Scientists believe in the punctuated equilibrium, do they believe in the "peak eventuality"?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So the concept of the punctuated equilibrium is that life doesn't start without something of a kick, to get it going, one that forces it to change, but one that keeps it in an environment where it can still change. What is interesting is that this is not an isolated concept. A concept like it is the one of the "peak eventuality".

The "peak eventuality" is the idea that of all the possible ways of approaching Evolution, each individual will commit in much the same way, with much the same strength - creating a broad spectrum of first approaches, to Evolution within their niche. Combined with the punctuated equilibrium, it describes how different individuals approach and maintain a response to their equilibrium, as has an envelope in which a certain answer will prove to be the best (for example, such that others in that equilibrium copy a particular individual, within the same).

If you can establish that there is a peak eventuality for a given equilibrium, you can understand why design and building on design have a place, even within an evolved situation (of so many species and so many cohabitant relationships between those species) - there really is a chord of ascent between species, that sustains Evolution, giving meaning to the relationships they fashion in the Evolution around them. It therefore shows that there is a way to break free of Evolution, for the sake of the species, in as much as a peak eventuality not having arrived yet, may yet be won by freer endeavour.

I think Evolution itself, is something that does not (reach) or has not yet reached a peak eventuality, because there is no sense in which tracking the inspiration that drives Evolution, is somehow possible - much like tracing cloud formation, it just can't be done. Yet people continue to insist that science will win the crowds. The point is, that once a peak eventuality has been reached, there is a massive opportunity for collaboration and insight, around what will flourish (not just what will survive, if you understand me). Jesus on the cross, was almost - in that timeframe - a peak eventuality, but ultimately no one followed Him to the same extreme: I think if they had, we would be living in a slightly different world, than we are now (so it is our fault, not His!).

This should be food for thought, if nothing else.

 

[Kylie]

Hi there,

So the concept of the punctuated equilibrium is that life doesn't start without something of a kick...

Punctuated equilibrium does not refer in any way to how life starts.

You may want to correct your misunderstandings about this topic before you start a discussion about it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,

So the concept of the punctuated equilibrium is that life doesn't start without something of a kick, to get it going, one that forces it to change, but one that keeps it in an environment where it can still change. What is interesting is that this is not an isolated concept. A concept like it is the one of the "peak eventuality".

The "peak eventuality" is the idea that of all the possible ways of approaching Evolution, each individual will commit in much the same way, with much the same strength - creating a broad spectrum of first approaches, to Evolution within their niche. Combined with the punctuated equilibrium, it describes how different individuals approach and maintain a response to their equilibrium, as has an envelope in which a certain answer will prove to be the best (for example, such that others in that equilibrium copy a particular individual, within the same).

If you can establish that there is a peak eventuality for a given equilibrium, you can understand why design and building on design have a place, even within an evolved situation (of so many species and so many cohabitant relationships between those species) - there really is a chord of ascent between species, that sustains Evolution, giving meaning to the relationships they fashion in the Evolution around them. It therefore shows that there is a way to break free of Evolution, for the sake of the species, in as much as a peak eventuality not having arrived yet, may yet be won by freer endeavour.

I think Evolution itself, is something that does not (reach) or has not yet reached a peak eventuality, because there is no sense in which tracking the inspiration that drives Evolution, is somehow possible - much like tracing cloud formation, it just can't be done. Yet people continue to insist that science will win the crowds. The point is, that once a peak eventuality has been reached, there is a massive opportunity for collaboration and insight, around what will flourish (not just what will survive, if you understand me). Jesus on the cross, was almost - in that timeframe - a peak eventuality, but ultimately no one followed Him to the same extreme: I think if they had, we would be living in a slightly different world, than we are now (so it is our fault, not His!).

This should be food for thought, if nothing else.

We are coming up on such a peak soon. Each year society adds a few days or weeks to the lifespan of the living population. Medicine, health, diet, etc.

If you plot the increase you find that we are reaching a point within 20 years where each year will add more than one additional year to our useful life.

Baring any setbacks or accidents, some people might not die.

 

[Speedwell]

We are coming up on such a peak soon. Each year society adds a few days or weeks to the lifespan of the living population. Medicine, health, diet, etc.

If you plot the increase you find that we are reaching a point within 20 years where each year will add more than one additional year to our useful life.

Baring any setbacks or accidents, some people might not die.

You posted an apparently coherent reply to Gottservant. Do you actually have any idea what he is talking about?

 

[SkyWriting]

You posted an apparently coherent reply to Gottservant. Do you actually have any idea what he is talking about?

Sometimes. He is suggesting that the environment stays in equilibrium, or "peak", until it is stressed. His view is that is why life began.

My response was regarding how stressed the environment is already and there is a huge event coming where human life expectancy might reach something like turtles...over 500 years. It's a hat-in-the-wind what that will do to humanity.

 

[packermann]

Punctuated equilibrium does not refer in any way to how life starts.

You may want to correct your misunderstandings about this topic before you start a discussion about it.

Although I agree that the punctuated equilibrium does not refer to how life starts.

But I think you are being a bit harsh on the OP. And you do not practice what you preach! It shows in your signature:

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Things are not as black and white as you and Bertram Russell make it seem. Each one of us fit the evidence into our presuppositions (faith). Some people are humble enough to admit having presuppositions, and some are too proud to admit having them.

Science is built on the presupposition that there is law and order in the universe. This can only be accepted by faith. Evidence cannot used to prove that there is law and order in the universe. That would be a circular argument. This was not a problem for earliest scientists since they believed in One who has given law and order in the universe. But you seem to be ignorant of this, hence, you use that quote from Bertram Russell.

So maybe you yourself should correct your own misunderstandings of faith before you criticize us believers for our own faith.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science is built on the presupposition that there is law and order in the universe. This can only be accepted by faith.

Incorrect. Science proposes that there is law and order in the universe, then sets out to test this proposal. Across an amazing range of topics, scales and complexity these tests reveal extensive, comprehensive, universal order. Thus the proposal is shown to be true in those instances thus far tested.

Evidence cannot used to prove that there is law and order in the universe.

Correct. Evidence is used to demonstrate the existence of law and order in the universe. Do you deny that law and order exist? Do you deny that the patterns identified by science are not evidence of law and order?

So maybe you yourself should correct your own misunderstandings of faith before you criticize us believers for our own faith.

Faith is irrelevant to the practice of science. It may have profound relevance to religious scientists in the practice of their religion. The misunderstandings here appear to be yours.

 

[Kylie]

Although I agree that the punctuated equilibrium does not refer to how life starts.

But I think you are being a bit harsh on the OP. And you do not practice what you preach! It shows in your signature:

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Things are not as black and white as you and Bertram Russell make it seem. Each one of us fit the evidence into our presuppositions (faith). Some people are humble enough to admit having presuppositions, and some are too proud to admit having them.

Science is built on the presupposition that there is law and order in the universe. This can only be accepted by faith. Evidence cannot used to prove that there is law and order in the universe. That would be a circular argument. This was not a problem for earliest scientists since they believed in One who has given law and order in the universe. But you seem to be ignorant of this, hence, you use that quote from Bertram Russell.

So maybe you yourself should correct your own misunderstandings of faith before you criticize us believers for our own faith.

Gottservant has demonstrated that he has his own interpretations about things, which do not match with actual scientific understanding. His has demonstrated this countless times. If I try to explain it, he doesn't seem to understand or grasp it. There's not much I can do except tell him he's wrong and that he needs to have a correct understanding if he wants to have a real discussion about it. And I'm not going to be his teacher. I've tried, and it doesn't seem to work.

 

[packermann]

Incorrect. Science proposes that there is law and order in the universe, then sets out to test this proposal. Across an amazing range of topics, scales and complexity these tests reveal extensive, comprehensive, universal order. Thus the proposal is shown to be true in those instances thus far tested.

If there is no law and order in the universe then test are meaningless. The validity of tests of tests are presupposed because of the faith in a universe that has law and order.

Correct. Evidence is used to demonstrate the existence of law and order in the universe. Do you deny that law and order exist? Do you deny that the patterns identified by science are not evidence of law and order?

No, because as a believer, I believe in the One who created the universe and has given the universe law and order. Since you are not a believer, you are taking a blind leap of faith that there is law and order. Evidence that demonstrates the evidence of law and order presumes that demonstrable evidence proves truth. That can only be taken by faith.

Faith is irrelevant to the practice of science. It may have profound relevance to religious scientists in the practice of their religion. The misunderstandings here appear to be yours.

Science presupposes law and order. But if there is no law and order, then everyone just happens by chance. But if everything happens by chance then it is fruitless to find any pattern in the universe - as if the universe was designed that way. So science cannot be done without faith of some kind.

 

[packermann]

There's not much I can do except tell him he's wrong and that he needs to have a correct understanding if he wants to have a real discussion about it. And I'm not going to be his teacher. I've tried, and it doesn't seem to work.

But why bother at all? Why even tell him he is wrong? As an atheist, do you not believe that in 100 years from now you will not be any better off than he? You will both be just dust. So what is the point?

 

[Kylie]

But why bother at all? Why even tell him he is wrong? As an atheist, do you not believe that in 100 years from now you will not be any better off than he? You will both be just dust. So what is the point?

By that logic, why do anything? Why should I bother to feed my daughter, considering that in a hundred years we'll both be dust? Why should I bother to bathe when I'm just going to get all sweaty again tomorrow?

 

[packermann]

By that logic, why do anything? Why should I bother to feed my daughter, considering that in a hundred years we'll both be dust? Why should I bother to bathe when I'm just going to get all sweaty again tomorrow?

Feeding your daughter now will make her happy and healthy now. Bathing makes your happier and healthier as well. But convincing the OP on some point in science is not going to make him any happier or healthier in this life. And if that makes you feel happier and then I think there is a serious problem.

I have been on this forum on and off for the last 20 years. I was very argumentative especially in the beginning. But I realized that I was doing it for my own ego. I try to now only discuss something that I think could help the other person. Before, I would belittle my opponent, trying to make him appear foolish to others, which I would hope would make me look good. I realized that that this was an indication of how insecure I was in my own beliefs - that I just had to win arguments in order to validate them. I am trying to avoid that now. I do not always succeed.

It just seems your time could be more useful than trying to belittle your opponent. Why do you not spend more time with your daughter instead of trying to convince the OP you are right, which you even admit is a hopeless case? I wish I had spent less time on forums and more time with my daughters twenty years ago. But my ego got in the way.

Be careful.

 

[Gottservant]

I have been mistaken about Evolutionists willingness, to take on a spiritual interpretation (of their theory).

Apparently there is no comment on why their are virgins, why we don't look more like our parents, why other species don't look a little human, what it would mean if there was a universal interpretation of Evolution, I could go on.

For all this, I am told that I don't understand, when if it were true that Evolutionists did, they would have an abounding amount of fact and evidence - like apes that lend their form to pygmy as well as giant humans, not simply the convenient alignment between ape and neanderthal.

I am quite happy to be the guy that still believes, God gives a choice,, that there is a moral way to conduct one's self: whether they believe in Evolution or not.

If people were not so sure that God will allow the connection to be begged one last time, I think this conversation would be very different - in reality, Evolutionists can't stage a lesson in the progression to optimal Evolution because they would prefer to remain deluded about just how many ways to wear the Emporer's clothes there really are.

Tried the Emporer's clothing out, in the jungle? Wow! Who is missing out?

 

[Kylie]

Feeding your daughter now will make her happy and healthy now. Bathing makes your happier and healthier as well. But convincing the OP on some point in science is not going to make him any happier or healthier in this life. And if that makes you feel happier and then I think there is a serious problem.

I have been on this forum on and off for the last 20 years. I was very argumentative especially in the beginning. But I realized that I was doing it for my own ego. I try to now only discuss something that I think could help the other person. Before, I would belittle my opponent, trying to make him appear foolish to others, which I would hope would make me look good. I realized that that this was an indication of how insecure I was in my own beliefs - that I just had to win arguments in order to validate them. I am trying to avoid that now. I do not always succeed.

It just seems your time could be more useful than trying to belittle your opponent. Why do you not spend more time with your daughter instead of trying to convince the OP you are right, which you even admit is a hopeless case? I wish I had spent less time on forums and more time with my daughters twenty years ago. But my ego got in the way.

Be careful.

Are you putting forward the "ignorance is bliss" argument? By starting a thread about a topic, I have to assume Gottservant wants to know the truth about something, or at the very least does not want to have an incorrect idea about it. If he says something that is wrong, I'm going to tell him he is wrong, even if I am not able to correct his views.

 

[packermann]

Are you putting forward the "ignorance is bliss" argument? By starting a thread about a topic, I have to assume Gottservant wants to know the truth about something, or at the very least does not want to have an incorrect idea about it. If he says something that is wrong, I'm going to tell him he is wrong, even if I am not able to correct his views.

As an atheist, I would think you would like the "ignorance is bliss" position. If you are right that there is no God, you will never completely know it. You will in be blissful ignorance for all eternity, because after death you stop existing. If I am right, and there is a God (I mean a Christian God) you will know it. But you will have to suffer the consequences. So I would think that eternal ignorance for you would be a blissful thing.

 

[packermann]

Are you putting forward the "ignorance is bliss" argument? By starting a thread about a topic, I have to assume Gottservant wants to know the truth about something, or at the very least does not want to have an incorrect idea about it. If he says something that is wrong, I'm going to tell him he is wrong, even if I am not able to correct his views.

And also sometimes ignorance is bliss. Would you convince a 4-year old that there is no Santa Claus? Would you seek to convince a person that he is having a heart attack, even though that information would cause his heart attack to worsen to the point that he dies? Would you argue with a religious person on his deathbed that there is nothing after death, so that he faces his impending death with fear that he originally did not have?

I hope you would say "no" to all these. This shows "ignorance is bliss" can be the right approach. It is right if the correct knowledge is needed by that person to make this world a better place. If Gottservant is a scientist, then having the right scientific knowledge is necessary. But I doubt that is the case. So I think this is all just a game of seeing who is smarter. A game of chess or Trivial Pursuit would be more civil.

 

[Kylie]

As an atheist, I would think you would like the "ignorance is bliss" position. If you are right that there is no God, you will never completely know it. You will in be blissful ignorance for all eternity, because after death you stop existing. If I am right, and there is a God (I mean a Christian God) you will know it. But you will have to suffer the consequences. So I would think that eternal ignorance for you would be a blissful thing.

Pascal's Wager? Seriously?

What if Zeus is the real God? Then you'll get punished because you worshipped the wrong god - a fate I will escape.

In any case, surely God will understand honest doubt rather than belief for the sake of one's own gain, right? He'd prefer that I remain honest to my own convictions rather than believe just to cover my own butt.

 

[Kylie]

And also sometimes ignorance is bliss. Would you convince a 4-year old that there is no Santa Claus?

I was always honest about Santa with my own daughter.

Would you seek to convince a person that he is having a heart attack, even though that information would cause his heart attack to worsen to the point that he dies?

What would you do? Agree with him that the pain is just heartburn and that he doesn't need to call an ambulance, or would you tell him that he needs to call an ambulance?

Would you argue with a religious person on his deathbed that there is nothing after death, so that he faces his impending death with fear that he originally did not have?

Oh, here we go, big change. The first two examples lead to certain consequences. Me being honest with my daughter lead to her having respect and trust for me. Telling the guy having a heart attack that he needs to seek urgent medical attention instead of trying to convince himself it's heartburn because he's afraid of a heart attack is likely to lead to him dying when his life could be saved.

But now your last example leads to no consequences. The guy's dead either way. Nothing is to be gained by trying to convince him there is no God.

I hope you would say "no" to all these. This shows "ignorance is bliss" can be the right approach. It is right if the correct knowledge is needed by that person to make this world a better place. If Gottservant is a scientist, then having the right scientific knowledge is necessary. But I doubt that is the case. So I think this is all just a game of seeing who is smarter. A game of chess or Trivial Pursuit would be more civil.

You would hope that I wouldn't tell a guy having a heart attack that he needs to seek medical attention? Are you for real? You'd rather let him die believing it's heartburn rather then tell him an unpleasant truth that could save his life? That's horrific. Seriously. If you'd rather let a person die so they can believe a comforting lie, then you are seriously disturbed.

 

[packermann]

Pascal's Wager? Seriously?

It seems that your only response to the OP, and now me, is to belittle our beliefs. That is not really an argument.

What if Zeus is the real God? Then you'll get punished because you worshipped the wrong god - a fate I will escape.

Why would you escape? Do you believe and worship Zeus?

Most religions today, except for zealous fundamentalists, do not see that everyone in other religions are going to hell. They understand that people in other religions have a sincere love for God and they still hold out hope for them.

It is like having multiple bomb shelters. Some are better than others. Some can withstand a nuclear attack. Some not so much. But even a flawed shelter would be better than none at all. You chose none at all. So if the nuclear bomb drops, you will be the least likely to survive.

In any case, surely God will understand honest doubt rather than belief for the sake of one's own gain, right?

Now its my turn to say "Are you serious? You are going to use that Richard Dawkins' If-God-Exists-Then-He-Would-Beg-Me-To-Go-Heaven-To-Be-With-Him argument". You are saying that if it turns out that we are right and you are wrong that you are still so arrogant to think that you would still be right, and we would still be wrong, in that you would go to heaven! You go against the main tenet of the gospel! So you are saying that if it turns out that Christianity is right then its main tenet would STILL be wrong!

This seems to be a very cowardly position. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be able to live the way you want without any consideration of God's commandments, and yet you expect to still go to heaven if turns out that it exists! Is this standing by your convictions? I would have more respect for you if were you willing to suffer the consequence of your conviction - that you would go to hell if it turns out your are wrong.

I respect the atheist Thomas Nagel for that reason. He realizes that if it turns out that he is wrong then he knows he is in a world of trouble. It seems that too many atheists today are snowflakes. They do not have the courage to face the consequences of their choices. They must be coddled by someone like Dawkins saying to them "Oh don't worry. I am sure that if we are wrong you will still not go to hell".

I was expecting more from you.

He'd prefer that I remain honest to my own convictions rather than believe just to cover my own butt.

Wow! What pride! You are saying that if Christianity is right that God would let you in heaven BEFORE any believers. What a holier-than-thou attitude! You are not just saying that you are just as good as us Christians. You are BETTER than us Christians, who just want to cover their own butts!

Actually, you MAY be part right. You will THINK you are in heaven. I think it was C.S. Lewis who wrote that heaven is where we say to God "Thy will be be done". Hell is where God says to us "Thy will be done". God is the great gentleman. He gives us what we choose. Only thing is we are stuck with it for all eternity. No changing your mind once you are there. And it will never end. Mind you! You chose a life without God. Be careful what you wish for. According to Christian thought, the source of all love is God. Out of His grace, He has given you this Love. That is why you can love your daughter. But since you chose to have nothing to do with God, God is going to give you what you wish. Eternity with God and without His love - not even love for your daughter.

But heaven is where we desire not our will be God's. We will find out that the source of all joy is to serve God and others. It is more blessed to give than to receive. Hell would all be about receiving. Heaven would be all about giving. Lewis once wrote a book called "The Great Divorce". It was about a bus going to hell to give everyone a second chance. Everyone was anxious to go to heaven. But when they entered heaven they could not stand it. Everyone was worshipping God. They could not stand it! So as bad as Hell was, they chose to go back there.

As the atheist Jean Paul Sarte once said, Hell is locked on the inside. I think he was right.

But then again, maybe hell is not like that. Maybe it is a lake of fire with lots of pain. I go back and forth on this. But I do not think you have the courage to accept a lake-of-fire hell at this time. So let's go with this!

 

[packermann]

I was always honest about Santa with my own daughter.

But would you be honest about Santa with someone else's daughter?

What would you do? Agree with him that the pain is just heartburn and that he doesn't need to call an ambulance, or would you tell him that he needs to call an ambulance?

You are jumping the gun here! I never said anything about not calling the ambulance!

Oh, here we go, big change. The first two examples lead to certain consequences. Me being honest with my daughter lead to her having respect and trust for me.

Again, you are jumping the gun. There are millions of people who were led to believe in Santa and still have respect and trust in their parents.

I am noticing a pattern here. You are taking one option because you assume something in the very extreme will happen if the other option is selected. I notice that you think that way also about being an atheist. You see only two options - be an atheist or cover your own butt. Has it occurred to you that one believes in God because he believes in Love?

Telling the guy having a heart attack that he needs to seek urgent medical attention instead of trying to convince himself it's heartburn because he's afraid of a heart attack is likely to lead to him dying when his life could be saved.

You are misunderstanding me entirely. The guy is lying on the floor! If he was walking around then how on earth would you know that was it NOT heartburn? It would be be a matter of him going to see medical attention if he was laying on the floor!

But now your last example leads to no consequences. The guy's dead either way. Nothing is to be gained by trying to convince him there is no God.

So is ignorance bliss in this situation? At least it is not beneficial. Nothing is to be gained to convince the OP that he is wrong. It is just an ego thing thing to prove you are right and he is wrong.

We are all going to die - some soon, some later. So what is gained to convince someone that there is no God?

My father did not believe in God. I tried to discuss this with him, but he would talk to me about it. I found out why later. He saw how the belief in God made me happy. He did not want to ruin it. He envied my faith. But most atheists do not think that way. They see convincing others to become a mission. But we will all be dead, so there is no point. I hope this mean, but what you just wrote, that you would not try to convince someone to be an atheist.

You would hope that I wouldn't tell a guy having a heart attack that he needs to seek medical attention? Are you for real? You'd rather let him die believing it's heartburn rather then tell him an unpleasant truth that could save his life? That's horrific. Seriously. If you'd rather let a person die so they can believe a comforting lie, then you are seriously disturbed.

Now who is speaking from ignorance! If a guy is laying on the floor then he does not have the ability to seek a medical attention! I guess I will have to make it clear:

1. A man falls to the ground.

2. You call the ambulance.

3. You go to him.

4. You kneel on the floor next to him.

5. He gasps out "What is the matter with me??? Am I dying??? Do I have a heart attack?"

6.You know enough about what is happening to him that he is probably going to die, he is having a heart attack. Would you...

a. Say "Why yes! I believe you are dying. You are probably having a very bad heart attack. I think you should seek medical attention."

b. Say "Everything will be all right! I called the ambulance. They should be here shortly"