Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Geo -
Except a car can be blue.
There is no cause for dice to tumble, and turn up a random number. There is no statistical predictability for dice to draw a number if the dice has more than six sides, and the numbers are much larger, and say millions of sides. DNA has millions of sides, and it has millions of numbers to match. A gene mutation is not predictable, nor is it theoretically so. Mutation is like throwing dice and drawing a 13.
I disagree. Remember evolution has no foresight. The human produced from two other humans is an evolved human, period. I agree that to measure evolution we must measure the frequency of alleles in populations but in the strictest sense, an offspring is an evolved human.
But Geo... Isn't that evolution at work?
I've never heard it explained this way before, and if it is your analogy, kudos! However, I think you're still wrong. Selection is an immaterial fact to the concept of intelligent design, IMO. My concept is derived from an inside out approach, accepting the basic premise that we ARE the universe, and any understanding of it, must begin there. Science, and philosophy to date has looked upon understanding systems as the observer, from the outside in. I tend to believe the answer lies from an orientation of inside out. If we are intelligent, and if we can ask these questions, and if we are the universe, or made from it, then we must begin with a basic understanding that we are, as with the universe... intelligent. When things don't fit in the universe we see evidence of it, so how could we know things don't fit if not for intelligence? I now ask.. Are humans intelligent? What are our limitations in understanding?
or... We have no choice!
That's a great counter argument! However may I suggest that the universe would not go on without light, visible or not. If your argument is to suggest that the universe could go on without us, and our intelligence then I'd say yeah, sure, but how productive is that in the context of this argument?
We need not be careful. It is what it is! We can recognize it, it is real. Usefulness is a physical application. When something is inert, or at-rest, it is not useful, it is not doing work. We only notice things that are working, so by logical extension we infer purpose based in the type of work being performed. Humans can, and do put things to work, we are purposeful in our delegation. Humans are intelligent, sentient (Which is merely a higher complex definition for humans over lower life forms) beings, and We made up of the stuff of the universe, we ARE the universe, the universe IS intelligent, and at least a portion of it (Humans) is aware of it.
Even so.. It does not matter. Existential or not, we are here to observe, and to describe. Existence is meaningless if it cannot be defined as having a purpose, or recognizable work function.
Intelligence, for me, is a measurable degree of understanding. An ant is intelligent, like a fish, but it is not a human. ID is simply a natural extension of what we observe around us. A rock is not intelligent, but a solar system is, to the extent that it gives life to us, and perhaps many billions of other forms of life.
I understand that, and I respect it as well. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind when I talk about how I feel about ID, only that I have looked at the theory, maybe changed a few of the defining characteristics, and embraced the logical plausibility of it.
Haven't read it, however, since probably 1987 I have been interested in quantum consciousness, perhaps even before it was cool to do so..
Tim-
Except a car can be blue.
There is no cause for dice to tumble, and turn up a random number. There is no statistical predictability for dice to draw a number if the dice has more than six sides, and the numbers are much larger, and say millions of sides. DNA has millions of sides, and it has millions of numbers to match. A gene mutation is not predictable, nor is it theoretically so. Mutation is like throwing dice and drawing a 13.
I disagree. Remember evolution has no foresight. The human produced from two other humans is an evolved human, period. I agree that to measure evolution we must measure the frequency of alleles in populations but in the strictest sense, an offspring is an evolved human.
But Geo... Isn't that evolution at work?
But, in humans the frequency of the dominate alleles carries no logical inference for hereditary. For instance, there seems no reason to make a prediction (One which evolution should be able to demonstrate) that at some point in the future, humans will all have blonde hair, or the same blood type, or the same height, in a particular region all bearing the same environmental pressure. Even if the recessive gene rears its ugly head from time to time, evolution should predict that over time, given no change in pressure, a species should carry the same genetic disposition, with only a few exceptions. I get what you're saying, and I agree that we all evolve, however, I take great care in saying that evolution is a proven theory, at least not in humans as a population. It seems more apt at retrodictions, or as I like to refer, Monday morning quarter-backing.
I've never heard it explained this way before, and if it is your analogy, kudos! However, I think you're still wrong. Selection is an immaterial fact to the concept of intelligent design, IMO. My concept is derived from an inside out approach, accepting the basic premise that we ARE the universe, and any understanding of it, must begin there. Science, and philosophy to date has looked upon understanding systems as the observer, from the outside in. I tend to believe the answer lies from an orientation of inside out. If we are intelligent, and if we can ask these questions, and if we are the universe, or made from it, then we must begin with a basic understanding that we are, as with the universe... intelligent. When things don't fit in the universe we see evidence of it, so how could we know things don't fit if not for intelligence? I now ask.. Are humans intelligent? What are our limitations in understanding?
or... We have no choice!
That's a great counter argument! However may I suggest that the universe would not go on without light, visible or not. If your argument is to suggest that the universe could go on without us, and our intelligence then I'd say yeah, sure, but how productive is that in the context of this argument?
We need not be careful. It is what it is! We can recognize it, it is real. Usefulness is a physical application. When something is inert, or at-rest, it is not useful, it is not doing work. We only notice things that are working, so by logical extension we infer purpose based in the type of work being performed. Humans can, and do put things to work, we are purposeful in our delegation. Humans are intelligent, sentient (Which is merely a higher complex definition for humans over lower life forms) beings, and We made up of the stuff of the universe, we ARE the universe, the universe IS intelligent, and at least a portion of it (Humans) is aware of it.
Even so.. It does not matter. Existential or not, we are here to observe, and to describe. Existence is meaningless if it cannot be defined as having a purpose, or recognizable work function.
Intelligence, for me, is a measurable degree of understanding. An ant is intelligent, like a fish, but it is not a human. ID is simply a natural extension of what we observe around us. A rock is not intelligent, but a solar system is, to the extent that it gives life to us, and perhaps many billions of other forms of life.
I understand that, and I respect it as well. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind when I talk about how I feel about ID, only that I have looked at the theory, maybe changed a few of the defining characteristics, and embraced the logical plausibility of it.
Haven't read it, however, since probably 1987 I have been interested in quantum consciousness, perhaps even before it was cool to do so..
Tim-
Last edited: