Religion is not science and science is not religion. One can believe the Big Bang and believe Jesus Christ died for our sins as many scientists of the past and present do. The hard sciences tend to have a higher percentage of people who identify as religious than the social sciences. At least a graph in an old college textbook said so.

Evolution leaves certain questions.
1. What is the utility of loving dead things? Humans do and elephants might. If anything I lose productivity spending time thinking about my deceased dogs. Shouldn't I be using that time to seek a reproductive mate?
2. This is two parts. Pandas are a scientific screw up. They're designed to eat fish but spend their days eating a plant with little nutritional value they don't necessarily digest well. Females only go into heat for a brief period and due to pandas solitary nature males may never find a female panda when she's ready to get pregnant. Then we humans spend millions to save the panda while people living a stones throw away from our house can't afford food.
3. Someone brought up math. Study the natural world and it does become difficult to ignore the patterns. Again religion isn't science so no scientific method can be run but one can't ignore some of the amazing patterns that live around us. Modern math was also largely invented by people of the islamic faith, not that the Taliban wants people to know that.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

You think order came after disorder. That makes no sense. You think the laws of physics arose from what source after the Big Bang? How did that happen?

---

Sorry, I was referring to our physical systems how we understand them today. Our current understanding of modern physics, which includes the standard model of particle physics and general relativity, breaks down when we try to describe the earliest moments of the universe, particularly the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang - that's what I was referring to.

The unfulfilling answer is we currently do not know what the physical laws of the universe were during the moment of singularity and seconds after the big bang. Some physicists and cosmologists believe that the laws of physics were already in place before the Big Bang and that the singularity marked the beginning of the universe as we know it (what I am assuming your position is).

Others propose that the laws of physics may have emerged gradually over time, perhaps as a result of cosmic inflation, which was a period of rapid expansion that occurred in the fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In this view, the laws of physics were not fully formed at the moment of the Big Bang but developed over time as the universe expanded and cooled.

Quote:

---

"What I do believe is an irrational position to hold is denying clear evidence that humans evolved over a process of millions of years. The theory of evolution by natural selection holds up..." - any reason you're eliminating random mutation or similar undirected, natural processes from the theory of evolution? It sounds like you're conceding that the nature of genetic change that is driving evolution may NOT actually be random and undirected. If so, then you are agreement with what ID argues.

---

I didn't intend to eliminate random mutation or similar undirected, natural processes from the theory of evolution. In fact, random mutations are a crucial aspect of the evolutionary process, as they generate genetic variation that can be acted upon by natural selection. I apologize if my statement was not clear in this regard.

Quote:

---

However, if you aren't, and you're asserting an undirected, naturalistic cause for the new genetic information is the driver of evolution, then no, the fossil record, embrylogical, anatomical, or molecular genetics evidence do NOT prove what you speak of. You are merely making an inference from the data, much like what ID does. However, ID suggests that the rational inference to the BEST explanation for the same data you speak of, is design. And it does much more convincingly. In actuality, a naturalistic explanation is DEBUNKED by the evidence you cite, namely the fossil record which does NOT show the gradualism that is necessary for random, undirected processes, and also by population genetics which, as it's been already cited, illustrates how the waiting time for just a single pair of coordinated mutations to become fixed FAR exceeds the time allowed based on the evidence from the fossil record. And these are merely two examples.

---

While it's true that the fossil record may not always show a perfectly gradual progression of species, it is important to recognize that the fossil record is incomplete. Nevertheless, numerous transitional forms have been discovered, providing strong evidence for the gradual evolution of species over time. Additionally, the concept of punctuated equilibrium posits that evolutionary change can occur in rapid bursts, followed by long periods of stasis, which can account for some of the gaps in the fossil record.

Regardless, we have excellent transitional fossil records for many species, including humans.

Quote:

---

"It is quite literally one of the most established and rigorously tested theories that humans currently hold." - theory about WHAT, though? Origin of animal kinds from common ancestors, due to random, undirected processes? No, it doesn't. You keep saying this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

---

Perhaps you are self projecting some incompetence here? I am happy to walk you through the theory of evolution step by step if that is needed. Random genetic mutations are an essential component of the evolutionary process, providing the genetic variation upon which natural selection acts. However, evolution is a broader concept that encompasses other mechanisms, such as genetic drift and gene flow, that can also influence the evolution of populations over time.

Quote:

---

Regarding your last point, my point was not that we don't know how genetic information changes. The point was that selection processes (i.e. changes in climate, food source, etc) do not themselves drive genetic change. The mechanisms of genetic change you cite occur independently from them. An exception would be something like increased radiation or a toxin which causes DNA mutation, but then such a thing would be more likely to harm the organism than help. Also, there is genetic adaptability which allows minor changes in a species that allows them greater survival depending on the change in their environment, but it's important to note that this does NOT change them into a different species or kind, nor does it introduce any new genetic information. It is simply the turning on and off of genes already there.

---

Selection processes such as changes in climate, food sources, predators, and other environmental factors can drive genetic change within a population over time. The genetic mutations for an independent organism are statistically random, but as a population genetic change can and will occur with changes to selection processes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Cite?

---

I'll provide references for Bacteria, Plants, and Animals:

• Bacteria: Bacteria are capable of making collective decisions based on their environment through the use of quorum-sensing molecules. Reference: Nadell, C. D., Xavier, J. B., & Foster, K. R. (2011). The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS microbiology reviews, 33(1), 206-224.
• Plants: Plants are capable of making decisions about how to allocate their resources based on environmental factors like light and nutrients. Reference: Novoplansky, A. (2013). Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant, Cell & Environment, 36(4), 818-828.
• Animals: Rats are capable of making complex decisions based on past experiences and expected rewards, similar to the decision-making processes observed in humans. Reference: van der Meer, M. A., & Redish, A. D. (2012). Theta phase precession in rat ventral striatum links unexpected rewards to timing of actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(39), 12984-12994.

Quote:

---

And get ready to defend that whopper - "Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans."

---

I would be happy to do so:

• Evolution of the nervous system: The evolution of increasingly complex nervous systems has been linked to the development of more advanced decision-making abilities in animals. Reference: Niven, J. E., & Laughlin, S. B. (2018). Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. Trends in Neurosciences, 41(5), 289-299.
• Comparative studies: Comparative studies of decision-making across different species suggest that more advanced organisms like rats are able to use more complex cognitive processes to solve problems. Reference: Eacott, M. J., & Easton, A. (2017). Comparative cognition for comparative neuroscientists. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 201-215.
• Neural mechanisms: Studies of the neural mechanisms underlying decision-making in humans have shown that the human brain uses multiple, overlapping neural circuits to make decisions, each of which is specialized for different kinds of decision-making processes. Reference: Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2019). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 42, 277-306.

---

Your examples about bacteria and plants are not "choices" or "decisions", but rather just pre-existing, complex mechanisms that alter their properties based on what's sensed in the environment. A very good indicator of design, actually. Calling this "choice" or "decision" is a very loose interpretation of the word.

And do you understand that none of your three references does anything to show how complex decision making processes that we humans have evolved from the rudimentary "decision" making ability (LOL) in BACTERIA?

---

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I understand that the examples I provided regarding bacteria and plants may not seem like direct analogs to human decision-making. However, the point I was trying to make is that even simple organisms exhibit rudimentary forms of decision-making, which can be seen as precursors to more complex cognitive processes in higher organisms.

When discussing decision-making in simple organisms, it is important to recognize that we are not attributing human-like consciousness or intentions to these organisms. Instead, we are observing how they respond to their environment and make "decisions" in the context of their own biology. The mechanisms that drive these processes can be seen as precursors to more sophisticated cognitive abilities in more complex organisms, including humans.

While it may be challenging to draw a direct evolutionary path from the basic decision-making processes in bacteria to the complex cognitive processes in humans, we can identify intermediate steps in the evolution of cognition. For example, invertebrates such as octopuses and insects exhibit more sophisticated decision-making abilities than bacteria, and vertebrates like birds and mammals show even more advanced cognitive skills.

Quote:

---

Do you even understand enough of what we're talking about here?

---

I've taken advanced biology & chemistry courses at university (although I admit it was not my major - I specialized in electric engineering), so while I am by no means an expert in the field - I do understand basic evolutionary theory.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

"What I do believe is an irrational position to hold is denying clear evidence that humans evolved over a process of millions of years. The theory of evolution by natural selection holds up..." - any reason you're eliminating random mutation or similar undirected, natural processes from the theory of evolution? It sounds like you're conceding that the nature of genetic change that is driving evolution may NOT actually be random and undirected. If so, then you are agreement with what ID argues.

---

I didn't intend to eliminate random mutation or similar undirected, natural processes from the theory of evolution. In fact, random mutations are a crucial aspect of the evolutionary process, as they generate genetic variation that can be acted upon by natural selection. I apologize if my statement was not clear in this regard.

Quote:

---

However, if you aren't, and you're asserting an undirected, naturalistic cause for the new genetic information is the driver of evolution, then no, the fossil record, embrylogical, anatomical, or molecular genetics evidence do NOT prove what you speak of. You are merely making an inference from the data, much like what ID does. However, ID suggests that the rational inference to the BEST explanation for the same data you speak of, is design. And it does much more convincingly. In actuality, a naturalistic explanation is DEBUNKED by the evidence you cite, namely the fossil record which does NOT show the gradualism that is necessary for random, undirected processes, and also by population genetics which, as it's been already cited, illustrates how the waiting time for just a single pair of coordinated mutations to become fixed FAR exceeds the time allowed based on the evidence from the fossil record. And these are merely two examples.

---

While it's true that the fossil record may not always show a perfectly gradual progression of species, it is important to recognize that the fossil record is incomplete. Nevertheless, numerous transitional forms have been discovered, providing strong evidence for the gradual evolution of species over time. Additionally, the concept of punctuated equilibrium posits that evolutionary change can occur in rapid bursts, followed by long periods of stasis, which can account for some of the gaps in the fossil record.

Regardless, we have excellent transitional fossil records for many species, including humans.

Quote:

---

"It is quite literally one of the most established and rigorously tested theories that humans currently hold." - theory about WHAT, though? Origin of animal kinds from common ancestors, due to random, undirected processes? No, it doesn't. You keep saying this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

---

Perhaps you are self projecting some incompetence here? I am happy to walk you through the theory of evolution step by step if that is needed. Random genetic mutations are an essential component of the evolutionary process, providing the genetic variation upon which natural selection acts. However, evolution is a broader concept that encompasses other mechanisms, such as genetic drift and gene flow, that can also influence the evolution of populations over time.

Quote:

---

Regarding your last point, my point was not that we don't know how genetic information changes. The point was that selection processes (i.e. changes in climate, food source, etc) do not themselves drive genetic change. The mechanisms of genetic change you cite occur independently from them. An exception would be something like increased radiation or a toxin which causes DNA mutation, but then such a thing would be more likely to harm the organism than help. Also, there is genetic adaptability which allows minor changes in a species that allows them greater survival depending on the change in their environment, but it's important to note that this does NOT change them into a different species or kind, nor does it introduce any new genetic information. It is simply the turning on and off of genes already there.

---

Selection processes such as changes in climate, food sources, predators, and other environmental factors can drive genetic change within a population over time. The genetic mutations for an independent organism are statistically random, but as a population genetic change can and will occur with changes to selection processes.

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

- "Perhaps you are self projecting some incompetence here? I am happy to walk you through the theory of evolution step by step if that is needed. Random genetic mutations are an essential component of the evolutionary process, providing the genetic variation upon which natural selection acts. However, evolution is a broader concept that encompasses other mechanisms, such as genetic drift and gene flow, that can also influence the evolution of populations over time." - No, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, because you don't even know that this response didn't even address my point.

- Selection processes can RESULT in genetic change of a population. But the change itself is not caused by it. Please understand the point rather than continuing to repeat your error.

Quote:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

---

It's true that the Cambrian explosion represents a period of rapid diversification, but it's important to recognize that it happened over tens of millions of years, which is a long time even if it seems fast relative to the entire history of life on Earth. If we found evidence of an ape transitioning to a human over the process of a year - that would absolutely destroy evolutionary theory. But we don't, as even "explosive" changes take millions of years.

Regarding punctuated equilibrium, it is not merely an admission of ignorance. It is a well-supported hypothesis that posits evolutionary change can occur in rapid bursts, followed by long periods of stasis. This pattern can be explained by environmental and ecological factors, and it is consistent with observed genetic and morphological changes in the fossil record. While the exact mechanisms underlying these bursts of evolutionary change remain an area of active research, this hypothesis does not undermine the validity of the theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

This is absolutely an over generalization and position held by the minority of paleontologists. To believe that we have discovered nearly the entire fossil record of all species that have lived on earth is absurd. Especially when you consider that this field of study is merely only a few centuries old. The fossil record is biased towards organisms with hard body parts, such as shells or bones, and those that lived in environments conducive to fossilization, such as marine or lake sediments. Soft-bodied organisms and those from less favorable environments are less likely to be preserved or discovered.

Regarding "you are currently without evidence", I don't understand what you mean? While the fossil record is not the primary source for macro-evolution evidence, we absolutely have vasts amount of evidence of transitional fossils. Humans are the ones I know most about, so we can go into that, but we have the expected transitional fossils for fish -> land-dwelling animals, non-aviation dinosaurs -> modern birds, and many others.

Quote:

---

- Selection processes can RESULT in genetic change of a population. But the change itself is not caused by it. Please understand the point rather than continuing to repeat your error.

---

I agree that selection processes result in genetic change in a population, and that the change itself is not directly caused by these processes. Instead, selection processes act on genetic variation already present within a population, which is generated by random mutations and other factors, such as genetic recombination. It is the interplay between genetic variation and selection processes that drives the evolution of populations over time.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

---

It's true that the Cambrian explosion represents a period of rapid diversification, but it's important to recognize that it happened over tens of millions of years, which is a long time even if it seems fast relative to the entire history of life on Earth. If we found evidence of an ape transitioning to a human over the process of a year - that would absolutely destroy evolutionary theory. But we don't, as even "explosive" changes take millions of years.

Regarding punctuated equilibrium, it is not merely an admission of ignorance. It is a well-supported hypothesis that posits evolutionary change can occur in rapid bursts, followed by long periods of stasis. This pattern can be explained by environmental and ecological factors, and it is consistent with observed genetic and morphological changes in the fossil record. While the exact mechanisms underlying these bursts of evolutionary change remain an area of active research, this hypothesis does not undermine the validity of the theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

This is absolutely an over generalization and position held by the minority of paleontologists. To believe that we have discovered nearly the entire fossil record of all species that have lived on earth is absurd. Especially when you consider that this field of study is merely only a few centuries old. The fossil record is biased towards organisms with hard body parts, such as shells or bones, and those that lived in environments conducive to fossilization, such as marine or lake sediments. Soft-bodied organisms and those from less favorable environments are less likely to be preserved or discovered.

Regarding "you are currently without evidence", I don't understand what you mean? While the fossil record is not the primary source for macro-evolution evidence, we absolutely have vasts amount of evidence of transitional fossils. Humans are the ones I know most about, so we can go into that, but we have the expected transitional fossils for fish -> land-dwelling animals, non-aviation dinosaurs -> modern birds, and many others.

Quote:

---

- Selection processes can RESULT in genetic change of a population. But the change itself is not caused by it. Please understand the point rather than continuing to repeat your error.

---

I agree that selection processes result in genetic change in a population, and that the change itself is not directly caused by these processes. Instead, selection processes act on genetic variation already present within a population, which is generated by random mutations and other factors, such as genetic recombination. It is the interplay between genetic variation and selection processes that drives the evolution of populations over time.

---

That a single cell organism even came to be is the question you should be asking.

How did it automate its own directive into being and then become more complex? What goal is it trying to achieve?

It serves a purpose.

And like I've mentioned before, the probability that our reality is fundamental is mathematically zero proven by an unchallenged theorem. When you see any physical object, it's just a useful representation of something extremely complex.

I'm quite literally telling you that atoms/particles and quarks aren't actually what they are, but a perceptual tool we use to have utility. That's backed up by sound math.

The universe isn't locally real. That was proven just last year. We can no longer point to space and time as all there is. We've proven objects exist outside of spacetime.

Y'all need to watch this:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Instead of a designer making camouflage they could have just not made us all want to murder each other. Kind of a doofus move.

---

You didn't address spreading seeds, the clotting factor or navigation.

So far, your statements are on par with a three year old stomping their feet.

Do you have anything positive you'd like to add to the conversation?

---

Which clotting factor do you keep referring to? You keep saying "the clotting factor" even though there's many clotting factors.

---

He's likely referring to the entire clotting cascade, both extrinsic and intrinsic. Such a incredibly precise and regulated system of multiple proteins, collagen, endothelium, platelets, and red blood cells, including all the stunningly complex biochemical reactions involved therein, which also involves inherent feedback mechanisms to prevent both the overactivity of the mechanism causing thrombosis, and underactivity causing bleeding disorders, thus achieving a perfect balance, truly belies the idea that such an unfathomably complex homeostatic mechanism could arise merely by naturalistic processes.

---

I teach the clotting cascade every semester. It's complex, but it's not by any stretch "unfathomably complex" if you're a biologist. Certainly nowhere near complex enough to throw up your hands and say god musta done it. There are dramatically more complex examples you can pick out if that's your aim.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

With all due respect you are making some huge errors here. First, as others have pointed out, "abrupt" within the fossil record (especially strata as old as the Cambrian) still means "over millions of years."

Second, your second paragraph could truly not possibly be more wrong, and I can't emphasize that enough. Not a single paleontologist or evolutionary biologist believes the fossil record to be "complete." (I am both of which, for perspective). Our best estimates are that 99.9% of all life will never be found as fossil. You may have heard a scientists say something like we've likely found as much as we will (as in, we're reaching the limits inherent within fossilization, time, geological processes that destroy fossils, etc), but the fossil record is astoundingly incomplete, and always will be, for the simple statistical unlikelihood of an organism being fossilized AND surviving geological change for millions of years. It's left us with a lot, but it's barely a sliver of what the world once was.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

---

I'm curious as to how you see this as showing evidence of design. It shows evidence that camouflage is highly adaptive, but that fact in and of itself says nothing of the origin (many times over) of camouflage. It can be just as simply explained by mutation + selection as it can by intentional design coming from a god, so why does this provide evidence for one and not the other, in your mind?

---

When I see great art, I know there was an artist. When I see great engineering, I know there was an engineer.

The stripes on a single zebra may help repell biting flies but, they actually bring attention to the zebra. The stripes on a heard of zebras cause confusion (dazzle) and therefore provide protection. This hypothesis completely works against the idea of a successful mutation.

---

That hypothesis completely, seamlessly works within the confines of mutation and selection. Are you sure you understand how different forces of selection work? I ask because you mention mutation a lot even though selection is much more important in some of the things you want to discuss.

---

How is this?

If the mutation provides better eyesight then that creature has the potential to be a better hunter/gatherer etc. and pass on that trait. However, when the mutation, like zebra stripes make the creature stand out more, they are more likely to be a target of a predator and less likely to pass on the trait. So, how does a trait that is an advantage for a heard work against the individual when it has to start with the individual?

---

Because as I mentioned in another post, all selection is a balance. Few things are purely "good" or "bad." But if the net of all the negative and positive outcomes of one mutation is positive, it still confers selective advantage, even if you can find some "bad" things about it. Example: at the individual level, bull elk growing antlers is a disaster. Huge energy input (leaving fewer nutrients for the rest of the body), many elk are injured or die from fights in the rut, and many more die over winter because they've so depleted themselves. And the majority don't even get to mate. But group selection favors the process because in the end it does tend to favor the largest, strongest, most well-nourished bulls being the ones who make it through and are able to mate and pass on their genes.

Shorter: mutations aren't purely "good" or "bad" but instead often bring a host of both positive and negative ramifications. You mention zebra stripes yet fully recognize that the mutations which brought on striping have both negative and positive outcomes. The net balance of negative vs positive is what matters for selection.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

in one of the other threads, it was pointed out to you how many millions of years it would take for just one successful mutation to move through a population.

---

How big of a population and with what length of generation time?

---

It was calculated for a human population of 10,000 and a generation time of 25 years.

The same was calculated for fruit flies with a population of 1 million and a generation time of 1.2 months, and they found it would take 3 million years for a pair of coordinated mutations to become fixed.

Does that change your calculus in any way?

---

Typical fruit fly generation time is 10 days, sometimes less. Why is this paper using a generation time three times the actual generation time? In any case, given the human example, it looks like that's probably a paper discussing the time to fixation via genetic drift, not via selection, which is a drastically different thing. Please send a link to the paper/ research.

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

With all due respect you are making some huge errors here. First, as others have pointed out, "abrupt" within the fossil record (especially strata as old as the Cambrian) still means "over millions of years."

Second, your second paragraph could truly not possibly be more wrong, and I can't emphasize that enough. Not a single paleontologist or evolutionary biologist believes the fossil record to be "complete." (I am both of which, for perspective). Our best estimates are that 99.9% of all life will never be found as fossil. You may have heard a scientists say something like we've likely found as much as we will (as in, we're reaching the limits inherent within fossilization, time, geological processes that destroy fossils, etc), but the fossil record is astoundingly incomplete, and always will be, for the simple statistical unlikelihood of an organism being fossilized AND surviving geological change for millions of years. It's left us with a lot, but it's barely a sliver of what the world once was.

---

What are you thoughts on this?

This is a mathematically proven theorem using Evolutionary game theory showing that organisms that see absolute truth have a 0% chance of survival. What its getting at is that the reality we see isn't fundamental, it's just a representation of something wildly different.

Nobody has debunked this.

Evolutionary game theory does not assume the objective reality of spacetime and objects. It reveals instead that natural selection does not shape us to see objective reality. Seeing the truth will drive you extinct. For the math, see https://t.co/vsDjq2J4H8

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) October 13, 2019

Quote:

---

Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don't need to know. And that's pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

With all due respect you are making some huge errors here. First, as others have pointed out, "abrupt" within the fossil record (especially strata as old as the Cambrian) still means "over millions of years."

Second, your second paragraph could truly not possibly be more wrong, and I can't emphasize that enough. Not a single paleontologist or evolutionary biologist believes the fossil record to be "complete." (I am both of which, for perspective). Our best estimates are that 99.9% of all life will never be found as fossil. You may have heard a scientists say something like we've likely found as much as we will (as in, we're reaching the limits inherent within fossilization, time, geological processes that destroy fossils, etc), but the fossil record is astoundingly incomplete, and always will be, for the simple statistical unlikelihood of an organism being fossilized AND surviving geological change for millions of years. It's left us with a lot, but it's barely a sliver of what the world once was.

---

What are you thoughts on this?

This is a mathematically proven theorem using Evolutionary game theory showing that organisms that see absolute truth have a 0% chance of survival. What its getting at is that the reality we see isn't fundamental, it's just a representation of something wildly different.

Nobody has debunked this.

Evolutionary game theory does not assume the objective reality of spacetime and objects. It reveals instead that natural selection does not shape us to see objective reality. Seeing the truth will drive you extinct. For the math, see https://t.co/vsDjq2J4H8

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) October 13, 2019

Quote:

---

Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don't need to know. And that's pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

---

---

I'll have to watch this specific video later (in a hurry), but I can briefly say that judging from the title, it's accurate - evolution brings out that which helps you survive, not necessarily that which is objectively true. As a quick random example, your perception of the world is constantly influenced (heavily) by your current emotional state, hydration levels, hormonal output, etc., all with the aim of helping you better survive, not necessarily find objective truth. You can dig down into this question and it essentially gets at such basic things as why so many of your decisions are based on emotion or "gut feeling" and not on logical, objective reality. And as a slightly different take on just one quick point the synopsis states - much of your experience is about filtering out the non-useful. Until you directly bring your consciousness to pay attention to it, most of your sensory perception lies outside of your awareness; instead, your mind only focuses minute to minute on new information your sensory systems are bringing in.

All that said, cognition and neuroscience isn't my specialty, but I've heard the gist of these arguments before and certainly they make a ton of sense in an evolutionary context. Objective truth is somethin we value, but there's no reason for unconscious evolution/ selective processes to do so.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

---

It's true that the Cambrian explosion represents a period of rapid diversification, but it's important to recognize that it happened over tens of millions of years, which is a long time even if it seems fast relative to the entire history of life on Earth. If we found evidence of an ape transitioning to a human over the process of a year - that would absolutely destroy evolutionary theory. But we don't, as even "explosive" changes take millions of years.

Regarding punctuated equilibrium, it is not merely an admission of ignorance. It is a well-supported hypothesis that posits evolutionary change can occur in rapid bursts, followed by long periods of stasis. This pattern can be explained by environmental and ecological factors, and it is consistent with observed genetic and morphological changes in the fossil record. While the exact mechanisms underlying these bursts of evolutionary change remain an area of active research, this hypothesis does not undermine the validity of the theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

This is absolutely an over generalization and position held by the minority of paleontologists. To believe that we have discovered nearly the entire fossil record of all species that have lived on earth is absurd. Especially when you consider that this field of study is merely only a few centuries old. The fossil record is biased towards organisms with hard body parts, such as shells or bones, and those that lived in environments conducive to fossilization, such as marine or lake sediments. Soft-bodied organisms and those from less favorable environments are less likely to be preserved or discovered.

Regarding "you are currently without evidence", I don't understand what you mean? While the fossil record is not the primary source for macro-evolution evidence, we absolutely have vasts amount of evidence of transitional fossils. Humans are the ones I know most about, so we can go into that, but we have the expected transitional fossils for fish -> land-dwelling animals, non-aviation dinosaurs -> modern birds, and many others.

Quote:

---

- Selection processes can RESULT in genetic change of a population. But the change itself is not caused by it. Please understand the point rather than continuing to repeat your error.

---

I agree that selection processes result in genetic change in a population, and that the change itself is not directly caused by these processes. Instead, selection processes act on genetic variation already present within a population, which is generated by random mutations and other factors, such as genetic recombination. It is the interplay between genetic variation and selection processes that drives the evolution of populations over time.

---

It amazes me how atheists think that punctuated equilibrium solves the problem of the fossil record failing to show intermediate forms before the Cambrian explosion. You are taking the existing statistical improbability of new functional genetic information to emerge that can explain the tremendous amount of exquisitely complex new body plans and functions of 20 new phyla of organisms, and condensing the time period to achieve them into a MUCH narrower window. That is not solving your problem, that is compounding it.

The two mechanisms offered by punctuated equilibrium to explain the emergence of such tremendous genetic information are : 1) Allopathic speciation - the idea that a portion of the population becomes geographically isolated, and from this smaller population, genetic change has an easier time of becoming "fixed". And 2) Species selection - the idea that some species tend to speciate into other species more easily than other species.

The problem with allopathic speciation is that a separated population from the original population is much smaller in number, which now makes the probability for new, functional genetic information to arise much, much smaller, and so you've just compounded the waiting time problem.

The problem with species selection is that it requires a large of array of species to be already existing in order for it to manifest. But that is exactly what the fossil record does NOT show in the preCambrian layer, and is exactly the problem that punctuated equilibrium is trying to solve! So in other words, it is assuming the conclusion in order to explain the conclusion - an argument in a circle.

Here is famed atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins about species selection: "What I mainly want a theory of evolution to do is to explain complex, well-designed mechanisms like hearts, hands, eyes, and echolocation - NOBODY, not even the most ardent species selectionist, thinks that species selection can do this."

Understanding that punctuated equilibrium utterly fails at explaining how such enormously complex structures and functions could have arisen, Jay Gould, the author of Punctuated Equilibrium theory himself, said this: "I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of such organismal features."

Jay Gould's solution? To fall back to traditional neo-darwinism claims, the very ones which he had to try to explain the insufficiency of, by coming up with punctuated equilibrium.

Re: your comment: "...we absolutely have vasts amount of evidence of transitional fossils" - the whole reason why punctuated equilibrium theory was developed was precisely because as Gould and Eldredge noted, there's a dearth of transitional fossils to explain geobiodiversity events such as the Cambrian explosion.

Btw, I also would like to point out that once again, you are promoting an untestable hypothesis (punctuated equilibrium), despite your claims against them. LOL.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Cite?

---

I'll provide references for Bacteria, Plants, and Animals:

• Bacteria: Bacteria are capable of making collective decisions based on their environment through the use of quorum-sensing molecules. Reference: Nadell, C. D., Xavier, J. B., & Foster, K. R. (2011). The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS microbiology reviews, 33(1), 206-224.
• Plants: Plants are capable of making decisions about how to allocate their resources based on environmental factors like light and nutrients. Reference: Novoplansky, A. (2013). Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant, Cell & Environment, 36(4), 818-828.
• Animals: Rats are capable of making complex decisions based on past experiences and expected rewards, similar to the decision-making processes observed in humans. Reference: van der Meer, M. A., & Redish, A. D. (2012). Theta phase precession in rat ventral striatum links unexpected rewards to timing of actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(39), 12984-12994.

Quote:

---

And get ready to defend that whopper - "Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans."

---

I would be happy to do so:

• Evolution of the nervous system: The evolution of increasingly complex nervous systems has been linked to the development of more advanced decision-making abilities in animals. Reference: Niven, J. E., & Laughlin, S. B. (2018). Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. Trends in Neurosciences, 41(5), 289-299.
• Comparative studies: Comparative studies of decision-making across different species suggest that more advanced organisms like rats are able to use more complex cognitive processes to solve problems. Reference: Eacott, M. J., & Easton, A. (2017). Comparative cognition for comparative neuroscientists. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 201-215.
• Neural mechanisms: Studies of the neural mechanisms underlying decision-making in humans have shown that the human brain uses multiple, overlapping neural circuits to make decisions, each of which is specialized for different kinds of decision-making processes. Reference: Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2019). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 42, 277-306.

---

Your examples about bacteria and plants are not "choices" or "decisions", but rather just pre-existing, complex mechanisms that alter their properties based on what's sensed in the environment. A very good indicator of design, actually. Calling this "choice" or "decision" is a very loose interpretation of the word.

And do you understand that none of your three references does anything to show how complex decision making processes that we humans have evolved from the rudimentary "decision" making ability (LOL) in BACTERIA?

---

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I understand that the examples I provided regarding bacteria and plants may not seem like direct analogs to human decision-making. However, the point I was trying to make is that even simple organisms exhibit rudimentary forms of decision-making, which can be seen as precursors to more complex cognitive processes in higher organisms.

When discussing decision-making in simple organisms, it is important to recognize that we are not attributing human-like consciousness or intentions to these organisms. Instead, we are observing how they respond to their environment and make "decisions" in the context of their own biology. The mechanisms that drive these processes can be seen as precursors to more sophisticated cognitive abilities in more complex organisms, including humans.

While it may be challenging to draw a direct evolutionary path from the basic decision-making processes in bacteria to the complex cognitive processes in humans, we can identify intermediate steps in the evolution of cognition. For example, invertebrates such as octopuses and insects exhibit more sophisticated decision-making abilities than bacteria, and vertebrates like birds and mammals show even more advanced cognitive skills.

Quote:

---

Do you even understand enough of what we're talking about here?

---

I've taken advanced biology & chemistry courses at university (although I admit it was not my major - I specialized in electric engineering), so while I am by no means an expert in the field - I do understand basic evolutionary theory.

---

You don't even seem to know what's being argued, or even know what you yourself are arguing. You make the claim that the ability of bacteria to respond to chemical stimuli from their environment is a precursor to the complex logical processes in humans, and when you are asked for support of this, you offer up a paper on the neural complexity of rats? You do this often, and I wonder if you really think people don't notice this and won't call you out on it.

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Instead of a designer making camouflage they could have just not made us all want to murder each other. Kind of a doofus move.

---

You didn't address spreading seeds, the clotting factor or navigation.

So far, your statements are on par with a three year old stomping their feet.

Do you have anything positive you'd like to add to the conversation?

---

Which clotting factor do you keep referring to? You keep saying "the clotting factor" even though there's many clotting factors.

---

He's likely referring to the entire clotting cascade, both extrinsic and intrinsic. Such a incredibly precise and regulated system of multiple proteins, collagen, endothelium, platelets, and red blood cells, including all the stunningly complex biochemical reactions involved therein, which also involves inherent feedback mechanisms to prevent both the overactivity of the mechanism causing thrombosis, and underactivity causing bleeding disorders, thus achieving a perfect balance, truly belies the idea that such an unfathomably complex homeostatic mechanism could arise merely by naturalistic processes.

---

I teach the clotting cascade every semester. It's complex, but it's not by any stretch "unfathomably complex" if you're a biologist. Certainly nowhere near complex enough to throw up your hands and say god musta done it. There are dramatically more complex examples you can pick out if that's your aim.

---

I've had to master and apply the clotting cascade and the various means by which it can be manipulated in real life. If you're only rebuttal to the heart of my comment is the degree to which I characterized it's complexity, then I consider the point to be uncontested.

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

With all due respect you are making some huge errors here. First, as others have pointed out, "abrupt" within the fossil record (especially strata as old as the Cambrian) still means "over millions of years."

Second, your second paragraph could truly not possibly be more wrong, and I can't emphasize that enough. Not a single paleontologist or evolutionary biologist believes the fossil record to be "complete." (I am both of which, for perspective). Our best estimates are that 99.9% of all life will never be found as fossil. You may have heard a scientists say something like we've likely found as much as we will (as in, we're reaching the limits inherent within fossilization, time, geological processes that destroy fossils, etc), but the fossil record is astoundingly incomplete, and always will be, for the simple statistical unlikelihood of an organism being fossilized AND surviving geological change for millions of years. It's left us with a lot, but it's barely a sliver of what the world once was.

---

Calling the emergence of 20 new phyla during the Cambrian era "abrupt" by no means is a "huge error". In evolutionary time, 10 millions years is a snippet. "Abrupt" is exactly how paleontologists have described it. And it was precisely this "abruptness" which challenged Darwinian orthodoxy so much that they had to come up with a new theory to explain it (i.e. Punctuated Equilibrium).

Your second objection stems from the difference over the meaning of the word "complete". Perhaps over 99.9% of all living things didn't fossilize, but by "completeness" what is meant is that whatever organisms did end up being fossilized, enough has been sampled from the earth over the past 160 years that we have a fairly "complete" idea of what fossils are out there.

It is probably better to say, then, that the fossil record is "imperfect". But even what we do have, doesn't really support Darwinian evolution, as even Jay Gould, the father of punctuated equilibrium, notes: "[the fossil record being "imperfect"] persists as the favored escape of most paeontologists from the embarassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly".

And being imperfect does not mean "inadequate". In a study by (Benton at al, 2000) in the journal Nature, it states: "if scaled to the ...taxonomic level of the family, the past 540 million years of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the past." Further, in a paper in the journal Paleobiology (Foote, 1977) that evaluated the fossil record, it was reported: "our view of the history of biological diversity is mature.". Eldredge (co-father of Punctuated equilibrium) and Tattersall (1982): "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record."

Your comment: "Not a single paleontologist or evolutionary biologist believes the fossil record to be "complete. - There is a paleontologist named Gunter Bechly who says the fossil record is "pretty complete". FYI.

Quote:

---

You don't even seem to know what's being argued, or even know what you yourself are arguing.

---

Please tell me, what is your undergraduate/graduate degree in? As you have done consistently regardless of the topic, you fall back to pseudo intellectual insults.

Quote:

---

You make the claim that the ability of bacteria to respond to chemical stimuli from their environment is a precursor to the complex logical processes in humans, and when you are asked for support of this, you offer up a paper on the neural complexity of rats? You do this often, and I wonder if you really think people don't notice this and won't call you out on it.

---

Obviously we cannot force simple organisms to evolve what takes billions of years into an advanced complex organism like humans in a lab. As I stated in the above post, "the point I was trying to make is that even simple organisms exhibit rudimentary forms of decision-making, which can be seen as precursors to more complex cognitive processes in higher organisms."

What evidence are you exactly expecting to see here?

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't even seem to know what's being argued, or even know what you yourself are arguing.

---

Please tell me, what is your undergraduate/graduate degree in? As you have done consistently regardless of the topic, you fall back to pseudo intellectual insults.

Quote:

---

You make the claim that the ability of bacteria to respond to chemical stimuli from their environment is a precursor to the complex logical processes in humans, and when you are asked for support of this, you offer up a paper on the neural complexity of rats? You do this often, and I wonder if you really think people don't notice this and won't call you out on it.

---

Obviously we cannot force simple organisms to evolve what takes billions of years into an advanced complex organism like humans in a lab. As I stated in the above post, "the point I was trying to make is that even simple organisms exhibit rudimentary forms of decision-making, which can be seen as precursors to more complex cognitive processes in higher organisms."

What evidence are you exactly expecting to see here?

---

I expected to see evidence for your claim. You replied that you'd be "happy to do so". So what did you expect that I would expect?

If you don't want "pseudointellectual insults" or whatever you think they are, then don't engage in your habit of intellectual dishonesty. Seriously, everyone can see that you do this.

Quote:

---

It amazes me how atheists think that punctuated equilibrium solves the problem of the fossil record failing to show intermediate forms before the Cambrian explosion. You are taking the existing statistical improbability of new functional genetic information to emerge that can explain the tremendous amount of exquisitely complex new body plans and functions of 20 new phyla of organisms, and condensing the time period to achieve them into a MUCH narrower window. That is not solving your problem, that is compounding it.

---

Accepting the theory of macro-evolution (including punctuated equilibrium) has absolutely nothing to do with one's religion. This is something straight out of Answers in Genesis - I know you can do better. If your religion influences how you analyze scientific evidence, then you are doing bad science

You either don't properly understand statistical probabilities in the generation of new genetic information, or you are choosing willful ignorance.

Quote:

---

Btw, I also would like to point out that once again, you are promoting an untestable hypothesis (punctuated equilibrium), despite your claims against them. LOL.

---

Do you actually know what a scientific hypothesis is, and how to test it? Just because you reject the accepted evidence for punctuated equilibrium does not mean it is untestable. It is very much a testable hypothesis. There is fossil record analysis (which you reject), comparative phylogenetic analysis (assuming you reject), experimental evolution (you probably don't reject because it's physical evidence in a lab), and computer simulations.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't even seem to know what's being argued, or even know what you yourself are arguing.

---

Please tell me, what is your undergraduate/graduate degree in? As you have done consistently regardless of the topic, you fall back to pseudo intellectual insults.

Quote:

---

You make the claim that the ability of bacteria to respond to chemical stimuli from their environment is a precursor to the complex logical processes in humans, and when you are asked for support of this, you offer up a paper on the neural complexity of rats? You do this often, and I wonder if you really think people don't notice this and won't call you out on it.

---

Obviously we cannot force simple organisms to evolve what takes billions of years into an advanced complex organism like humans in a lab. As I stated in the above post, "the point I was trying to make is that even simple organisms exhibit rudimentary forms of decision-making, which can be seen as precursors to more complex cognitive processes in higher organisms."

What evidence are you exactly expecting to see here?

---

I expected to see evidence for your claim. You replied that you'd be "happy to do so". So what did you expect that I would expect?

If you don't want "pseudointellectual insults" or whatever you think they are, then don't engage in your habit of intellectual dishonesty. Seriously, everyone can see that you do this.

---

I apologize if I gave a false sense that I could provide a scientific journal on someone demonstrating a simple organism evolving complex neurological systems similar to modern animals. Perhaps one day this will be possible.

Assuming that since you didn't answer my question, you do not have undergraduate or graduate training on the subject. However, whether you do or not, the way you approach scientific topics seems to exhibit a binary thought process, which tends to reflect a more unscientific manner of thinking.

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

---

It's true that the Cambrian explosion represents a period of rapid diversification, but it's important to recognize that it happened over tens of millions of years, which is a long time even if it seems fast relative to the entire history of life on Earth. If we found evidence of an ape transitioning to a human over the process of a year - that would absolutely destroy evolutionary theory. But we don't, as even "explosive" changes take millions of years.

Regarding punctuated equilibrium, it is not merely an admission of ignorance. It is a well-supported hypothesis that posits evolutionary change can occur in rapid bursts, followed by long periods of stasis. This pattern can be explained by environmental and ecological factors, and it is consistent with observed genetic and morphological changes in the fossil record. While the exact mechanisms underlying these bursts of evolutionary change remain an area of active research, this hypothesis does not undermine the validity of the theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

This is absolutely an over generalization and position held by the minority of paleontologists. To believe that we have discovered nearly the entire fossil record of all species that have lived on earth is absurd. Especially when you consider that this field of study is merely only a few centuries old. The fossil record is biased towards organisms with hard body parts, such as shells or bones, and those that lived in environments conducive to fossilization, such as marine or lake sediments. Soft-bodied organisms and those from less favorable environments are less likely to be preserved or discovered.

Regarding "you are currently without evidence", I don't understand what you mean? While the fossil record is not the primary source for macro-evolution evidence, we absolutely have vasts amount of evidence of transitional fossils. Humans are the ones I know most about, so we can go into that, but we have the expected transitional fossils for fish -> land-dwelling animals, non-aviation dinosaurs -> modern birds, and many others.

Quote:

---

- Selection processes can RESULT in genetic change of a population. But the change itself is not caused by it. Please understand the point rather than continuing to repeat your error.

---

I agree that selection processes result in genetic change in a population, and that the change itself is not directly caused by these processes. Instead, selection processes act on genetic variation already present within a population, which is generated by random mutations and other factors, such as genetic recombination. It is the interplay between genetic variation and selection processes that drives the evolution of populations over time.

---

That a single cell organism even came to be is the question you should be asking.

How did it automate its own directive into being and then become more complex? What goal is it trying to achieve?

It serves a purpose.

And like I've mentioned before, the probability that our reality is fundamental is mathematically zero proven by an unchallenged theorem. When you see any physical object, it's just a useful representation of something extremely complex.

I'm quite literally telling you that atoms/particles and quarks aren't actually what they are, but a perceptual tool we use to have utility. That's backed up by sound math.

The universe isn't locally real. That was proven just last year. We can no longer point to space and time as all there is. We've proven objects exist outside of spacetime.

---

Thank you for the response, Doc. Perhaps one day we can start a separate thread on abiogenesis

This is a topic I am quite unknowledgeable on though, so I can't provide too much here.

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Instead of a designer making camouflage they could have just not made us all want to murder each other. Kind of a doofus move.

---

You didn't address spreading seeds, the clotting factor or navigation.

So far, your statements are on par with a three year old stomping their feet.

Do you have anything positive you'd like to add to the conversation?

---

Which clotting factor do you keep referring to? You keep saying "the clotting factor" even though there's many clotting factors.

---

He's likely referring to the entire clotting cascade, both extrinsic and intrinsic. Such a incredibly precise and regulated system of multiple proteins, collagen, endothelium, platelets, and red blood cells, including all the stunningly complex biochemical reactions involved therein, which also involves inherent feedback mechanisms to prevent both the overactivity of the mechanism causing thrombosis, and underactivity causing bleeding disorders, thus achieving a perfect balance, truly belies the idea that such an unfathomably complex homeostatic mechanism could arise merely by naturalistic processes.

---

I teach the clotting cascade every semester. It's complex, but it's not by any stretch "unfathomably complex" if you're a biologist. Certainly nowhere near complex enough to throw up your hands and say god musta done it. There are dramatically more complex examples you can pick out if that's your aim.

---

The clotting cascade is just the beginning. There are still processes following of equal complexity.

When building a home, the roofer doesn't show up prior to the surveyor. There is a designer/contractor involved.

"In adult humans, optimal wound healing involves the following the events: (1) rapid hemostasis; (2) appropriate inflammation; (3) mesenchymal cell differentiation, proliferation, and migration to the wound site; (4) suitable angiogenesis; (5) prompt re-epithelialization (re-growth of epithelial tissue over the wound surface); and (6) proper synthesis, cross-linking, and alignment of collagen to provide strength to the healing tissue" (Gosain and DiPietro, 2004; Mathieu et al., 2006).

Is there a contractor in this process?

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

It amazes me how atheists think that punctuated equilibrium solves the problem of the fossil record failing to show intermediate forms before the Cambrian explosion. You are taking the existing statistical improbability of new functional genetic information to emerge that can explain the tremendous amount of exquisitely complex new body plans and functions of 20 new phyla of organisms, and condensing the time period to achieve them into a MUCH narrower window. That is not solving your problem, that is compounding it.

---

Accepting the theory of macro-evolution (including punctuated equilibrium) has absolutely nothing to do with one's religion. This is something straight out of Answers in Genesis - I know you can do better. If your religion influences how you analyze scientific evidence, then you are doing bad science

You either don't properly understand statistical probabilities in the generation of new genetic information, or you are choosing willful ignorance.

Quote:

---

Btw, I also would like to point out that once again, you are promoting an untestable hypothesis (punctuated equilibrium), despite your claims against them. LOL.

---

Do you actually know what a scientific hypothesis is, and how to test it? Just because you reject the accepted evidence for punctuated equilibrium does not mean it is untestable. It is very much a testable hypothesis. There is fossil record analysis (which you reject), comparative phylogenetic analysis (assuming you reject), experimental evolution (you probably don't reject because it's physical evidence in a lab), and computer simulations.

---

- Am I wrong in saying that Punctuated equilibrium is the atheist go-to to solve their Cambrian explosion problem? Then what's the problem? If one's religion (or lack therof) influencing one's analysis of science is bad science as you say, then aren't you atheists doing that, by continuing to hold to punctuated equilibrium even though it's been debunked as I had just laid out? I even quoted your evolution heroes Dawkins and the father of PE himself Jay Gould, who admitted the ultimate failure of their theory in explaining the Cambrian explosion. Do you have any response to this, other than deflecting with a religious critique of my answer? (Answers in Genesis? What?)


- "You either don't properly understand statistical probabilities in the generation of new genetic information, or you are choosing willful ignorance." - You are demonstrating a failure to understand the critical concept here - either that, or the willful ignorance is really coming from you. It's not the statistical probability of just any "new genetic information" to appear that's what at stake here, but rather, new genetic information that successfully codes for new, incredibly complex body plans and functions that characterize the sudden emergence of each of the 20 new phyla in the Cambrian explosion. The amount of new genetic information required for this is immense, and it would also require a rewiring of regulatory gene networks for the genes that already exist. For this to happen through random, unguided, natural processes it would have to involve overcoming statistical odds so great that it belies all logic. If you believe this to be plausible, then it is YOU who really must not have a clue about the statistical improbability here. Do you have any clue about basic biology, namely what a gene is, and how it gets transcribed/translated to protein? And a basic idea of what is involved to achieve new, complex structures and functions?

- How can the fossil record and comparative studies be used to "test" the hypothesis of whether punctuated equilibrium was caused by allopathic speciation and species selection? Without a proposed mechanism to explain it, punctuated equilibrium is really only stating what is observed in the fossil record and comparative studies, i.e. it's just a description of the end result. If you are going to propose that a "test" would consist of a prediction that the fossil record will show the sudden emergence of complex organisms followed by stasis, without intermediate forms preceding them, then isn't that just a "test" to confirm the pattern that is already observed, and not the hypothetical mechanism behind it? Also, note that the very same prediction about the fossil record is also made by Intelligent Design, and therefore the same "test" you think would confirm PE would do the same for ID. Not to mention that you would also verify that ID is indeed testable as well. If you think I'm wrong, then let's see. Propose a kind of "test" of PE and let's evaluate it.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't even seem to know what's being argued, or even know what you yourself are arguing.

---

Please tell me, what is your undergraduate/graduate degree in? As you have done consistently regardless of the topic, you fall back to pseudo intellectual insults.

Quote:

---

You make the claim that the ability of bacteria to respond to chemical stimuli from their environment is a precursor to the complex logical processes in humans, and when you are asked for support of this, you offer up a paper on the neural complexity of rats? You do this often, and I wonder if you really think people don't notice this and won't call you out on it.

---

Obviously we cannot force simple organisms to evolve what takes billions of years into an advanced complex organism like humans in a lab. As I stated in the above post, "the point I was trying to make is that even simple organisms exhibit rudimentary forms of decision-making, which can be seen as precursors to more complex cognitive processes in higher organisms."

What evidence are you exactly expecting to see here?

---

I expected to see evidence for your claim. You replied that you'd be "happy to do so". So what did you expect that I would expect?

If you don't want "pseudointellectual insults" or whatever you think they are, then don't engage in your habit of intellectual dishonesty. Seriously, everyone can see that you do this.

---

I apologize if I gave a false sense that I could provide a scientific journal on someone demonstrating a simple organism evolving complex neurological systems similar to modern animals. Perhaps one day this will be possible.

Assuming that since you didn't answer my question, you do not have undergraduate or graduate training on the subject. However, whether you do or not, the way you approach scientific topics seems to exhibit a binary thought process, which tends to reflect a more unscientific manner of thinking.

---

I do not want to divulge any personal information like academic credentials. Besides, it's irrelevant, isn't it? Either what I'm saying is true or correct, or it's not. Judge it based on it's own merits, not by who is saying it. If you have an argument against what I'm saying, then let's see it.

"...the way you approach scientific topics seems to exhibit a binary thought process, which tends to reflect a more unscientific manner of thinking." - Actually, wouldn't it reflect an "unscientific manner of thinking" when you make a claim, and then I ask you to defend that claim, and you say "I'd be happy to" and then go on to offer scientific papers that have nothing to do with your claim?

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

the atheist: we don't know what was before the Big Bang but, it's not supernatural.

Supernatural
/sooprnaCH()rl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"

It seems we all have faith. Some have faith in God, some in science, some in anything as long as it's not God.

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The fossil record shows the "abrupt" appearance of 17 to 20 new phyla of organisms with complex body plans during the Cambrian era, without the requisite slow, gradual transformation evidenced in the Pre-Cambrian era as the theory of evolution would hold. There are many are "explosions" this type - the massive biodiversity event which say the sudden appearance of birds (and feathers), winged insects, and flowering plants, the Eocene period where we see the sudden appearance of the first mammals - each without the requisite transition forms. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" is merely a scientific way of saying "we don't know how it happened, but it just happened... and really fast". It is just a description of what is observed in the fossil record - it does not give the biological mechanisms by which it happened.

- the idea that the fossil record is "incomplete" is considered a false one by paleontologists and other relevant scientists. They believe the fossil record to be near complete, and do not expect any major findings. Of course, this could be wrong, but it still highlights the fact that you are currently without evidence.

---

With all due respect you are making some huge errors here. First, as others have pointed out, "abrupt" within the fossil record (especially strata as old as the Cambrian) still means "over millions of years."

Second, your second paragraph could truly not possibly be more wrong, and I can't emphasize that enough. Not a single paleontologist or evolutionary biologist believes the fossil record to be "complete." (I am both of which, for perspective). Our best estimates are that 99.9% of all life will never be found as fossil. You may have heard a scientists say something like we've likely found as much as we will (as in, we're reaching the limits inherent within fossilization, time, geological processes that destroy fossils, etc), but the fossil record is astoundingly incomplete, and always will be, for the simple statistical unlikelihood of an organism being fossilized AND surviving geological change for millions of years. It's left us with a lot, but it's barely a sliver of what the world once was.

---

What are you thoughts on this?

This is a mathematically proven theorem using Evolutionary game theory showing that organisms that see absolute truth have a 0% chance of survival. What its getting at is that the reality we see isn't fundamental, it's just a representation of something wildly different.

Nobody has debunked this.

Evolutionary game theory does not assume the objective reality of spacetime and objects. It reveals instead that natural selection does not shape us to see objective reality. Seeing the truth will drive you extinct. For the math, see https://t.co/vsDjq2J4H8

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) October 13, 2019

Quote:

---

Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don't need to know. And that's pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

---

---

I'll have to watch this specific video later (in a hurry), but I can briefly say that judging from the title, it's accurate - evolution brings out that which helps you survive, not necessarily that which is objectively true. As a quick random example, your perception of the world is constantly influenced (heavily) by your current emotional state, hydration levels, hormonal output, etc., all with the aim of helping you better survive, not necessarily find objective truth. You can dig down into this question and it essentially gets at such basic things as why so many of your decisions are based on emotion or "gut feeling" and not on logical, objective reality. And as a slightly different take on just one quick point the synopsis states - much of your experience is about filtering out the non-useful. Until you directly bring your consciousness to pay attention to it, most of your sensory perception lies outside of your awareness; instead, your mind only focuses minute to minute on new information your sensory systems are bringing in.

All that said, cognition and neuroscience isn't my specialty, but I've heard the gist of these arguments before and certainly they make a ton of sense in an evolutionary context. Objective truth is somethin we value, but there's no reason for unconscious evolution/ selective processes to do so.

---

Well said.

What his theorem is getting at is what we believe we see as the universe is just a representation and not an accurate display of the underlying structure of reality. Even atoms, quarks and the smallest bits of spacetime aren't fundamentally real, they're just useful tools to help us survive and simplify.

Its very much like the concept of virtual reality in a video game which you can interact with but what's actually happening is millions of voltages are toggling in a computer. His theorem is saying what we perceive as reality is just a headset, so if we're pointing to our own reality as all there is, we're mistaken.

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

Quote:

---

Am I wrong in saying that Punctuated equilibrium is the atheist go-to to solve their Cambrian explosion problem? Then what's the problem? If one's religion (or lack therof) influencing one's analysis of science is bad science as you say, then aren't you atheists doing that, by continuing to hold to punctuated equilibrium even though it's been debunked as I had just laid out? I even quoted your evolution heroes Dawkins and the father of PE himself Jay Gould, who admitted the ultimate failure of their theory in explaining the Cambrian explosion. Do you have any response to this, other than deflecting with a religious critique of my answer? (Answers in Genesis? What?)

---

Yes, you are wrong in even explaining the Cambrian explosion as a problem. Jay Gould struggled with the Cambrian explosion, because prior to this discovery the dominant scientific view of evolution was gradualism. Gould additionally has missed out on decades of new evidence discovered that sheds light on the events that led up to the Cambrian explosion and the subsequent evolution of life on Earth. It is a problem defined predominantly by Creationist and Intelligent Designers.

On Richard Dawkins quote … okay? I don't see him as a hero lol, but he also was adamant that the Cambrian Explosion was obviously a natural event, so cherry picking quotes is useless here. I'm more interested in what modern science has to say.

Quote:

---

The amount of new genetic information required for this is immense, and it would also require a rewiring of regulatory gene networks for the genes that already exist. For this to happen through random, unguided, natural processes it would have to involve overcoming statistical odds so great that it belies all logic. If you believe this to be plausible, then it is YOU who really must not have a clue about the statistical improbability here. Do you have any clue about basic biology, namely what a gene is, and how it gets transcribed/translated to protein? And a basic idea of what is involved to achieve new, complex structures and functions?

---

"Random, unguided processes" is an incorrect description of evolution, but that's a pointless debate at this point. Present molecular data indicates that the Cambrian Explosion may be partly influenced by biases in the fossil record. This suggests that the organisms observed during this period might have existed much earlier than previously thought. However, due to the limited number of examined rocks from that era and the low likelihood of preservation, the portrayal of the Cambrian Explosion in popular science may not accurately represent how the event unfolded. If you're interested, here are some more recent studies on the molecular evidence pointing to this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218313411#bib4

All this to say, we are in no way able in our present time to calculate a probability of this event, as 99% of paleontologist will agree that the fossil record is incomplete, especially when discussing pre-hard bodied organisms. While I am not a biologist, I am wrapping up a masters in Statistics this semester and fortunately understand this field quite well. It is not a simple matter to calculate probabilities with so many unknowns.

Quote:

---

How can the fossil record and comparative studies be used to "test" the hypothesis of whether punctuated equilibrium was caused by allopathic speciation and species selection? Without a proposed mechanism to explain it, punctuated equilibrium is really only stating what is observed in the fossil record and comparative studies, i.e. it's just a description of the end result. If you are going to propose that a "test" would consist of a prediction that the fossil record will show the sudden emergence of complex organisms followed by stasis, without intermediate forms preceding them, then isn't that just a "test" to confirm the pattern that is already observed, and not the hypothetical mechanism behind it? Also, note that the very same prediction about the fossil record is also made by Intelligent Design, and therefore the same "test" you think would confirm PE would do the same for ID. Not to mention that you would also verify that ID is indeed testable as well. If you think I'm wrong, then let's see. Propose a kind of "test" of PE and let's evaluate it.

---

Fair point - It is true that punctuated equilibrium is a description of patterns observed in the fossil record, where species appear to undergo rapid change followed by long periods of stasis with little to no morphological change.

To test the hypothesis that punctuated equilibrium is caused by allopatric speciation and species selection, researchers analyze the fossil record and use comparative studies to look for specific patterns that would support this explanation. So far, there have been no unexplainable, non-natural records - including the Cambrian Explosion.

For Intelligent Design, what kind of tests can we preform? What would we expect to see if we indeed did have an intelligent designer? (There are a LOT of vestigial structures) The reason why I refuse to call it a scientific theory, is it is completely unfalsifiable. There is no mechanism or manner to prove a designer. Even if we discover the entire fossil record, and prove without a fraction of a doubt to creationists that macro-evolution is life's mechanism for leading to new species, anyone could still claim Intelligent Design.

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

---

Maybe now you understand when people say their proof of a higher power is because we exist. When you cannot define the most critical point of existence, an origin, everything else only proves to be postulate and theory. You are as equally reliant upon the supernatural for your existence and your understanding as many religious people are. The fact you said "I don't know"' is a perfectly fine response, and the exact sort of proclamation a believer puts forth when they say they can't fathom, understand, or explain God. You're looking for the higher power/supernatural to reveal itself just like the rest of us are. That's your version of faith.

---

Yeah I don't buy that. The difference is a scientific approach is okay with not knowing something, and not pretending to add additional complexities on top to explain things.

Religious people don't simply say "I don't know", they emphatically proclaim to have the truth.