Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
That it takes the passion of a religious zealot to find truth in science or life and existence.

And if you had left it at that, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. I didn't quibble with your posting that quote. It was what came later that threw the whole thing into question.

But don`t let that little setback slow you down - I am sure you can spin this statement back into a strawman with linguistic gymnastics and a touch of denial.

Wow, this persecution complex of yours is really amazing. Careful, your crown of thorns is lopsided there.

And there you go, simple as that. It was me distorting Einstein`s view all along. It has to be to fit into your fantasy.

Of course it does not make any sense at all. It has to fit into your preconceived idea of what I mean't.
It must fit the strawman profile, it could not possibly be a neutral statement that seeks congruity and reconciliation.

Speaking of "linguistic gymnastics," this is a total smokescreen that dodges the question. You haven't explained it. I'll try again, and break it down:

You know what I tire of - people who think Einstein was not bright enough to speak his own mind and have to reinterpret what he said because he was challenged when it came to communication skills.

So what was Bill reinterpreting about what Einstein said? Note, not what you said, but Einstein. You're saying here that Bill is trying to reinterpret Einstein. You have yet to explain why this is the case. Do tell.

That way he always says what you want him to say instead of what he actually said.

So what is Bill making Einstein say as opposed to what he actually said? You're making the claim that Bill is reinterpreting Einstein's words erroneously, so back that up.

It has to be a statement that makes you feel superior by attacking poor misguided me.
After all I am a Christian and all Christians have an agenda that must be discredited

You should really take a step back and look at our exchanges Boris.
It has to be meaningless statements because I have no where to hide from your searing gaze. I am caught red handed in my underhanded trickery and am just simply at a loss for words.

Are those nails in your hands as painful as they look?

Again with the persecution complex. I can't imagine the inflated ego you must have to think that my arguing with you somehow makes you a special target. You can check with anyone here, I argue with lots of people from all over the spectrum. You're not remotely special. But this victim mentality is amusing.

I await, eagerly, an explanation of your comment to Bill instead of the above side-stepping. What was Bill reinterpreting in what Einstein said? If you can't answer that, then the statement stands as meaningless.

[Ramo]

Umm, no. Making up stuff in order to avoid a certain conclusion is a big no-no.

The whole "inexplicable" thing is exactly my point: Since the prevailing wisdom had been since mid-18th century that the universe was stable and infinite, Einstein didn't dare to believe to the conclusions of his own theory so he made up an artificial value to upkeep an obsolete world view which suited the secularist values of the day.

There is a constant term which comes into the most general form of Einstein's field equations. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about the cosmological constant with how we understand cosmology. Indeed, the cosmological constant has become important in cosmology in recent years (particularly, i.e. to fix Lemaitre's idea, see inflation for instance).

The particular value that he set for the constant predated Hubble's realization that the universe is expanding, so of course he got that wrong.

You should probably, you know, take a class on general relativity before criticizing Einstein about it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Bill3000
It is a fallacy, and plain out wrong, that it is better for a species to be more complex, to be more successful. This is false; evolution is a matter of adaption, not complexity. Complexity just allows more windows for adaption to open, but has its own disadvantages too. Humans cannot grow their own arms, for example.


Humanity is only "superior" in the sense that we have learned to use tools to change our environment, rather than the adapt to the environmental constraints already existing. That's why we have been so successful, but that does not mean humans are the most adapted species. Indeed, the organisms that tend to be most adaptable to their environments are the more simplier organisms - bacteria and archaea. Let's not forget the humongous success of the insects - their diversity (which in reality, is a measure of evolutionary success - note that humanity has very little genetic diversity) is almost (if not, I havn't checked in awhile) second-to-none in the animal kindom. Yet humanity considers them inferior, when it is really just a matter of anthropocentrism.

Damn, you took my post.


This is the pont I try to get across to Saganites who think there are millions of intelligent species in the galaxy (I have noticed that the optimists like Sagan tend to be physicists and astronomers and the pessimists tend to be biologists). Just because life starts on a planet does not mean getting an intellegent species is all a mater of time. There is no such thing as progress (in our loaded, western sense of the word) in evolution. Most of the diversity and biomass on Earth is, and always has been, microbial.

[beingofone]

OK Boris - rather than asking me what I actually did mean like you finally did in your last post. I simply have lost interest and you cannot learn anything from me as you already have all the answers.

I am tired of trying to have open minded exchanges with you.
I am to old and there are others who respond to what I am saying. I have tried and tried to point out that you misinterpret my meanings but your mind is already made up.

I can tell you are very bright but your communication skills need serious work.

Happy Christian hunting.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone


OK Boris - rather than asking me what I actually did mean like you finally did in your last post. I simply have lost interest and you cannot learn anything from me as you already have all the answers.

My very first statement to you:

Are you asserting that he's wrong on Einstein's belief in god?

I do believe that is me asking you what you meant. A question you still are refusing to answer.

I am tired of trying to have open minded exchanges with you.
I am to old and there are others who respond to what I am saying. I have tried and tried to point out that you misinterpret my meanings but your mind is already made up.

I don't see much of an open mind here on your part. Yes, you've said over and over again that I've "misinterpreted" your meaning in your response to Bill, but as of yet you've refused to explain what you did mean. I've asked you several times now.

I can tell you are very bright but your communication skills need serious work.

Since I'm not the one who has supposedly been egregiously misinterpreted, I don't see how this could be the case.

Happy Christian hunting.

I'll show the trophies on the wall sometime.

Seriously, this is just pathetic. You refuse to explain your meaning and engage in this victimization scenario where you accuse me of persecuting Christians (that's the first time I've used that term in this thread, actually). It's just a blatant smokescreen to deflect the issue from your own statement.

But I know you won't answer the questions, alas.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Odin
This is the pont I try to get across to Saganites who think there are millions of intelligent species in the galaxy (I have noticed that the optimists like Sagan tend to be physicists and astronomers and the pessimists tend to be biologists). Just because life starts on a planet does not mean getting an intellegent species is all a mater of time. There is no such thing as progress (in our loaded, western sense of the word) in evolution. Most of the diversity and biomass on Earth is, and always has been, microbial.

I find it interesting how biologists raised on Gould think about biology differently from people raised on Dawkins. While physicists may be overoptimistic about the chance of intelligent life existing at this moment, I am willing to believe that intelligent life is more or less inevitable, once multicellular life has evolved, and barring massive extinction events. It is, and its prerequisites are, too good as survival strategies for them not to evolve.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I am willing to believe that intelligent life is more or less inevitable, once multicellular life has evolved, and barring massive extinction events. It is, and its prerequisites are, too good as survival strategies for them not to evolve.

Indeed intelligence offers a great advantage to survival. I think it is almost as great as mobility and vision.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Bill3000
It is a fallacy, and plain out wrong, that it is better for a species to be more complex, to be more successful. This is false; evolution is a matter of adaption, not complexity. Complexity just allows more windows for adaption to open, but has its own disadvantages too. Humans cannot grow their own arms, for example.


Humanity is only "superior" in the sense that we have learned to use tools to change our environment, rather than the adapt to the environmental constraints already existing. That's why we have been so successful, but that does not mean humans are the most adapted species. Indeed, the organisms that tend to be most adaptable to their environments are the more simplier organisms - bacteria and archaea. Let's not forget the humongous success of the insects - their diversity (which in reality, is a measure of evolutionary success - note that humanity has very little genetic diversity) is almost (if not, I havn't checked in awhile) second-to-none in the animal kindom. Yet humanity considers them inferior, when it is really just a matter of anthropocentrism.

There is no reason to consider humanity superior to any other life form on this planet. (Oh, and omniscience is impossible, so there goes one of the qualities of divinity.)

The reason humans are superior (almost intrinsically) is because we are the best at the things we care about. Who cares which organisms are the best adapted? Evolutionary success or perfection of adaption to the environment are not necessarily desirable things to be good at from a human perspective. For all practical purposes the human perspective is the only one that can matter when people compare the 'inferiority' or 'superiority' of various organisms.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No.

Animals don't cause large scale destruction of the environment and carry out genocides of other animals.

in fact they do. Not just animals but all sorts of organisms. usually however they are held in check by the activities of competing organisms not by some sort of ingrained moral obligation to refrain from 'destructive' activities.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Odin


Damn, you took my post.


This is the pont I try to get across to Saganites who think there are millions of intelligent species in the galaxy (I have noticed that the optimists like Sagan tend to be physicists and astronomers and the pessimists tend to be biologists). Just because life starts on a planet does not mean getting an intellegent species is all a mater of time. There is no such thing as progress (in our loaded, western sense of the word) in evolution. Most of the diversity and biomass on Earth is, and always has been, microbial.

so very true. We have no idea how peculiar it is for recognizably intelligent life to evolve. it could well be very rare indeed. Certainly evolution doesn't favor such an outcome!

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The reason humans are superior (almost intrinsically) is because we are the best at the things we care about.

Yeah. Like looking after our families (oh, apart from whales and nesting birds and bison), and running vibrant cities of a million people (oh, apart from ants and termites), and having great sex (oh, apart from bonobos), and warfare! (oh, apart from numerous ant species), and MATHS!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Indeed intelligence offers a great advantage to survival. I think it is almost as great as mobility and vision.

it tends to be way too expensive metabolically for the slight pay off it gives early on.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
so very true. We have no idea how peculiar it is for recognizably intelligent life to evolve. it could well be very rare indeed. Certainly evolution doesn't favor such an outcome!

Of course evolution favours that occurance, or it would not have happened.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Yeah. Like looking after our families (oh, apart from whales and nesting birds and bison), and running vibrant cities of a million people (oh, apart from ants and termites), and having great sex (oh, apart from bonobos), and warfare! (oh, apart from numerous ant species), and MATHS!

whales were abysmal at taking care of their families in the face of human extermination.

Ants and termites don't build better cities. There's nothing to do in ant and termite cities.

I hope it is not the case that most people would prefer sex with bonobos to sex with humans.

Ants wouldn't even be able to declare war on humans. Their behavior is pretty narrowly stereotyped and constrained. If humans use their ever increasing technological abilities to one day initiate a war of extermination on these creatures that will be the end of them. Such a campaign would probably be an expensive failure today, but by the end of the century any species not extinct will only be not extinct because humanity doesn't see benefit in extirpating it.

Anyway you misread my point. It wasn't that humans think we are the best at everything we might want to do (
ie flying) but rather that the thing we are best at (intelligence) is the trait humans seem to regard as the most 'important'.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Of course evolution favours that occurance, or it would not have happened.

Are you one of those who holds that all traits in an organism are favored by evolution? All visible traits in any organism are intrinsically 'favored' by evolution? Therefore all traits that occur on earth will inevitably occur wherever else there is life? What about all those traits which were once common and later disappeared in organisms?

Also lets use dice as an analogy. If two 6 sider dice are rolled odds favor the number 7 and yet snake eyes still makes an appearance. We know the 'dice' came up showing the devlopment of intelligence but we have no idea how unlikely that may have been or if evolution 'favored' it. It may have been an unlikely outcome indeed. In the case of intelligence we also have to consider that the 'dice' cannot just come up snake eyes once if intelligence has a low incidence of evolving. Rather intelligence appears to evolve gradually involving a continuous series of mutations. If intelligence is weakly 'favored' by natural selection then the evolution of intelligence may have required rolling snakeyes dozens of times in a row before it got to the point where the adaptive advantage of further improvments exceeded the metabolic costs.