With apologies to Alex Pope!
The secret of life hid in priestly superstition
And God said, Let Darwin be!
And thus was freed from its darkened prison!
Popularity: 2% [?]
Powered By A Collective Voice
With apologies to Alex Pope!
The secret of life hid in priestly superstition
And God said, Let Darwin be!
And thus was freed from its darkened prison!
Popularity: 2% [?]
Copyright © 2012 · Genesis Framework by StudioPress · WordPress · Log in
Rego,
The development of a new species requires the existence of an old species. Then if some subset of the old species is somehow geographically isolated from the rest of the population, (such as by continental drift or a Great Flood somewhere that creates an ocean where there wasn’t one before) and then because of adaptation to the new environment they diverge evolutionarily until they are no longer able to reproduce sexually with the old species.
The formation of new species is a rarer natural occurrence but I think we are able to do it artificially in labs.
Darwin and Wallace’s theory rests on the scientific evidence available at the time. Now one of the usual issues dished out by creationists against the theory is the so called gaps in the fossil record. Darwin having no other evidence aside from fossils naturally was concerned. Darwin had no idea of DNA, genes and Father Mendel published in an obscure journal.
The fact is not all organisms can fossilize and given the geological activity on earth, there are few sequences that can show the gradualism that Darwin expected but even then that exists clearly in cetacean skulls (heheheheheheh!). However we now know more about the molecular basis of diversity
However creationists following the Protestant sola scriptura practice of selecting passages of Scripture that can support their position, naturally will select bits and pieces of evidence and not the whole framework of arguments to debunk Darwinism. Creationists have gone to such extent to disprove Darwinism by using techniques applicable in the courtroom. Sorry guys, the strength of a scientific theory does not rest on legal evidence.
Also let me demolish misunderstandings on the practice of Science (which is best left to scientists) and how theory is all about. Theory means explanation in science and the fact that Darwinism has persisted and debated until now without much alteration to the theory (even with the synthesis of genetics and evolution) suggests that it has great explanatory power. The evidence for evolution is so simple that only common sense is needed to get it.
Also let me smash the popular view that humans descended from apes. This statement implies we are no longer apes. We are still apes! We never descended from chimps or bonobos but we descended from a common ancestor.
Also let me demolish the notion that humans are no longer evolving. Again this is a remnant of our original idea that we are “apex of creation”. Natural selection is still acting on humans and creating the consequent genetic diversity. Directional selection has been observed in changing foot morphologies (as a result of wearing shoes) and the selection of larger female breasts (probably due to hyper driven sexual selectioon).
BTW in this Darwin year, let us not forget Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace independently came to the same conclusion as Darwin and in communicating his ideas to Darwin, forced him to publish. The two gentlemen presented a joint paper. That’s why we should call the theory as the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution.
Well, well, well. the good Benign0 apparently listens to podcasts or reads websites about the Many Worlds Theory, the multiverse, string theory and other Brian Greenish confections regarding an infinite universe.
Reality is stranger than we CAN imagine as Richard Dawkins claims.
Humans do have in their genes a record of mutations that have happened over time which is why it is possible to trace the journey of humankind out of Africa.75000 years ago. Over a span of tens of thousands of years, humans in different locations have evolved to adapt to the local climate which. Is why you have white, yellow, brown & black people, for example. There is also some evidence that the capacity for math evolved around seventy five thousand years ago.
I just want to emphasize that without alarming you by saying that the evidence for evolution by natural selection is as strong as that for the Theory of Relativity.
Youre the first physicist to make that claim, DJB. In support of biologists! Pfah! Traitor! Haha.
Re: singularities. Some physicists have theorized that there are singularities which are not hidden by an event horizon. These ‘naked singularities’ present a problem because within a singularity, the laws of physics break down. Unlike a singularity covered by an event horizon, which means things that go in cannot come out, in a naked singularity, things can go in and out. If laws of physics are not followed, then a naked singularity can be a place where magic occurs.
Jeg,
Well we rescued the Chemists from Alchemy by giving them Quantum Mechanics. So don’t forget that the elucidation of the 3D structure of DNA was made possible by the Xray crystallography, a quintessential art of physicists: the deduction of three dimensional structure from a million shadows!
cvj,
there is another distinct possibility. That even though the laws of physics as we know them be invalid in some patch of Spacetime, there would still have to be some Law that applies there.
Law and Order seem essential attributes of Being!
“The formation of new species is a rarer natural occurrence but I think we are able to do it artificially in labs.”-DJB
Now sprung here a new perspective. Or, is it the same? But imagination has this unique characteristic of its infinite potential, so here goes:
DJB,
Supposing that there come a time in the course of earth’s existence that all living things in this world evolved from all sorts artificially created out of the laboratory (Is there a possibility, even remotely?), or more specifically the intelligent human form, the next questions would be:
-What would then be the position of Darwinian Evolutionists, or, for that matter, Religion’s creation theorists? Would that make them still relevant, or not? Would there be then an old Evolution Theory, and a new?
Now I’m into something my miniscule brain could hardly fathom but curiousity having the better of me so, begging for your indulgence, please.
Well we rescued the Chemists from Alchemy…
And with colliders, you could bring alchemy back.
Law and Order seem essential attributes of Being!
That’s very quantum physics. “There is order in the universe because we are here to impose it.”
Bert,
We should never be overawed by Science, because unlike Religion, Science is absolutely sure it is wrong–at least in the sense that it is certain that its knowledge is surely incomplete.
Bert, can’t help but give you my take too…
First the artificial species may survive the lab environment but not the natural environment. But of course there might come a point that they will survive both environments.
As to the possibility of evolving sentience artificially, well then we have become gods and as gods, we shall be overthrown just as adam and eve disobeyed God. (Check out “Myth of the Primordial Murder.” Genesis was a lot gentler. Other creation myths tell of the first humans killing the gods. I think it’s kinda like kicking out the aliens.)
Surely a safe answer, I understand. Thank you, DJB.
Enough of imaginations, thank you also, peste.
I,m still dizzy………..
Bert,
I have said in other contexts that COURAGE is the first virtue of the scientific outlook. It is also the first virtue we learn, as individual human beings, coming out of childhood, leaving the safety of our parents physical protection and care. Likewise, so much of our world view comes from that fearful childhood of man as a sentient and self-aware form of life that nonetheless is awed by the mysteries that assault his senses and his being.
But to grasp “the secret of the stars” and to know the laws that atoms and molecules obey, and the dynamics of life, this is scary. It requires courage to accept such dangerous knowledge and to realize we have power in our hands that perhaps we ought not.
Those who speak of God as if God has been bottled and is on sale at the Seven Eleven, have no real fear of what God might actually be! If some Thing made all this, it could not possibly be concerned with so insignificant a thing as Man. Or if for some reason it were interested in Man, that would be a real cause for Fear!
DJB,
Its easy for you believe in Pure Science being well-educated and widely-read that you are.
But for many, the existence of a Supreme Being is much easier to comprehend than event horizons, black holes and many other relativity theories that man could come up with.
You may call this ‘where ignorance is bliss.’
Phil Manila,
A Supreme Being that threatens to roast you alive and skewer you with forks and knives in the company of bloodthirsty demons for all eternity if you don’t believe in him?
Why is this easier to comprehend than that the fitter survive better?
“It requires courage to accept such dangerous knowledge and to realize we have power in our hands that perhaps we ought not.”
DJB,
That, from a man of science, is quite perplexing. Isn’t it like saying, after so much work been done and seeing the danger ahead, “I quit!”? And the job remains not finished? Isn’t that like putting a cap to accomplishment?
Or, putting a cap to science?
Is science then a dead-end?
Science is absolutely sure it is wrong–at least in the sense that it is certain that its knowledge is surely incomplete.g
Christianity is sure that it’s knowledge is incomplete. Paul wrote that we see through a glass darkly.
In any case, although science, that amorphous, impersonal discipline is sure that it’s knowledge is incomplete, scientists are a different matter entirely, being human and prone to sucking and general assholery.
Bert,
Is science a dead end? Of course not. It’s the open road. That’s what makes it scary.
Jeg,
Then Pio Nono abjured Paul with “infallibility”. There is no “curiosity” left in Religion, only a facile certainty about things that seems quite unseemly considering how wrong they’ve been before. At least no true scientist is that kind of a-hole. At worst we are pompous a-holes, but only when we are as close to certainty (within the limits of Heisenberg’s principle of course!) about something that matters to us that nobody perhaps appreciates.
Ah, but DJB, you are confusing Christianity with Christians, who, being human, are prone to sucking and general assholery.
(Haha. No true scientist indeed. Maybe one will show up one day.)
Na-ah, Jeg. We already straightened all that out between “impeccability” and “infallibility” once before. I can accept the sinfulness of men, but not the alleged infallibility of religion teachers. So it is not their sins that make their arguments wrong, but the premises and consequences of the arguments themselves.
I honestly dont see any difference between ‘scientists’ and ‘Christians’, DJB, as I cannot accept the infallibility of science teachers either, despite the semantic hair-splitting. That’s why scientific revolutions are required in the scientific community. No one just gives up despite the evidence. Darwinians and anthropogenic global warming freaks are especially prone to an almost dogmatic clinging to the orthodoxy. The Darwinian-blog uproar over a recent New Scientist cover story entitled ‘Darwin was Wrong’ is a case in point. It’s as if pointing out that Darwin was wrong on universal common ancestry is a mortal sin.
I totally understand your spirited defense of your religion, DJB. It’s just that Im not buying it.
Status quo!
DJB@3:48pm, it could also be that Harry Potter-style laws would apply in that patch.
djb @10:27am,
as you said, i’m just a lawyer, neither a scientist nor a mathematician, let alone a physicist that you are. i believe this discussion takes off from your previous posts which, in essence, explains your disbelief in the existence of God because you don’t have “scientific evidence” to prove it.
it appears that circumstantial evidence, i.e., manifestations, of the existence of a Supreme Being such as humanity’s own existence, our world, star systems, galaxies, universe, and a mind-boggling number of the same, in addition to the manifest order, symmetry and functionality of every matter in them, among others, are not good enough for you, much less the revelations contained in the Holy Book, as testified to by the likes of Jesus Christ, Moses, Isiah, Daniel, Mohammed, Buddha, and others, of their own knowledge.
but those are divine proofs, evaluated by finite mind. hence, your doubts/disbelief. you are looking for empirical proof as provided by finite science – something that your finite mind can appreciate. i contend, then as now, that you cannot prove SOMETHING infinite through finite resources that are appraised by finite thinking.
at the risk of being simplistic, let me postulate the following: imagine an impenetrable door that separates human reason from Divine Being, between finiteness and infinity. if you forcibly try to penetrate, you end up with absurdity without finding what you’re looking for. therefore, you are not ALLOWED to probe beyond that door.
that was the purpose of my asking “if you divide a positive number by zero, what would you get?” and you answered that you are not allowed to do that for if you do, you’ll get an absurd result.
i maintain that you’d get INFINITY, which is not necessarily absurd, but which you, or any human being, are not capable of comprehending.
since there is a big chasm that divides human reason and God’s existence, it is only through unquestioning FAITH that a connection can be established.
btw, i wish you could just follow cvj’s simplistic prescription, i.e., to give me a failing grade in math for dividing a number with zero. that could earn some laugh at wowowee but not in adult discussion of this nature.
if i am asked to divide an apple by zero i’ll scratch my head.
bert, in the same you way you’d have to scratch your head if djb ask you to prove scientifically that God exists. so, don’t do it, unless you want to end up bald before your time, if you’re not already.
@ben
ah, thats the idea? dividing by zero is a metaphor for understanding god?
k, thanks.
HOT OFF THE SCIENTIFIC PRESS:
A new study by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior has found an interesting correlation between how often a large sample of Chinese women report having orgasms and the income of their sexual partners. The study, which surveyed women on a wide variety of questions, found that women married to wealthier men were more likely to report having orgasms during sex. Women who had sex with the wealthiest men were twice as likely to report they always had an orgasm as women who had sex with the poorest men. The researchers say the education levels and self-reported happiness of the women had no bearing on the outcome.
blackshama, this post of yours is the 3rd or 4th of its kind dealing with creationism vs. evolution. i think the controversy is more apparent than real, the solution to which hinges on whether or not there is an ultimate Creator. both creationism and evolution involve the use of matter, true? to creationists, matter was purposely created, while evolutionists seem to hold that it sprung forth by itself, albeit through accidental (spontaneous) self-generation.
i maintain that all matter in the known universe and beyond were intelligently created. from the minutest nutrinos to giant quasars; from the simplest bacteria to the most intelligent homo sapien, and all the cells that compose them, were created.
if there is an omnipotent, ultimate Creator of every thing, why would it be impossible for evolution, as a process, to be an integral part of creation? it may take for a complex organism to evolve but with God, time as well as space, is of no moment. a quadrillion glacial periods is less than a blink of an eye.
man has evolved and still continuing to evolve towards perfection. the whole process is a part of the grand design – CREATION.
gabbyd @ 2:59 am,
no, it’s a metaphor for understanding FAITH (without empirical proof) as basis for the belief in God’s existence.
“i contend, then as now, that you cannot prove SOMETHING infinite through finite resources that are appraised by finite thinking.” – Bencard
Let me prove to you the existence of something infinite through the finite resources of arithmetic and the finite thinking of mere mortal humans…
I want to prove to you that the set of whole, natural integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…100,…etc) is something INFINITE.
PROOF:
Assume that the set of integers is FINITE.
Therefore there must a BIGGEST member of the set. Call it “B”.
Add the number “1″ to number “B”. Call the result “A”.
Since A is bigger than B by exactly 1, and A is clearly an integer, B is not the biggest integer in the set of integers.
ERGO the set of integers is NOT finite since there cannot be a biggest member.
ERGO something infinite exists–the familiar set of counting numbers–and we have just proven it using the very finite resources of a Filipino Voices comment thread.
Bencard,
What I think you really have in mind is the following kind of argument: How can a size 3 shoe ever hope to contain a Size 10 foot? — that a finite mind cannot enclose an infinite thing. But please realize that this “size difference” can also result in non-enclosure even among purely finite things. An ant has no hope of ever understanding us. But that does not make “us” an infinite God, even to if the ant thinks so!
“Infinity” is not so intractable as you seem to think, either, as the demonstration from arithmetic shows. And we cannot hide God in infinity through our sometime inadequate thinking about it.
What doesn’t work is the pure insistence that God is “too big” for us to understand. That would only be true if God is not in fact some invention of Man. I have not met one yet that was not clearly a fabrication.
happy valentines day everyone… give your heart a break from petty politics.. LOL :)
Morality arose from our fear of the unknown. The need to protect ourselves from fear caused us to to depend on one another.
We have personalized that fear and called him God.
We should not confuse God with man’s need for protection from fear that led to the creation of organized religion/politics.
In the beginning there was no separation between religion and politics.
The degree of the success of civilizations depends to a great degree on the separation between the two.
Man’s own process of observation and natural selection created the higher portions of the human brain.
Many human animals however are still functioning with low level brain functions. Using the higher levels takes training and lots of practice.
It is called education by humans using the anglo saxon inspired form of communicating.
Right you are Leytenian. Love the one you’re with! Happy Valentines.
thanks for your suggestion, djb, but that is a clear mischaracterization of my argument. i’d stick to mine, if you don’t mind. infinity (if you still don’t grasp the idea) is impervious to time and space, so a “size 10 shoes” is an atrocious exemplification. the issue is not a simplistic matter of “size difference”.
as to the ant, another atrocious analogy. both you and the ant are finite beings and not even a one-celled paramecium can make you infinite.
it’s not just a matter of being “too big”. again, that’s a matter of size. rather it is the difference in essence or nature, if you will. again, God is not an “invention”. see, you keep on thinking of God in finite terms. either you just cannot grasp the concept of infinity or you purposely refuse to do so. God creates and “invents”, without itself having been created or invented.
how can your arithmetic “track” infinity when you cannot even divide a number by zero without getting a preposterous result?
“Infinity … is impervious to time and space.”
But apparently not to the mind of Bencard?– who knows it’s characteristics and wields it masterfully as do all obscurantists to slay all the dragons of denial.
It is the unassailable rhetoric of the True Believer, behind which fortress he stands but for the sake of argument only.
Because the infinity argument is self-defeating and self-contradicting since it clearly emanates from a very Finite Bencard.
But I admit, my ignorance is larger than my knowledge, and always will be. Yet, it is not impervious to my curiosity.
Next to COURAGE then, comes the cardinal virtue of CURIOSITY in the finite, godless Religion of Science. We shall take the ground of Morality too, and overthrow the theocrats from the throne of Philosophy using Common Sense until arithmetic reigns over magical alchemy and mumbo jumbo of Damaso.
djb, i can say the word but i cannot fathom it (if you know the difference).
Bencard,
We all know your position is logically unassailable because if you reject the understandings we DO have about infinite things and the relation of our minds to possibly infinite things, then, like dividing by zero you can “prove” or “assert” anything.
This by itself cannot invalidate Faith, for at bottom we also have to have some Faith in axioms, like those of Aristotle at least, so we can discuss things and have the communication make some sense.
If we cannot discuss infinity because our minds are finite, then how did we even come by the question?
You are clearly an intelligent, even sensitive human being. As a self-similar creature I can only appeal to you at all levels possible, not merely the “blogical” but also the metaphysical, for which you obviously have a taste.
I am happy at the interaction.
“But to grasp “the secret of the stars” and to know the laws that atoms and molecules obey, and the dynamics of life, this is scary. IT REQUIRES COURAGE (emphasis mine) to accept such dangerous knowledge and to realize we have power in our hands that perhaps we ought not.” DJB
Not just courage DJB but also “power.” The power that you can make use of when you venture upon scientific curiosity. This is practical. And this has been what is expected of us when we take the challenge. You can not go on, say an expedition without any provision other than curiosity. But such curiosity must not lead to absurd perversion which human mind can also comprehend when it is so.
Following is culled from Buccaile’s work, not to proselytize but to share – unsolicited though – the view of Islam in this particular subject: That Islam does not quench constructive curiosity, specifically when about nature:
“E. THE CONQUEST OF SPACE
From this point of view, three verses of the Qur’an should command our full attention. One expresses, without any trace of ambiguity, what man should and will achieve in this field. In the other two, God refers for the sake of the unbelievers in Makka to the surprise they would have if they were able to raise themselves up to the Heavens; He alludes to a hypothesis which will not be realized for the latter.
1) The first of these verses is sura 55, verse 33: “O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power.” [ This verse is followed by an invitation to recognize God's blessings. It forms the subject of the whole of the sura that bears the title 'The Beneficent'.]
The translation given here needs some explanatory
comment:
a) The word ‘if’ expresses in English a condition that is dependant upon a possibility and either an achievable or an unachievable hypothesis. Arabic is a language which is able to introduce a nuance into the condition which is much more explicit. There is one word to express the possibility (ida), another for the achievable hypothesis (in) and a third for the unachievable hypothesis expressed by the word (lau). The verse in question has it as an achievable hypothesis expressed by the word (in). The Qur’an therefore suggests the material possibility of a concrete realization. This subtle linguistic distinction formally rules out the purely mystic interpretation that some people have (quite wrongly) put on this verse.
b) God is addressing the spirits (jinn) and human beings (ins), and not essentially allegorical figures.
c) ‘To penetrate’ is the translation of the verb nafada followed by the preposition min. According to Kazimirski’s dictionary, the phrase means ‘to pass right through and come out on the other side of a body’ (e.g. an arrow that comes out on the other side). It therefore suggests a deep penetration and emergence at the other end into the regions in question.
d) The Power (sultan) these men will have to achieve this enterprise would seem to come from the All-Mighty.
There can be no doubt that this verse indicates the possibility men will one day achieve what we today call (perhaps rather improperly) ‘the conquest of space’. One must note that the text of the Qur’an predicts not only penetration through the regions of the Heavens, but also the Earth, i.e. the exploration of its depths.
2) The other two verses are taken from sura 15, (verses14 and 15). God is speaking of the unbelievers in Makka, as the context of this passage in the sura shows:
“Even if We opened unto them a gate to Heaven and they were to continue ascending therein, they would say. our sight is confused as in drunkenness. Nay, we are people bewitched.”
The above expresses astonishment at a remarkable spectacle, different from anything man could imagine.
The conditional sentence is introduced here by the word lau which expresses a hypothesis that could never be realized as far as it concerned the people mentioned in these verses.
When talking of the conquest of space therefore, we have two passages in the text of the Qur’an: one of them refers to what will one day become a reality thanks to the powers of intelligence and ingenuity God will give to man, and the other describes an event that the unbelievers in Makka will never witness, hence its character of a condition never to be realized. The event will however be seen by others, as intimated in the first verse quoted above. It describes the human reactions to the unexpected spectacle that travellers in space will see. their confused sight, as in drunkenness, the feeling of being bewitched . . .
This is exactly how astronauts have experienced this remarkable adventure since the first human spaceflight around the world in 1961. It is known in actual fact how once one is above the Earth’s atmosphere, the Heavens no longer have the azure appearance we see from Earth, which results from phenomena of absorption of the Sun’s light into the layers of the atmosphere. The human observer in space above the Earth’s atmosphere sees a black sky and the Earth seems to be surrounded by a halo of bluish colour due to the same phenomena of absorption of light by the Earth’s atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere, however, and therefore appears in its true colors against the black background of the sky. It is a completely new spectacle therefore that presents itself to men in space, and the photographs of this spectacle are well known to present-day man.
Here again, it is difficult not to be impressed, when comparing the text of the Qur’an to the data of modern science, by statements that simply cannot be ascribed to the thought of a man who lived more than fourteen centuries ago.”
Please you may or may not see: http://www.quran.net/quran/qur-sc.htm as to the origin of man by the same author.
Meanwhile, I am so much impressed by the analogy of Brother Bencard. It’s true, how can you study infinity or Infinite Being through a finite prism? This is grossly unscientific!
You know if DJB is still persistent and apply the same, he will end up not only absurd but even acquire mental derangement.
Anyway, in describing God, Qur’an 6: 103 tells:
“No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision; He is the Sublime, Well-Aware.”
Good day!
A new study by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior has found an interesting correlation between how often a large sample of Chinese women report having orgasms and the income of their sexual partners.
If Darwin is losing his luster on this, his 200th birthday, it’s because of crap like this. Evolutionary psychology is, IMO, a blight on science. It’s just so much pop story telling that the media eats up and presents to people as cutting-edge science. “Men like women with big boobs because blah-blah-blah” which makes any thinking person wonder why Asians have passed on their small boobs genes if theyve been selected out. The real boobs are these evolutionary psychologists. Scientists are finally beginning to realize that it’s crap.
And in an ironic twist, when exposed to competition, evolutionary biology is losing. Leiden University in the Netherlands has sacked its entire evolutionary biology staff:
In a Darwinian world where the fittest survive, evolutionary biology can’t compete.
“to creationists, matter was purposely created, while evolutionists seem to hold that it sprung forth by itself, albeit through accidental (spontaneous) self-generation.”-Bencard
Ah, Bencard, aren’t you contradicting yourself debunking the principle of spontaneous generation at the same time asserting that God sprung forth by itself?
DJB,
Something finite can contain infinity. You may want to prove to Bencard that there are infinitely many real numbers between any closed interval like 0 to 1, ahahaha!
blackshama, this post of yours is the 3rd or 4th of its kind dealing with creationism vs. evolution.
Manoy Bencard, he just greeted Chuck a happy birthday. The post isnt about evolution vs. creationism. In fact he quoted Alexander Pope as saying God created Darwin.
Jeg, seems Manoy’s pretty fed up with the topic but can’t resist it. Like the moth to the lamp, heheh.