . It feels like the window presented into the images of a natural universe, or at least how I'm seeing it here, is limite

'Truth seeking" is no more than a hard-wired urge to understand the world. This urge has a significant survival advantage. It's also the reason we have science and religion - two different ways of trying to fathom how the world works. Not understanding results in anxiety which in turn propels us towards finding things out.

Is there some sort of boundary within the Universe that can be pointed towards that says "natural universe"?
Honest question.

I don't understand this question. In my world there is only the natural universe.

A perceived truth I have for my own survival is that if I do not eat I will die. I'd bet that's a pretty universal perceived truth for survival. We need it for survival.

As I said earlier, understanding how the world works is a hard wired urge which has a survival advantage.

OB

 

[USincognito]

Right. So our reasoning faculties are no better than what nature dictates. In other words, our reasoning faculties are not reliable at all.

Pre-sup only works with other Pre-sups. The rest of us aren't that impressed by it. Out faculties can be fooled (as optical illusions and magic tricks show), but they are sufficiently reliable.

 

[Astrid]

Which is a silly theory. Evolutionists would have us believe that the earth is hostile to life and the only way that life gets more complex is through this hostility.

Really? Where you get that ? I doubt any of
us here ever heard of that before.
How does it (supposedly) work?

I can't figure it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds interesting. Which of the four points of evolutionary theory do you think have been invalidated? Last time I looked (yesterday) they were still as solidly demonstrated as ever.

Perhaps you don't know what "presuppositions" means. What do you think it means and what "presuppositions" do you think Darwin relied on in his theory?

That evolution is unguided.

That's ironic. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Selection is the antithesis of "unguided." Maybe it would be worth doing a little reading to find out how it works? Since you dodged my first question, we can be pretty sure you don't even know the basis of evolutionary theory.

I know a chemical biologist (who believes in evolution) who believes that evolution needs a real face lift. His name is Dr. Sy Garte in case you want to ask him yourself.

Dr. Garte is a member of Biologos, a group of scientists who are devout Christians and acknowledge the fact of evolution.

Dr. Garte writes:
So is Michael Denton saying that evolution (which he calls descent with modification) has occurred from the start of life until the present, and that the complex and innovative structures that mark the major phylogenic branches of the tree of life took place by natural means rather than by special creation or intelligent design? Yes, that is what he is saying. So, you might be asking (as we were), why exactly is evolution “still a theory in crisis”? The answer is that the crisis is all about what so many evolutionary biologists have been saying: neo-Darwinism is not correct. Slow accumulation of random mutations in structural genes just doesn’t cut it when we are talking about innovative variations that give rise to new clades.

Gould said this with punctuated equilibrium. Kimura toppled the adaptationist exclusivity with the neutral theory. James Shapiro (who is strangely absent from the book) has been talking about the very same thing for years, as has Pigliucci, Wagner, Muller, Jablonka, Laland, Newman, and all the others of the Third Way and the Altenburg 16. Simon Conway Morris (another strange omission in Denton’s list of scientific allies) has turned evolutionary biology around with his demonstration of convergence and constraints on evolutionary possibilities.

So what Denton is proposing here is closer to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which is struggling with neo-Darwinism to be the standard model for evolutionary biology, than to the vaguely crafted, creationist-flavored non-hypothesis of the original ID movement. Denton presents epigenetics, transposition, the emergence of new properties from complex precursors, and (we were happy to see) includes a strong emphasis on the role of gene regulatory networks in the production of innovative structural phenotypes. So, importantly, Denton is not appealing to a creative intelligence in lieu of biological mechanisms, but weighing—as many evolutionary biologists are also doing—the relative importance of natural selection as a driver of evolutionary change.

Evolution is Still Not a Theory in Crisis, but Neo-Darwinism Might Be - Article - BioLogos

A review of Michael Denton’s “Evolution: Still A Theory in Crisis.”

biologos.org

Dr. Garte knows what he's talking about. But you don't seem to know what he's talking about.

 

[dlamberth]

Which is a silly theory. Evolutionists would have us believe that the earth is hostile to life and the only way that life gets more complex is through this hostility.

That's ridiculous.

 

[All Becomes New]

Evolution: The one thing all naturalists agree with. Don't attack evolution or you will get piled on by naturalists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution: The one thing all naturalists agree with. Don't attack evolution or you will get piled on by naturalists.

You have a perscution complex.

 

[Astrid]

Evolution: The one thing all naturalists agree with. Don't attack evolution or you will get piled on by naturalists.

That's so absurd, and multiplied by ignorance.

IF IF IF IF anyone ever came up with
good hard data to disprove ToE the same
would happen* as with amy other major
discovery.

It would be met with a combo of amazement,
and deep skepticism. As it should be.
Next, everyone in the field would dive
in to investigate.

The data would be gone over, tested, in every conceivable way. A bit of a competition to disprove it. To get in on it if it's real.

The Nobel would need a new category if it all proved
out: Greatest discovery of all time.


You probably have no idea of the immensity of
it.

However, there is no such discovery to offer.
Not datum point one. Nothing.


If someone is such a clueless dweeb as to pipe
up among educated serious minded people and
claim " evolution is phony coz zircons" or some other
such garbage, well, they deserve all the scorn they get.

* total opposite to religions

 

[Lost4words]

Corgis flew once too, i have proof::

 

[All Becomes New]

IF IF IF IF anyone ever came up with
good hard data to disprove ToE the same
would happen* as with amy other major
discovery.

ID is challenging the assumptions of evolution. They are thought of as pseudoscientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

ID is challenging the assumptions of evolution. They are thought of as pseudoscientific.

And yet, the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact across the world, despite these so-called 'assumptions'. Funny how that works.

 

[All Becomes New]

And yet, the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact across the world, despite these so-called 'assumptions'. Funny how that works.

Only because naturalism is the underlaying assumption.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only because naturalism is the underlaying assumption.

Except that it's not. Science only talks aabout what people can study. People can only study nature and the natural world. Since the super natural cannot be studied since it exists outside of nature, then it is worthless and discarded.

Also, the overuse of the word 'assumption' is just... you keep using that word. I really do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[All Becomes New]

then it is worthless and discarded.

In other words, if you can't study something, then it is worthless. Remember that the next time one of your friends asks you to just trust them on something.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In other words, if you can't study something, then it is worthless. Remember that the next time one of your friends asks you to just trust them on something.

Stop misquoting me and pretending I'm saying something else.

The only thing that science can study is the natural world. The super natural, anything beyond nature, cannot be studied. And your claim that evolution is just an assumption is asinine.

 

[All Becomes New]

The super natural, anything beyond nature, cannot be studied.

Right, which you equate to being worthless.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right, which you equate to being worthless.

Buddy, if you're going to respond to me, respond to me in full or just don't bother. You're aggravating me.

 

[Occams Barber]

ID is challenging the assumptions of evolution. They are thought of as pseudoscientific.

Intelligent Design (ID) effectively passed away in 2005 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case. Its main support, the Discovery Institute, was financially moribund and now appears to have shifted focus to Trumpish 'stop the steal' propaganda and climate change denial. ID has never been anything more than thinly disguised Creationism.

From the court ruling:

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring ID to be taught as an alternative theory.[3]​

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

​

OB​

 

[All Becomes New]

Buddy, if you're going to respond to me, respond to me in full or just don't bother. You're aggravating me.

No, you just don't like the implications of your own view. You can't study when your friend tells you to just trust them on something. Since you can't study it, you call that worthless. So it appears, by your own admission, that you think trusting your friend when you have no way to test it is worthless. Now, I know you don't behave that way, and that's exactly the point I am trying to make.