OF THE
TIMES
Better to have something imperfect than to have nothing at all. So it's not enough to critique a theory, you also have to come up with a better alternative that can attract adherents away from. It seems nobody has any better ideas for how life 'developed', shall we say, (ID has its own mysteries too) so don't expect science to give up on evolution any time soon.Not in this case. The better alternative you asked for is central to the critique. No one expects "science" to give up on evolution, but we don't need them to to decide for ourselves.
Better to have something imperfect than to have nothing at allNo it's not. That's the same as saying: it's better to lie than to say nothing... Or: it's better to make shit up than to be honest with people and say "we don't know".
Evolution is not something, that you armchair commentators, can dismiss, on the one hand and ridicule on the other hand.Just curious. What kind of commentator do you see yourself as?
What kind of commentator do you see yourself as?A randomly immutable comme,mentator, clearly.
Take for example my favourite molecule - aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase.Is that how you introduce yourself to the kin folks on Instagram?
4. Replication: After the viral genome has been uncoated, transcription or translation of the viral genome is initiated. It is this stage of viral replication that differs greatly between DNA and RNA viruses and viruses with opposite nucleic acid polarity. This process culminates in the de novo synthesis of viral proteins and genome.
5. Assembly: After de novo synthesis of viral genome and proteins, which can be post-transrciptionally modified, viral proteins are packaged with newly replicated viral genome into new virions that are ready for release from the host cell. This process can also be referred to as maturation.
Highland Fleet Lute Last I heard was a rumour that he had spontaneously evolved into an ElephantSeriously, I wonder where he's gone.
Highland Fleet Lute Oh, this ding-y chick is tugging at my sleeve again. Sorry, no interest.But...but...you're so CUTE! Listen, I'll lose some weight...and...and I'll learn to cook your fav dessert! And I give great back rubs. And...what else? Please just name it and it's yours, my dearest! The only thing is...I can't live in that gloomy cave. I just can't. And that weird coffin obsession you have - I'm not here to judge, it's just that there's not room enough for two people, let alone a TV for warming ourselves up to some intimate moments. You'll have to brave the sunshine, somehow. But those shades in your adorable pic should help, right? Smooch, smooch. Deal, dear?
Your articles on this were some of the best I've ever read here.Je suis d'accord.
Nope. I like you bothDid you have imaginary friends when you were a kid, or was that something that crept up on you in later life?
Seems I'm gathering rather a fan club, of those so eager, to know more about life.I am all ears.
I don't dislike these people that I comment upon, it's not personal, and I encourage healthy debate.Your comment that i replied to, doesn't seem to be encouraging healthy debate.
There is a propensity for some to be blinkered, they get too close to the action, and cannot see the wood for the trees.You haven't presented an argument, or a counter argument.
I'm not a "Armchair" commentator, there ten a penny (Are you reading this "hkoehli").
I do my best to put a angle on things, it up to others, what they do there after.
Old man Darwin, did nothing wrong, he did his best to explain "Evolution", as best he could.Are you sure about that? Just look at what was emerging around the time Darwin wrote "the origin of the species", and the following decades. Anyway, it is mainly the neo-Darwinists that should know better, in the light of modern discoveries.
Seems I'm gathering rather a fan clubMaybe, but I don't think it's the kind of fan club you'd want to be the object of.
There is a propensity for some to be blinkered, they get too close to the action, and cannot see the wood for the trees.Would you say that a rolling stone gathers no moss also? What about a stitch in time, does it really save nine?
Old man Darwin, did nothing wrong, he did his best to explain "Evolution", as best he could.Indeed, and his best leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm not a "Armchair" commentator,Maybe you're on the commode?
I do my best to put a angle on things, it up to others, what they do there after.So far, they've all been rather obtuse.
in my world, theories are only useful if they can be used to predict something, eg like the outcome of what will happen under certain circumstances.In our world, theories are used primarily to explain things. Prediction is secondary.
can id-theory be used for anything other than dismissing darwin?It can be used for explaining how life can to be, which is the point. But it can also predict that a dog will never evolve into anything that's not a dog, contrary to what Darwinism would predict.
But regardless of that, it's useful simply for the fact that it exposes some very poor thinking on the part of the scientific community today, and isn't that an important part of what scientists and clear thinkers should do?well yes, but mainly if it also brings in new and better understanding. having a faulty theory may in some situation be better than having no theory at all. in particular if one knows the theories shortcomings.
Also I find it funny how people who don't like ID are always the ones who bring up ID under articles that don't talk about ID .i can only speak for myself. i am here to learn. but by asking questions i do unfortunately learn more about my own (mostly poor) characteristics than about what id-theory implies.
for my part i can still not see how introdusing a "designer" into the equation can be viewed as progress from what we allready had. (which is why i keep asking basic questions).Dammit, Brakar. We're not introducing a designer because we like the idea. We're doing that because that's where the evidence points. You keep completely missing this point, and I'm not sure why.
We all have a difference of opinion, and how we address them.You're not addressing anything. You're just spouting nonsense with totally messed up grammar and posting it in the wrong place.
In fact, I don't even like the whole ID thing, and I wish there was a way around it, because it leads people to dumb thoughts about Jesus, Bible, and other bullshit. But I have no choice when I look at the science. If I see something that's clearly designed, I have no choice but to accept there has to be a designer somewhere, whether I like it or not. We have no evidence of who the designer is, but we have evidence of design. Forget about God. Nobody here is implying god. But we're invoking a designer simply because we see design. It's the only logical and adequate cause.
The living cell is more complicated than any computer we've ever made, so the idea that somebody had to design it is the only logical option we have. It's not about liking the idea, and it's not about opposing Darwin either. It's just that we don't have any other goddamn explanation.
rather than highlighted.NRN
Atum, enclosed in the bud of a lotus, resided in the bosom of Nun, the primordial ocean.
Weary of his own impersonality, Atum rose, by an effort of will, from the abyss and appeared as Ra
picking fault with one another.Is that truly what you see? Very, very informative... Aren't we all here to learn? Learning is Fun Most people seem quite offended at learning, however, possibly it's an Ego thing. That, or some traumatic brain injury or something. You're not alone. None of us are.
aren't we all here to learn?
Unfortunately, for me, 'to learn as high as Everest' seems a worthy goal.Re-reading this before I posted (believe it or not, I do that compulsively multiple times) I wonder what I meant by this? Why is it unfortunate for me, and not anyone else as is implied? I think it may be more selfish ego again, subconsciously coming through. When I felt the crisis of soul years ago and decided to post SOTT on Facebook and Twitter compulsively, I also promised myself I would never delete or edit comments I made, as when time passes and I come back to read them I am fascinated, amazed, but also embarrassed, sometimes. Other times I am proud, and yet others I cringe.
Winternights2, LindaMay, Brakar. SOTT is beginning to resemble a dumping ground for people who are incapable of forming sentences.Sad but true. I've actually had this theory for a while that LindaMay is a broken runaway chatbot. It just looks like it's putting random words together in attempts to make people react somehow.
feels threatened by anything that's not on her it's-so-great-being-a-dumb-ass level.It really does come down to "choice" doesn't it. It's like, to follow on the Darwinian schtick: Why did some monkeys "evolve" to become humans, while other monkeys stayed being monkeys?
you re a real smart man!!
I'm just pointing out, as I have in the past, that this level of free-for-all is not a particularly good way to run a p*ss up in a brewery.But there's no generally acceptable alternative. I'd be all for disqualifying idiots from any intelligent discussions, but who's gonna do the policing? Who will draw the line where idiocy begins? And wherever you draw it, most people will say you drew it in the wrong place (or that you shouldn't have done it at all).
From Latin effluvium ("an outlet"), from effluō ("flow out or away"), from ex ("out of, from") + fluō ("flow"). IPA(key): /ɪˈfluːvi.əm/. Rhymes: -uːviəm. Hyphenation: ef‧flu‧vi‧um. effluvium (plural effluvia or effluviums). A gaseous or vaporous emission, especially a foul-smelling one.
BC you ve made yourself perfectly clear.And you've made yourself perfectly clear: SOTT is your playground, and we're all your toys.
I take it that's the cue to get back on topic. LOL.Too late... Enter: you-know-who... Back to the melee then.
The Schwarzman Centre will be home to Oxford’s new Institute for Ethics in AI, which will build upon the University’s world-class capabilities in the Humanities to lead the study of the ethical implications of artificial intelligence and other new computing technologies.
BSG, the best Sci-Fi show ever.Actually, Babylon5 is the best Sci-fi show ever just for sheer scale depth and scope. The problem is people can't get past the very dated FX and shoddy budget-on-a-shoe-string acting in the first 1.5 seasons and, admittedly, the continued sporadic 'cheese' factor throughout - so it gets relegated to the Sci-fi back-burner over the slick n shiny stuff.
Baybars I've learned from this article too, but I've learned more from reading the comments; that humans are devolvingYou've only just got that from reading SOTT yesterday??
What has she written above that you find 'incomprehensible'?As for me, I don't understand 90% of anything she says on Sott, including that half of the time I have no clue how it relates to what she's commenting on. I just see random words and often not even words, only strange groupings of letters. (But who cares, really.)
I understand where you are coming from, but I have oversized empathy, (even for those who are 'perhaps real people' such as here); nedlud said something about it the other day.Yeah, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But I guess you also kind of have to accept that we're not all like that. It's not that I don't have empathy. It's just that I don't see a reason to pamper and shelter people too much. No empathy is psychopaths. But on the other end you may end up with American PC bullshit where people are afraid to speak at all lest they offend somebody with a random word. That's no good either.
It's part of my nature and I can't get rid of it; nor do I desire to. Likewise, I do not say that you are suggesting that I do.
r.c.for me the thing was; i was originally into this and a few other threads to learn about this id-theory, which was new to me. since i was not able to grasp the fundamental principles, i kept asking/(nagging?) until m.i. finally snapped(?) and explained the things i was looking for in a way i felt was deeply honest, and which made me understand. that is why i thanked him.
I remember reading a while ago that light was shown to have a transformational effect on DNA. Could it be possible that our ever changing Sun is/was responsible for large-scale purposeful mutations giving rise to more and more complexity and biodiversity as time went on? It would certainly be in line with Gurdjieff's teachings and the role of the Sun in his cosmology. Perhaps changing conditions also allowed for more robust hybridisation amongst the species at certain points in time. It might be that none of the species were designed per se. The creator set the initial conditions with the minimum of particles and laws that govern them and let it run its course where other influences like the Sun modulated that course as time went on. Of course, then we need to look at the galactic forces that influence our Sun, and so on, probably bringing us full circle back to the Creator. In other words, it was all programmed into existence from the get go, with complexity punctually emerging from existing conditions and the interplay of everything in the Universe.I don't think it is possible to create large-scale purposeful mutations in the way you are describing. I also think the hybridization was purposefully introduced by intelligence the same way we do with lower life forms right down here. You basically describe something akin to the Big Bang - which is like, "And magically, it appeared!", no offense. You almost get to something meaty when you mention 'the galactic forces that influence our sun', but then (I believe) just kinda create a nice-feeling (I suppose for some people) fairy tale with a happy ending and very generic descriptions.
However, you say 'it was all programmed into existence from the get go' <---- And who programmed it? Because it wasn't the Creator.I was thinking all LIFE was programmed into existence from the get go, which of course is also wrong as we know definitely there were abortions and mistakes and success as the designers 'evolved' newer and newer better working specimens over infinite-seeming LONG timescales ... this cannot be true, we tell ourselves, no-one lives that long. Well, no BODY lives that long, anyway... how long do ethereal lifeforms live? Considering we cannot even detect them, not really, even with the most advanced instrumentation we have...
I agree that the designers (I like that better than the computer-derived 'programmers') had to be 'ethereal lifeforms' as you put it.I would propose something like "Non-terrestrial scientists". (Ethereal or not.)
One of the 'mistakes', I think, was the dinosaurs.I'd say more like an experiment (like everything else here, really) than mistake. Also, I wouldn't trust everything scientists tell us about the dinosaurs. After all, these are the people who believe in evolution.
Any philosophy that postulates that "higher density" beings are just made up of finer qualities of matter is materialistic. They are philosophical dead-ends, and it sounds like Gurdjieff must be one of them.I've always thought Gurdjieff's breaking of the student-teacher platonic covenant was somehow the resultant manifestation of his somewhat ethereally-aware short-comings.
I post on Sott because it's not possible to discuss ideas with very many people. Most people I know are so ego-involved with what they think and believe that it's impossible to do so. Posting provides the prospect of a level of interaction, as well as an opportunity to articulate, that gives me pleasure and is good for my mental health. It can feel like taking a breath of very clear and clean air after being in a stuffy room.Sounds to me like you could do with hopping on over to the Cass forum.
It's not matter vs. consciousness, it's matter creating consciousness that I have a problem with. In your cosmology (it seems to me, anyway), a superior consciousness created matter, and from then on, matter took over and did it all. Any philosophy that postulates that "higher density" beings are just made up of finer qualities of matter is materialistic.I think you're misunderstanding a lot of what Rincewind said.
I consider it mentorship and support of our development from entities (not just one, but many)Many entities are clearly not the same thing as the One Creator. So you answered "absolutely" but then expanded into what sounds like "not really". Again, it seems like you're mixing up the One Creator with other entities.
How can we be in charge of our own progress just by virtue of our vaunted 'free will'?What do you mean by "be in charge"? We make progress. How does being in charge relate to it?
Organic life as an interface must also evolve to accommodate more advanced consciousnesses.I agree that consciousness can 'evolve' the body to some extent, but I still think the really big changes have to be designed. As for how exactly the designing works, though, that's anybody's guess.
for the evolution of organic life we most probably need a designerOK, semantics regarding whether this can be called 'evolution'. When I said 'consciousness is the only thing that really evolves', I meant it as opposed to organic 'life' that just adapts and needs design to make the bigger, 'evolutionary' steps. I think we mostly agree.
The Creator most certainly has a purpose for everything, otherwise why create itIf I was the Creator, I wouldn't do it for burnt offerings by rich people, I wouldn't be interested in the whimpering prayers of those who want a better material experience ...
All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.[Link]
- before modern biology existed (ability to look into genes etc), people were probably not able to see any huge leaps in "evolution", from ancestors to child/the next step, etc. it might have looked like nature evolved in small steps/slowly. however, id-theory existed even then. i guess the different views on things at that time must mostly have been about different philosophical views? -or, is it relevant to claim there existed proof of intelligent design even then?In Darwin's time, nobody knew what was going on in the cell. DNA and genetics were unknown. So people were more or less guessing based on what they saw on the morphological level. The theories were largely based on different ideologies. Evolution was based on materialism and ID on religious views. Things like dog breeding were about the best 'evidence' there was, but nobody really knew how it worked exactly, so they were extrapolating.
- is it relevant to ask if id-theory distinguish between "physical layout" and abilities? (eg same beast -but upgraded)? (e.g improved vision/stamina/any other variations)That really depends on what such an upgrade would require genetically. Again, it mostly boils down to whether it needs new genes or not. Probably a lot of such things are possible without new genes. I think you'd have to study some specific cases to have a better idea.
- about the bigger than can be explained variation/steps you see in biology (not id specific); are "everyone" currently looking for explanations? (id's and nd's alike)Well, you'd have to ask "everyone". Some certainly are, but then there are people like Dawkins who believe that we already know everything and there's no need for any more evidence because Darwin solved all the mysteries of the Universe.
- at some point of time i read there was an idea about two orgnisms merging, one being the one which deveoped into miticondria. (i found this link: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2014/02/10/the-greatest-merger-in-the-history-of-life-on-earth/) do id's have a different view on these things than others?I don't think I've read anything about what anyone in particular thinks about that, so this is just my speculation.
I'm not sure how it fits in but I keep getting some sort of music related analogy going through my head - something like we are scientifically examining the 12 keys on a piano and trying to explain how all the music exists ...maybe because of cymatics
I'm not sure how it fits in but I keep getting some sort of music related analogy going through my head - something like we are scientifically examining the 12 keys on a piano and trying to explain how all the music exists ...maybe because of cymatics.
Highland Fleet Lute Why don't you go and play with LindaMay at the end of the garden? Run along now, there's a dear.
so, random still rocks?