Do it without magic.

[Oncedeceived]

It is one of the cerebral functions. It "came about" as a result of the evolution of sufficiently complex brains.

When and how?

 

[justlookinla]

At which point did we have a brand new color?

-CryptoLutheran

At which point do we have a brand new human?

 

[justlookinla]

As has been explained to you before, science simply refers to 'knowing'. It is the means by which we accumulate knowledge. And, ever since we swung down from trees (and possibly for some time before that), we have acquired that knowledge through observing, calculating and formulating. That's what science is.

And has been pointed out, there are many ways of acquiring knowledge without the scientific method. That particular method of acquiring knowledge is simply one of many methods. "Knowing" was around long before science was around.

Now, as our mode of existence has become more complex, we have formalised that knowledge acquisition into a recognised process - the scientific method. One which includes the operations of hypothesis formation, the testing of evidence against those hypotheses and the continued re-testing over time, particularly when new evidence is uncovered or observed.

Ok.

This is how we have gathered all new knowledge. There is no information known to man whose emergence has been achieved by any other demonstrable means. If you have evidence of such a means, please share it.

I've shared it. For example, putting a roof over one's head to shelter oneself from the elements isn't 'scientific', it's common sense. Knowing that one loves their children isn't because of the scientific method, it's innate. Putting seasoning on food to make it taste better isn't something one does after employing 'science', it's the result of experiential knowledge. Great singers didn't employ the scientific method to produce the knowledge for soul-stirring performances, they did through knowing how to sing.

I could go on and on, but hopefully you'll get the picture. Knowledge isn't solely the domain of the scientist employing the scientific method as you're claiming.

And nor would evolutionary theory claim otherwise. You are, I presume, a human. You will only produce humans. That is the 'branch' upon which you sit. However, look back to the larger branch from whence yours shoots. You are also a primate, so you will only produce primates. But you are not the only primate occupying a division of that larger branch. And so on.

Why then employ natural selection as somehow the impetus behind the creation of new life forms? Humans are humans are humans. Your use of certain classifications of life is relatively unimportant in the uniqueness of life.

Because you seem fond of parroting mantras as a reply, your response often misses the mark. The scientific process has been tested continuously. Had it not been an effective means of accumulating knowledge which is of use to us, our progress would have been a net negative one. We would have become progressively more ignorant, unhealthy, unsafe and fearful. The reverse has been the pattern. The scientific method has been tested and shown to work.

You didn't address the issue. Once again, the scientific method has NOT been used to test the view that humanity is the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Because the scientific process has yielded us results in the 97% range, rather than the 3%!

The scientific method is based on conclusions from guesses and suppositions and is 97% accurate? Where are you getting this from?

I'm not debating with "these folks", I'm debating with you. If the pressure is becoming too much for you, just say so and I will go and debate with someone else!

Actually, you made a claim, an example was given to you which proved your claim was false.

The scientific method is not a teaching agent. It is a knowledge accumulation process. Now, people may teach others, using its findings, but the method itself is not a teacher.

The scientific method produces knowledge, which is teaching something to those who employ the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

But this is just opinion, so it can't go in the classroom.

Right. The view that humanity is the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago is just opinion also and has no place in the classroom.

 

[ViaCrucis]

LOL---Who doesn't know that!! So, scientifically speaking--what had the brain that was "sufficiently evolved?"--how was this scientifically proved?? What evolved into a brain cell? Can this be reproduced in the test lab?--I would think so, even taking something that already has the beginnings of a brain cell, and then "evolve it."

We see plenty of "primitive" organisms which have what is effectively a nerve cluster. Sensory input from the environment is quite advantageous.

What we understand as cognitive thought didn't appear out of thin air; and there remains much still be to be understood about the brain and also in understanding intelligence in non-human animals. We use the term sentience to describe a form of self-awareness, and studies demonstrate that many animals have complex thought, varying degrees of awareness. The great apes, for example, can recognize themselves in a mirror, a test that has also been used to measure cetacean and avian intelligence.

Sapience is a more complicated thing, however. As far as we know we are the only sapient species on earth. We are the only animals that have more than self-awareness, but the awareness that we are aware, and the capacity to imagine minds outside of our own (what we call a Theory of Mind). Of course even in humans a theory of mind is not something we are born with, studies show that children below the age of four typically lack a theory of mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hLubgpY2_w

I don't think it is at all possible for us to determine when the first hominid was able aware that he or she was aware, or aware that other minds exist independently of one's own. But we also shouldn't imagine it was sudden, not any more than a child waking up and suddenly aware that there are other minds who think and feel and believe differently than their own. It's gradual, and trying to pinpoint the first fully cognitive, fully aware, fully sapient thought is almost certainly not the sort of thing we're going to figure out anytime soon--if ever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

At which point do we have a brand new human?

I find it strange that you think I'm the same human being as everyone else. I am clearly not the same person as you, nor am I the same person as either of my parents. I have a completely separate body, a completely unique genetic identity.

Each human is a brand new human person, a brand new instance of human life, a completely unique organism. How is this difficult to understand?

I am not a genetic clone to either of my parents. Like I said, I am more than happy to show you a picture of my father and I so I can show you that we are different. My father has black hair, I have red hair. I am clearly a different human being than my father, I am clearly a different instance of biological life than my father.

Because each individual organism is, in fact, a unique and individual organism. With the possible exception of clones, there are no two exactly identical life forms in existence, and there never has been.

Because no two individual organisms are exactly alike it means that when we pass on our genetic material it is an imperfect process that brings with it changes and variation.

If there is a widespread population of widgets, and due to some reason one population of widgets is cut off from another, over the course of many generations we will likely see that the isolated widgets--if they survived and thrived in their isolated environment--are now different sorts of widgets than the rest of the widgets. All because two widgets produced a widget baby who had a certain combination of genes, who then passed on their genes to another baby, and so on and so on. Natural selection due to environmental pressures giving preference to variations in the genetic code that result in better survivability--that is, to live long enough to pass the genes on to the next generation.

Unless of course you want to continue to insist that every human being is an identical genetic copy of one another.

But if you plan on doing that then I will have to insist that I am the King of America, and you shall only address me as "Your Royal Radness".

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[SteveB28]

And has been pointed out, there are many ways of acquiring knowledge without the scientific method. That particular method of acquiring knowledge is simply one of many methods. "Knowing" was around long before science was around.

How has that "knowing" come about without first observing, calculating or formulating?

I've shared it. For example, putting a roof over one's head to shelter oneself from the elements isn't 'scientific', it's common sense.

By what process did "sense" become "common"? How did ancient man come to know that some shelters were more effective than others? How did he come to know that some materials would last longer than others? How did he know that some shelters were easier to construct, or more portable, or were better in keeping out threats, than others?

Knowing that one loves their children isn't because of the scientific method, it's innate.

Information? You categorise emotional expressions as information?

Putting seasoning on food to make it taste better isn't something one does after employing 'science', it's the result of experiential knowledge.

Is it not possible to reword "experiential knowledge" as "trial and error"? That's science!

Great singers didn't employ the scientific method to produce the knowledge for soul-stirring performances, they did through knowing how to sing.

How did they know which sounds were pleasing to the ear and which weren't? How did they learn what a flat or a sharp sound was? How was the music first structured to accompany their songs?

I could go on and on,

From what I have witnessed so far, that is certainly no idle threat!

but hopefully you'll get the picture. Knowledge isn't solely the domain of the scientist employing the scientific method as you're claiming.

And nor did I claim such. I said that the accumulation of knowledge was all about man employing the scientific process. I did not say that it was the sole purview of scientists. Your mischaracterization of my statements provides a clue as to the stability of your argument. It's shaky.

Why then employ natural selection as somehow the impetus behind the creation of new life forms?

More instability. It isn't natural selection which provides the variety of life forms. That is the role of mutations. Natural selection is in the business of determining which of those life forms is more suited to its environment and will therefore enjoy breeding superiority.

Was it you that I suggested should take a break from debating and take time to study evolutionary theory? If it was, I redouble my recommendation.

Humans are humans are humans.

Enlightening.

Your use of certain classifications of life is relatively unimportant in the uniqueness of life.

Yet again, you are going to have to explain to this ageing brain what you are trying to say?

You didn't address the issue. Once again, the scientific method has NOT been used to test the view that humanity is the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

If I bypass the meaningless mantra, what I think you are saying is that the evolution of the human species has never been evidenced through the scientific method? If so, this is patently absurd and easily countered. I would venture that the method has produced more evidence concerning human evolution than for any other species.

The scientific method is based on conclusions from guesses and suppositions and is 97% accurate? Where are you getting this from?

It's an estimate. I base it upon the huge volume of advancement of human knowledge that has taken place down through the ages.

Actually, you made a claim, an example was given to you which proved your claim was false.

"Actually", you sought to run from the debate we are having in order to deflect to the opinions of some others. I have no desire to debate with those other opinions at this stage. Have you no thoughts of your own?

The scientific method produces knowledge, which is teaching something to those who employ the scientific method.

I will agree to disagree about what "teaching" means.

 

[SteveB28]

LOL---Who doesn't know that!!

I'm sorry, but you asked a very basic question. You received a very basic response. What were you expecting?

So, scientifically speaking--what had the brain that was "sufficiently evolved?"--how was this scientifically proved??

"Scientifically proved" is oxymoronic. You might like to revise your terminology. But I appreciate the gist of your question. Any organism that has a brain with a complex structure is capable of "thought" to some level.

What evolved into a brain cell?

A brain cell is a form of nerve cell. Are you asking how nerve cells evolved?

Can this be reproduced in the test lab?--I would think so, even taking something that already has the beginnings of a brain cell, and then "evolve it."

Can what be reproduced? A thought? A nerve cell? A brain? Seems a strange question, assuming it was genuinely put. You also seem to have a strange concept of what "evolve" means.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

Why make something look old?
Seems like this god went out of his way to make it look as if he had nothing to do with it...

Doesn't this mean that God is dishonest, and is lying to us through evidence?

I don't believe so. God has embedded age for his own good reason. I don't know what that reason is.

Ignoring that, do you think that science classes should incorporate your idea into science? How would one substantiate such a claim?

Theres no reason to teach it. If the evidence indicates that the universe is old, then lets just treat it as old. God put the evidence there so theres no point in trying to prove the Earth is young from just the evidence. God could have created the universe last Thursday and we wouldn't know any different.

There are only two reasons why I believe the Earth is young. First because Genesis indicates its young. And secondly because the bible says death entered the world through Adam's sin.

 

[SteveB28]

I don't believe so. God has embedded age for his own good reason. I don't know what that reason is.


Theres no reason to teach it. If the evidence indicates that the universe is old, then lets just treat it as old. God put the evidence there so theres no point in trying to prove the Earth is young from just the evidence. God could have created the universe last Thursday and we wouldn't know any different.

There are only two reasons why I believe the Earth is young. First because Genesis indicates its young. And secondly because the bible says death entered the world through Adam's sin.

What a confused thought process you seem to employ. You accept the evidence that the earth is old, but you believe that it is very young. Without evidence. If you will permit me, that is quite bizarre.

 

[mmksparbud]

I'm sorry, but you asked a very basic question. You received a very basic response. What were you expecting?



"Scientifically proved" is oxymoronic. You might like to revise your terminology. But I appreciate the gist of your question. Any organism that has a brain with a complex structure is capable of "thought" to some level.



A brain cell is a form of nerve cell. Are you asking how nerve cells evolved?



Can what be reproduced? A thought? A nerve cell? A brain? Seems a strange question, assuming it was genuinely put. You also seem to have a strange concept of what "evolve" means.

Yes--it probably is strange--because it makes sense to me that there are genetic differences--that is very obvious. You take the pygmies, they are much different then the Watusies--but they are human. Everything has variety--the dog can be brought down from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua--and so on--and that can be done in a very short order, within a few generations, not millions of years, but they all have "evolved" from wolves. See, I am still "old school"--not so modern as most nowadays. I was taught in school that we all evolved from fish--everything--all life forms came from the sea. This was taught in in public school. One thing evolved from another. I guess it is now being stated that different species sort of spontaneously erupted leading to different set species and not one creature evolved into another. So I get confused as to what is modern thought as opposed to my old training.
And it used to be that only atheists believed in evolution, and now it is quite the modern thing to have Christians believing in evolution. It all gets over my head at times.
I can't follow how in the world a squirming, crawling ugly, squishy bug like a caterpillar can turn itself into a chrysalis and them come out this beautiful flying creature that knows how to fly (every other flying creature is basically taught, pushed out of the nest, so forth)--not only knows how to fly, but where to fly to and is now no longer consuming leafs, but nectar. And why only them. OK__it just plain doesn't make sense -- no matter how many millions of years go by--this just plain is not going to happen!! Cockroaches are still cockroaches, and have remained so , with only slight variations.
To go from ape to human---well, apes have remained apes for how long now? and no gorilla has morphed longer legs, shorter arms, or anything else to indicate it is doing anything other than remaining a gorilla. And I am very sorry, I don't care how close our DNA is--there is a huge, huge difference between a gorilla and Dolly Parton----you just are not going to confuse the two!!
I just plain to not get it!! A something or other came hurdling into an asteroid and landed there and slowly this thing, became a cell, and this cell became a different cell that turned itself, eventually into a fish, and another cell turned itself into a tree, and then another group of cells became grass and another group became birds and what in the world this cell turned into a gorilla and that gorilla can now create computers and come up with the craziest of ideas they call science, like---evolution.
Last time I looked, those gorillas just want to eat leaves, vegetation and fruit--have babies and be left alone and could care less where they came from.

 

[Kylie]

At which point do we have a brand new human?

At the point where a mummy and a daddy love each other very much and then...

Maybe you'd just prefer a link?

 

[Star Adept]

At the point where a mummy and a daddy love each other very much and then...

Maybe you'd just prefer a link?

 

[justlookinla]

I find it strange that you think I'm the same human being as everyone else. I am clearly not the same person as you, nor am I the same person as either of my parents. I have a completely separate body, a completely unique genetic identity.

Where have I suggested you're the same human being as everyone else?

Each human is a brand new human person, a brand new instance of human life, a completely unique organism. How is this difficult to understand?

Every human is a human, not a new non-human life form.

I am not a genetic clone to either of my parents. Like I said, I am more than happy to show you a picture of my father and I so I can show you that we are different. My father has black hair, I have red hair. I am clearly a different human being than my father, I am clearly a different instance of biological life than my father.

You're non-human?

Because each individual organism is, in fact, a unique and individual organism. With the possible exception of clones, there are no two exactly identical life forms in existence, and there never has been.

Humans are humans are humans.

Because no two individual organisms are exactly alike it means that when we pass on our genetic material it is an imperfect process that brings with it changes and variation.

What caused this process?

If there is a widespread population of widgets, and due to some reason one population of widgets is cut off from another, over the course of many generations we will likely see that the isolated widgets--if they survived and thrived in their isolated environment--are now different sorts of widgets than the rest of the widgets. All because two widgets produced a widget baby who had a certain combination of genes, who then passed on their genes to another baby, and so on and so on. Natural selection due to environmental pressures giving preference to variations in the genetic code that result in better survivability--that is, to live long enough to pass the genes on to the next generation.

Let's talk about the real world of humans.

Unless of course you want to continue to insist that every human being is an identical genetic copy of one another.

Unless of course you wish to claim that you are a non-human from human parents.

But if you plan on doing that then I will have to insist that I am the King of America, and you shall only address me as "Your Royal Radness".

-CryptoLuthearn

In this kingdom of yours, are you a human?

 

[justlookinla]

At the point where a mummy and a daddy love each other very much and then...

Maybe you'd just prefer a link?

The human mummy and daddy loved each other very much and produced a non-human?

Maybe you'd just address the issue?

 

[justlookinla]

How has that "knowing" come about without first observing, calculating or formulating?

It's innate within humanity. One does not calculate how to love or sing or season their food. I've given you these examples more than once now.

By what process did "sense" become "common"? How did ancient man come to know that some shelters were more effective than others? How did he come to know that some materials would last longer than others? How did he know that some shelters were easier to construct, or more portable, or were better in keeping out threats, than others?

Trial and error.

Information? You categorise emotional expressions as information?

You don't?

Is it not possible to reword "experiential knowledge" as "trial and error"? That's science!

When you love your child, that's trial and error?

How did they know which sounds were pleasing to the ear and which weren't? How did they learn what a flat or a sharp sound was? How was the music first structured to accompany their songs?

What sounds are pleasing to the ear is dependent on the hearer's likes and dislikes. For example, my dislike of certain types of music isn't determined by me employing the scientific method. I hear it, I like it...or don't.

From what I have witnessed so far, that is certainly no idle threat!

Thanks.

And nor did I claim such. I said that the accumulation of knowledge was all about man employing the scientific process. I did not say that it was the sole purview of scientists. Your mischaracterization of my statements provides a clue as to the stability of your argument. It's shaky.

Glad to see you backing away from your 'science only' position.

More instability. It isn't natural selection which provides the variety of life forms. That is the role of mutations.

Exactly!! Thank you!!

Natural selection is in the business of determining which of those life forms is more suited to its environment and will therefore enjoy breeding superiority.

Right, natural selection does not create new life forms, natural selection only acts on existing life forms.

Was it you that I suggested should take a break from debating and take time to study evolutionary theory? If it was, I redouble my recommendation.

Was it you who only offered natural selection and genetic drift as the explanation for new life forms? If so, I'm happy to see you've dropped such a suggestion.

Enlightening.

Yes, to some it is.

Yet again, you are going to have to explain to this ageing brain what you are trying to say?

Use whatever classifications you wish, that has nothing to do with the uniqueness of humanity.

If I bypass the meaningless mantra, what I think you are saying is that the evolution of the human species has never been evidenced through the scientific method? If so, this is patently absurd and easily countered. I would venture that the method has produced more evidence concerning human evolution than for any other species.

What I'm saying is that the scientific method has NOT been used to test the view that humanity is the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

It's an estimate. I base it upon the huge volume of advancement of human knowledge that has taken place down through the ages.

Guesses and suppositions concerning guesses and suppositions? Well that explains the 'solid' 97%.....to those who have faith in your guesses and suppositions of guesses and suppositions.

"Actually", you sought to run from the debate we are having in order to deflect to the opinions of some others. I have no desire to debate with those other opinions at this stage. Have you no thoughts of your own?

You said "science doesn't teach anything". Apparently it does....

What Can Science Teach Us About Morality? | RealClearScience

I will agree to disagree about what "teaching" means.

The dissemination of knowledge isn't teaching?

 

[JacksBratt]

Creation by a supernatural entity isn't science. I've no problem believing whatever you want, just keep it out of the science classroom. The science classroom is a place for those things which are supported by evidence. (Before you claim that there isn't any evidence, please go and do some honest and open research - there's plenty out there).

If you want to put the supernatural into science lessons, you'll have to also include every other religion's creation stories.

I agree, creation doesn't belong in the science class. However, neither does evolution.

Please tell me one thing that you cannot teach without saying something about life starting in some puddle somewhere and over billions of years ending up with where we are today OR with a statement that all things were created in six days. They are unaffected by these views.

You can teach all science without evolution or creation. This is because both are based on extrapolation of the same data. One camp dismisses the other but both have the same information to start from.

You may use the new findings of scientific research to further your proof of one or the other but that's it.

A spider has eight legs and a certain type of eye and spinners for it's web etc etc. You don't need to say it was created or evolved to study it and research it's abilities, characteristics and habits.

Both camps use all this to prove their view, but it can be done without raising this aspect at all.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm also a primate, like my great-great-great-great ... great-great grandparents. And going even further back I'm still a placental mammal, I'm still a tetrapod, I'm still a vertebrate animal. And I'm also and still a eukaryote.

And yes, I am a new life form. I am not the same instantiation of life that either of my parents are. I can show you a picture of me standing next to my father if you'd like proof that I'm not the same organism as my dad.

-CryptoLutheran

Please post this picture... I would like to see what kind of organism your and your dad are, respectively.

I am sure that a coroner would pretty much prove that you are quite the same in an autopsy.

In fact, if one coroner was to take all your dads organs and parts and your organs and parts and mix them up in a big tub. Without DNA testing, another coroner would have a very difficult time sorting them out into you and your dad.

And, if you threw mine in there too.... still more pieces to an unsolvable puzzle.

 

[JacksBratt]

Natural selection is not random. It is a mathematical sorting process. Which can be predicted. It has direction. It moves towards a selection for those organisms which are better suited to their environment.

This is true, however, if you had a group of animals that got stranded on an island. In order for them to escape their one and only predator they had to jump a high obstacle. All the non jumpers would be eaten. You would end up with a populace that had a majority of high jumping animals. Any that didn't get the trait would be eaten.

Now, cut a hole in the fence that allows all these prey to go through but the predator still cannot. In a few years you will have just as many non jumpers as in the past before the fence.

 

[JacksBratt]

And they change it into a life form that has never existed before.

Can you show me a picture of this.. or an example please.