What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Phred]

If there's such an intelligence it would have to be possible to observe it somehow through science. The idea that science can't point us to God is silly.

Actually, it's quite simple. God doesn't exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've been over this a million times. There can be no evidence. Peter or Jesus. I say no human being ever "walked on water" since that's not possible. Physics tells us you can't. Viscosity and such. That's science. Now you want to argue about whether we can know if someone 2,000 years ago did. Since nobody can, the answer is simple.

No.

Then am I to take it that you agree with what he said here?

I am willing to consider anything supported by scientific evidence. The problem is that creationists have none.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's another one that was recently quoted by someone else:

Here's another logical conclusion. The fundamental assumption underlying science is that the universe is determined. Physical laws control and we can come to know them.

The last sentence seems to imply that you mean the physical laws are known and determined. Also known as "uniformitarianism", the consistency of the physical laws is an assumption made in science. I would not call that "determinism".

The logical extension of that assumption is that "randomness" merely implies ignorance: a thing cannot be determined and random. Yet "randomness" is fundamental component of Darwinism and all its derivatives. As to the diversity of life, the better scientific answer is, "We don't know, yet".

Here you address "randomness" particularly as it applies to "Darwinism". You seem to lay this out in contrast to the "determinism" of the first paragraph. This also seems to imply that the "determinism" of the first paragraph is such that everything that happens during the course of the Universe can only happen in one way, the motion of every atom, the decay of every nucleus, etc. (This would not imply that it was *intentionally* determined, just that there is no inherit true randomness in anything.) This kind of "determinism" is most certainly *not* a principle of science. It might be the case, but it is not a base assumption of the scientific process.

Are you implying that natural selection of "random" mutations can't exist because every particle reacts in a predictable way to every interaction?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If we allow that a given environment includes co-existing creatures then environment is the only force that drives diversity in living creatures. Correct? That is, mutations in offspring are instrumental but not causal.

I think they're both instrumental and both play causal roles - crudely put, mutations supply the variation and the environment does the selection; both are necessary for evolution.

It appears we agree that "species" is an invention rather than a discovery. As such, the term is arbitrary and of little value in a rigorous scientific endeavor.

I don't really agree that's the case. 'Species' is a category we've devised to account for the discovery that there is a point at which populations are intrinsically sufficiently different, in some specified context, to be treated separately.

It's just another way we divide up the continua of the discovered world into useful categories; child, youth, adult, and elderly is another set of arbitrary categories - but just because the age ranges differ according to culture or individual opinion doesn't mean they're of little value in rigorous applications - as long as they are defined and used consistently within those applications - for example, a demographic census.

As it appears we agree that "species" is not a scientific categorization but a rather fluid term of convenience so we can dismiss the search for evidence of "speciation" in nature.

Again, I don't agree. Species is not a well-defined scientific categorization, but that doesn't mean speciation is meaningless. The criteria for speciation used in a given context are a means of distinguishing when evolution has progressed to the degree that a population represents a different animal in some significant respect.

Examining the various evolution theories, which do you think meets best the requirements for a scientific hypothesis, ie., is testable, is falsifiable, and has predictive power?

Which evolution theories did you have in mind? Scientific theories are the well-accepted results of the repeated successful testing of scientific hypotheses, so they would necessarily fit your criteria.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Determinism is the sine qua non presumption of science. Every scientific hypothesis depends on the truth that nature is determined. If untrue then the scientific endeavor would collapse. I do not know of any particular hypothesis that lists as one of its assumptions that "nature is deterministic"; it's presumed universally.

It may appear that way today, and many scientists may make that presumption, but as far as I am aware, there has always been the understanding that some aspects of nature may be inherently random, and there has always been a debate between those that think it's wholly deterministic and those that think that true randomness exists. The debate continues in the different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The fundamental principle of science is to follow the evidence, and empirical evidence suggests that, at the macro scale, nature is, generally, deterministic - with a few ambiguous exceptions that can have significant macro-scale effects, such as radioactive decay (a QM effect).

Quantum mechanics suggests that the ultimate material world may very well depend on consciousness of it.

If you're suggesting that the idea that consciousness per se can directly affect the material world, the evidence and the QM formalism suggests it can't. The idea was abandoned by mainstream physicists long ago. Confusion between and misunderstanding of the 'measurement problem', the 'observer effect', and the use of the term 'observer' in QM thought experiments has provided fertile ground for quantum mystics and woo merchants. The outcomes of quantum measurements may be probabilistic, but they strictly follow the Schrodinger equation.

Evolution theories will be just one area that quantum studies will eventually affect. The physicists, I think, will follow the molecular biologists into the field and improve our understanding of life on the planet.

I don't disagree with that; as far as we know, everything is fundamentally quantum mechanical, so it's no surprise that the closer we look, the more we are finding QM effects in use in biological systems (e.g. photosynthesis, bird navigation, probably olfaction).

But there is nothing to suggest that consciousness per se has any relevance beyond its familiar role as our sense of awareness, agency, etc.

 

[renniks]

Please do not project your flaws upon others. I am willing to consider anything supported by scientific evidence. The problem is that creationists have none.

The problem is, you are extremely narrow minded. Try stepping outside the Evolution paradigm and feel the freedom.

 

[renniks]

You claimed that evolution was improbable. But you don't know how. I know exactly how the evidence shows life evolved. I know how it shows natural selection was the method by which it happened. We have more evidence than can be contained in a host of museums. And yet you still continue to spew these lies. Now, I asked you to explain how you figured out which god existed. Not that a god existed. It's a simple question. Since you've conquered an improbable question in your own life please, let us in on the method.

You won't though. Because you never did. Someone told you and you just went with it and you've been merrily screaming that it's truth ever since. You are in no position to tell anyone that they should be more discerning. Are you?

Wow, what a load of hogwash!
Of course I know how it's improbable.
Because most mutations are a loss, not a gain, even if they happen to be beneficial. So claiming the occasional beneficial mutation shows that Evolution works is like saying if I switch off the lights a room in my house, that explains how the house was built.

And I know about God from multiple sources... mostly personal experience.

 

[Astrid]

You appear fixated on species needing to be an exact measurement to be of scientific value.

It's pretty silly of a person to keep
broadcasting their dim comprehension.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is, you are extremely narrow minded. Try stepping outside the Evolution paradigm and feel the freedom.

A lot of people like fantasy or sci. fi, but fiction should be kept in its place. This is not the place for fantasy. Evidence only.

 

[dlamberth]

The problem is, you are extremely narrow minded. Try stepping outside the Evolution paradigm and feel the freedom.

When I step into Evolution the freedom I experience is the open creativity with infinite possibilities that Nature is all by itSelf. When a designer is applied Nature somehow feels controlled and limited.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's pretty silly of a person to keep
broadcasting their dim comprehension.

Maintaining denial is their encouragement.

 

[renniks]

When I step into Evolution the freedom I experience is the open creativity with infinite possibilities that Nature is all by itSelf. When a designer is applied Nature somehow feels controlled and limited.

Nature isn't an intelligence... it can't design anything.
I suppose you think the Sistine chapel ceiling painted itself too...

 

[renniks]

A lot of people like fantasy or sci. fi, but fiction should be kept in its place. This is not the place for fantasy. Evidence only.

Fiction equals Muck to man evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's nothing you would be willing to understand, because you are steeped in your belief system. But evolution theory doesn't work with what we know about DNA.

More vacuous claims.

 

[Frank Robert]

The problem is, you are extremely narrow minded. Try stepping outside the Evolution paradigm and feel the freedom.

That statement is your problem in a nutshell, you have not provided an alternative to step into. I imagine that you believe one exist but you are totally lost when it comes to defining it let alone in providing any evidence for whatever it is.

 

[Astrid]

That statement is your problem in a nutshell, you have not provided an alternative to step into. I imagine that you believe one exist but you are totally lost when it comes to defining it let alone in providing any evidence for whatever it is.

Another problem is ignoring the thing about flaming

 

[dlamberth]

Nature isn't an intelligence... it can't design anything.

That's because Nature, being creative, does not "design". Creativity doesn't require a designer.

I suppose you think the Sistine chapel ceiling painted itself too...

The Sistine Chapel is not Nature. It's a completely different trajectory.

 

[renniks]

That's because Nature, being creative, does not "design". Creativity doesn't require a designer.

Nature doesn't have the capability to be creative. Any art you see was created by an intelligence.

 

[renniks]

That statement is your problem in a nutshell, you have not provided an alternative to step into. I imagine that you believe one exist but you are totally lost when it comes to defining it let alone in providing any evidence for whatever it is.

I have but you just plug your ears and go "nah nah nah", like a toddler who doesn't want to hear.

 

[dlamberth]

Nature doesn't have the capability to be creative. Any art you see was created by an intelligence.

The thing is, Nature is Life. It's not art.