God is not intelligent

Yes. That is the religious view of pretty much all religions.

But, there isn't any actual evidence of that, is there?

I think we have to admit that we don't know.

 

The thing to remember is that evolution has NO plan and NO objective.

So, questioning the odds that we would be here like this is simply the wrong question to ask.

Natural selection doesn't have "expectation".

The biological realities that COULD have been are absolutely stupendous in number.

What we have is just the realty that happened.


BTW, if you want to make more personal attacks against me, at least have the BALLS to post them to ME. OK?

 

BTW, as I have reminded you so many times, that I have lost count-- without any result, thus far-- if you are going to accuse me of "personal attacks," at least have the DECENCY to quote them. (M'kay?).


Does quoting your own words count, in your mind, as a "personal attack against you?"

If so, there are steps that you can take, to prevent being made to look bad, by these "attacks."

Would you like a hint, as to what those steps might entail?

 

K .. not quite sure what the exact argument is here .. but looks to me like you are arguing against random chance.

My argument is that random chance is not how things work in nature -- so the idea that we would expect that random chance had to have done it if a creator didnt is flawed. There is then no point in calculating probabilities related to randomness in nature .. as they do not apply .. not how creation happens in nature.

What we find in nature -- is violation of the rules of randomness .. Chaos theory seeks to describe this anti-random bahavioir of nature where upon order springs out of chaos and this being the natural tendency of natural systems.

So it is like there is a Ghost in the Machine . rules by which nature follows .. which create coplex structures out of chaotic systems.
This does not mean the Ghost is "God" however .. some divine being tinkering with nature .. these are just the rules of nature.

One could claim that God created those rules .. but that would not mean that God was necessarily in active creation mode .. the difference between shooting ball in pinball machine and letting it do what it wants or using the flippers .. playing the game.

One could also claim that God "Is" the rules.

Or .. the rules could just be the rules .. and these rules comprise the ghost in the machine.

Bottom line . we don't know.

 

I pointed out your ad hom in posts where you used ad hom.

Yet, you need help with that???

I'm looking fine.

Did you notice that I could post to you without using ad hom or berating you?

Can you do that?

 

@Giftedone , @Patricio Da Silva

Since my tolerance for non responsive replies, requiring me to repeat my question, before the process is merely repeated-- which I state merely as my general rationale, not in order to imply that I am singling out either of you, for this-- I will offer for gifted, a more exact example, of what I ask from the Evolutionist who thinks that he, or she, can prove that this is a completely random phenomenon, insofar as the mutations go. I am including you, Patricio, because we have an ongoing discussion, on the topic.

Consider the tossing of a pair of standard, six-sided dice. There are exactly 36 different, possible combinations which may come up, on any given roll. 6 of those, result in the total being seven. Hence, the chance of rolling a seven, on any given roll, is 1 in 6 (or 5 to 1, against it occurring). If, then, you follow a particular pair, long-term, in which the "magic" combination of 7, is coming up on a quarter, or even only on 20% of the pairs' tosses, it is knowable that it's not an honest pair; they have been manipulated, or loaded, so as to make a desired result come up more frequently than the laws of chance dictate it should (over an extended period of time). So, in proving that evolutionary mutations are random, one would look at all the genes within any organism and, assuming random distribution of these mutations, calculate how many should be required in order to not only affect what would turn out to be, in retrospect, the correct gene, but also to change that gene, in the desirable way. We are, of course, talking many millions of mutations, if not billions. And that is to see its appearance, only 1 time. Even with a somewhat superior trait, it is a tall expectation, to just assume that one being's progeny, would be the only one's, eventually, to exist, worldwide.

This is especially true, because many, maybe most, evolutionary changes, well, "evolve." That is, we are not talking about just one change, but usually numerous mutations, often of the same gene, or of another gene which coincidentally changes in such a way as to take advantage of, and magnify, the original mutation.

The elephant to which I currently allude, are specifically the changes in the hominid brain, to become the modern human one. So, is it believable that all of these leaps took place, within one genealogical line, which already possessed all the other mutations? If that occurred in a casino, I believe the "lucky," gambler would be extirpated from the floor, for a little chat, with casino muscle.

Especially when we look at the very small number of original Homo sapiens-- for all the brain mutations to take place, by chance, how many other mutations, would that predict? The following, is offered as a guide, to beginning your calculations:

https://www.statisticshowto.com/pro...robability-distribution/poisson-distribution/


As I had maintained to Patricio, for all these changes to fall within any model of probability distribution, within the length of time stipulated by science, would entail an extremely high mutation rate. Yet, where are the signs, today, of all that random mutation?

Your argument, Patricio, that they all died out, does not jibe with reality. Look at all the people we see, today, who are morbidly obese, for example. Or who have defects like being diabetic, or very nearsighted. It is not an easy thing, to prevent an organism from finding a mate (especially a relatively long-lived organism, and one which, like many species, is well known to rely, at times, on force, to plant its seed).

Considering the small human population, for a good part of the early stages of our brain's evolution, if those other mutations which must have, randomly, occurred in the interim, were so significant, that their possessors died without reproducing, this would have meant the END of the human race, before it ever began.

Hopefully, that is enough of a start, so that any replies will at least be on the same page.

 

No, you did not; though you do specialize in what might be termed the passive-agressive form of "ad hom."*

That is just plainly untrue.
For example, your recent post, ending:

WillReadmore said: ↑
*BTW, if you want to make more personal attacks against me, at least have the BALLS to post them to ME. OK?
[End]

Came in reply to this post of mine, directed toward Gifted One:

DEFinning said: ↑
[...]
I had said to the thread readership, at large, earlier on, I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who can do, what I have never heard strict Evolutionists do, by providing the probabilities behind the specific course, which Evolution has taken; IOW, the likelihood that, merely through totally random mutation, and natural selection, we would expect to see anything resembling the vast array of life that has risen and fallen on our planet, within the known timespan. By all means, if you feel inclined to do so, please take a shot.
[End]

So, please explain where, in my quote, I make, "personal attacks against" you. Though this may come as a blow to your Ego, I do not, in any way, even allude to you, in what you had quoted from me. Nor does any of the rest of your reply, specify what you are asserting as my "personal attacks." Therefore, it is false for you to claim that you, "pointed out (my) ad hom."

And, as far as your other specious claim: is it that you do not consider it an attack, to (falsely) accuse someone else, of attacking you?

 

This contention of yours, is grossly mistaken.

 

Another angle is that over the last 20,000 years the human brain shrank by about the volume of a tennis ball - as measured by skulls found.

During that period, there is no evidence that humans got less intelligent. So, the function of that tennis ball hunk of brain had to be replaced by increased complexity elsewhere.

That's a lot of brain change.

Maybe a tennis ball sized hunk of brain being replaced in function over 20,000 years gives an idea of possible rate of change in evolution.

 

Well, I'd be interested in hearing what your thinking is here.

Natural selection is just the fact that some individual mutations lead to greater success of a species, thus those mutations survive.

 

"prove this is completely random" -- I explained previously why it is not random .. so I won't be trying to prove this one

Don't see any calculations that support your claims .. do not see how you got to your conclusions . What we do see in nature is mutations leading to changes in characteristics happen in a very short period of time .. which refutes any statistical calculations based on some theoretical model of how things work. We have changes happen within a single lifetime .. something not factored into the statistical model..

When reality violates the model .. the model is no good

 

Definitely we don't know and we can't know for sure ... sans the creator showing up throwing lightning bolts .. but, there is evidence "actual evidence" for a ghost in the machine .

What we call this Ghost -- depends on how we define God to some degree .. but in general .. just because there is a ghost .. does not mean this Ghost is God.. but it could be .. evidence is not proof however and this evidence is definitely not proof of the Christian God nor is it even attributable to the Christian God in general .. one of these things where first one has to provide a definition of "God" .. after which you can ascertain whether the evidence fits.

So while this is not Evidence for the Christian God nevermind proof .. .. It is proof of "my God" !?

 

God, here we go. Please follow the conversation, if you expect me to respond, as if you were a serious participant in it. It is understood, by all the rest of us, that "Natural Selection," is not a random process-- but this has nothing to do with the idea of whether or not there could be any unseen consciousness, directing things, which might otherwise be seen as happening randomly. Had you read my example of probabilities, in dice throwing, I don't know how you could believe that would applied, regarding natural selection. The element of evolution which is being considered, for the purpose of this thread, and the only reason that evolution is even part of the conversation, is because of the MUTATION process: that is what is, and has been, being discussed. If you cannot prove that the mutation process is something random, then it is beyond me what you could possibly have been claiming, when you'd said that you could "debunk" the claim that life could not have arisen through "random chance."

You are aware, I hope, that before natural selection can play its part, there must be a natural mutation? Or are you one who still clings to the theories of Lamarck?

Well I could go through the explanation, that I had offered no specific "calculations," because the guide which I had linked was merely explicative of the Poisson Equation for random distribution (which, as a self- asserted scientist, I would've assumed you would have already been familiar with); I did talk through the reason why, with so many possibilities for gene mutation, that the right ones mutated, and at the right time-- as in my earlier example to @Patricio Da Silva & @WillReadmore , about specifically beak mutations, all occurring in a short period of time, after bird populations became isolated, as on islands
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/god-is-not-intelligent.600071/page-8#post-1073570656
-- it is too much for any sober logician, to take as being random coincidence, that all unfolded, as it did. But I will just skip to the part of your post with which I heartily agree, and in which, whether or not it was intentional, you endorse my own contention: when reality does not match the model (of randomness, in mutations), "the model is no good."

It is clear, to any who really look, as opposed to just accepting the scientific assumption, without the supporting mathematical calculations, that DNA/RNA has been a pair of loaded dice, making various types of mutations more likely for many, assorted creatures, most definitely including mankind. The model of the gene replication process merely being so flawed, such that genes are ever mutating, to allow the tiny, tiny number of beneficial mutations to get their footholds and eventually spread throughout species, has clearly never been put to scientific scrutiny. If it were true, we would see much more interspecies variation. For example, whenever a mutation was a net neutral-- that is, equal in benefit to the normal genetic expression-- there would be no reason for it to be winnowed out of the gene pool. And with the vast array of mutations that, mathematically, should have been required to have arrived at the fortuitous ones, of which we know, we could expect to find, for example, some people whose immune systems operated similar to that of our mammalian cousins, the bats. Again, provided that this did not come along with a proclivity for hanging upside down, while sleeping, there is no reason to assume-- as was stated in Patricio's reply to this general variation idea-- that these individuals would not find mates, and so that natural selection would shun them from our present gene pool.

In point of fact, gene pools are characterized by an homogeneity, in most of their genes. The mutational genes, tend to be specialized, either in what they affect, and/or the specific timing, of when the mutations are first seen, and when they cease their activity. IOW, as with the birds* from my earlier post (linked, above), the species appears-- in a way that does echo Lamarck's theory-- to understand what needs to change and, once the species finally gets it, just right, mutations to those areas slow, or stop, again, as if the species' genes, thought of as a larger entity, understood this. That is why, for another example, the cat or small dog- sized relative of the wolf (having already come a long way, from primitive sea life) that began hunting in the shallows of the coast, just happened to develop mutations which turned it, intimately, back into a fully aquatic creature, and then more mutations, which caused it to grow exponentially, into the currently known Orca, or Killer Whale. Yet, since that point, in its wild ride, we have not seen Orcas develop proto-legs, to help with their shoreline hunting, or such, but rather a much more stable, consistency, in their form. I understand that these changes happened over long periods of time but, unless they were quite sudden, there might be expected to be seen some small change, over the considerable amount of time since killer whales have come into being. Compare, for example, the changes we see in humans, over a much briefer time. But, I suppose, the reply will be that we simply have a shortage of fossils, to demonstrate changes which have occurred? Funny thing, though, for the specific changes that transformed the small, semi-aquatic creature of the past, into an Orca, if they all had come from random mutations, would have required a staggering number of total mutations, to its overall genome; it is a wonder, that none of those mutations ever chanced across the path to what one might think to have been a great advantage (so insuring its ascension, throughout the population) of developing gills.

 

Not much into strawman fallacy mate .. In a conversation involving more complicated ideas .. if the person can't get the argument right .. is pointless to continue.

Your mission .. should you choose to accept it .. is to figure out where you went wrong .. then once you have figured out what it is that is being argued.. comment further.

 

That's very cool. But why call that "God"? You are only going to confuse people by using that label.

 

This God stuff is all rather silly.

 

If life has a spiritual source, though that source is more of a property, a force, than a 'intelligence', calling it 'God' gives it divinity, reverence, that's why.

I don't think it is confusing, it's just a new way of looking at it. The Pantheists have looked at it this way for some time, now.

 

What do you mean when you say I have argued 'they all died out'.

Where did I make that argument? Please quote me.

 

Once again, all you can argue is a distinction, without a difference. My point, if that was such a hard thing for you to follow, was that we should see MANY MORE, COMMON, MUTATIONAL ABERRATIONS. Here was my actual response:

Your argument, Patricio, that they all died out, does not jibe with reality. Look at all the people we see, today, who are morbidly obese, for example. Or who have defects like being diabetic, or very nearsighted. It is not an easy thing, to prevent an organism from finding a mate (especially a relatively long-lived organism, and one which, like many species, is well known to rely, at times, on force, to plant its seed.

And your counter argument, purportedly, is that maybe these aberrations exist, but they are too rare to be generally known? Well even this argument of mine, above, lists several mutations with huge drawbacks, but which have persisted beyond just the isolated rarity, already suggesting that your argument-- which endorses the overall conclusions of science, but fails to offer any scientific basis, for its assumption (which is the aspect of Science's Evolution argument, itself, which I have faulted, and to which I have presented my challenge)-- has no leg, upon which to stand. But I have also offered you an example, in my post, in-between the one you, here, quoted, and your reply to it, of the kind of mutations, to which I'd been referring, which were neither more, nor less beneficial than the norm-- greater alterations in our immune systems, for instance-- so your argument that these would be "crowded out," has been eliminated.

And now it appears, you are trying to pursue some pyrrhic victory, by citing my speaking loosely, when I summed up your basic (losing) argument as "they all died out," as my not being technically correct, even if the basic idea-- that we no longer see the evidence of these mutations-- is the same.

Sad.

 

It'll be fine so long as you always clarify everytime you use the word. Otherwise you will definitely cause some confusion.

 

The only time I ever used the word according to my own beliefs is in the context of pantheism otherwise otherwise I will use your definition

 

I would guess that there are real reasons why large animals that live in the ocean, like Orcas, don't have gills.

Sharks do, but they are ancient and have the disadvantage that they have to be constantly moving as required by gills.

Wouldn't it be shocking if humans DIDN'T have genetic issues?

The methodology of evolution is very clearly messy. If humans didn't have genetic issues, wouldn't that be an argument against evolution?

 

That was not my argument, that messy genetic issues called evolution into question. First of all, I accept evolution, as part of the picture-- or, more accurately, I only feel that our grasp of the workings of evolution, is incomplete. Secondly, my argument had been that there should be far many more genetic variations, within our species, if all evolution was determined (through natural selection, after the fact) from random mutations.

Let me call in @Patricio Da Silva, here, to keep everyone who presumably wants to be involved in this argument, in the loop.
I will offer one correction to you, Patricio, just for accuracy's sake, not because it affects my argument. When I threw out an example of the kind of variations we might see, if all mutations happened randomly, I should have suggested things like perhaps greater variation in the size of certain organs (as, perhaps, the liver) or the length of our intestines. When we look at how great were the changes in human beings, wrought by those mutations which were naturally selected (for greater brain size, smaller, weaker jaw, less hair, and so forth), all the other "random," mutations, which were not impediments, should have come along for the ride. Instead, there is a marked homogeneity, among most of these other physical traits, that might have been variegated, without proving to be disadvantageous. Do we all follow that argument?

I had, however, stipulated variations in our immune systems, so that some of ours were more like those of bats-- which stay constantly on high alert, which is why they can transmit things like Covid (though I am not saying that this was necessarily the source of the pandemic, but bats are susceptible to infection) without suffering its symptoms-- mostly so I could make the joke, about this mutation should not have proven inferior, so would not have been selected out of our gene pool, provided that it hadn't come along with the proclivity to sleep, hanging upside down (I only called it a "joke;" I didn't claim that it was funny). Truthfully, though, the immune system is one area, at least, for which less variation, makes sense. As it is, out different blood types-- which are really indications of one attribute of our immune systems-- can cause a serious threat to the embryo/fetus, if parents have different blood types; so I will admit, w/out having been called on it, that this was a poor example. But we could then just substitute something, like that some of our bodies might be expected to be supercharged at neutralizing free radicals, or the like, if we were so mutagenic, so as to allow all those fortuitous mutations-- opposable thumbs, and so forth-- to have arisen by chance, amongst a far broader storm of mutations. To reiterate my original argument, it seems not to make sense, that more of these other mutations-- presupposed in a narrative in which we had no predisposition, specifically for the, "lucky" ones-- would not have been retained. Could not having an additional digit, or perhaps one less, on our hands or feet, have served as well as our present number? The possibilities are almost endless. Hence, I conclude that all of our genes were not mutating equally, that is to say, at random.

I am not going so far as to claim that I can explain the source of our evolution's direction-- just as science cannot explain how our stem cells all are coordinated, such that they all become the correct type of cell, and reproduce the blueprint, in our genes. Does DNA somehow possess the ability to invisibly control this? Do all the stem cells have a full knowledge of the completed whole, and communicate amongst each other? Or do they only have a partial understanding, of the structure of which each is meant to be part; and, if that is the case, how does each one get apportioned its specific knowledge? Perhaps the human genome, from the particulate of each person's genes, within the gene pool, forms some kind of group consciousness, a cloud of conception, as it were. We might even compare it, in some ways, to some group minds that we know to exist, as among a hive of bees, for instance, or in one of the siphonophores, I previously mentioned, like the Portuguese man - o - war. Interestingly, it is not only homogenous colonies of simple life, that can act in a community, as with a single will-- and don't forget about slime mold, here, as well-- but also different forms of simple life can be put together, in random combinations, and yet create biofilms, which work in unison, for the group's mutual benefit, not unlike the body of a more complex, individual organism.

But I digress from the pieces I had actually intended to add, to my argument. Consider, for a moment, the ramifications of believing that every change in life's evolution, had happened due to some random error. By that thinking, consider the pleasure of sex. Yes, certainly, one can easily make the argument that natural selection "chose," those creatures, for whom sexual reproduction was pleasurable. But this would mean that, initially, there was no pleasure, associated with sexual reproduction-- yet it continued, nonetheless? Then, before an animal, which was truly a creation of chance, would be wired such that sex would bring an orgasm, they would, as random fate would have it, be wired so that other things created orgasms: perhaps feeling fear, or strenuous physical exertion. Whatever the case, it would only come after extensive trial and error, that pleasure would-- initially, before it could become a naturally selected trait-- "chance," to be associated with sex. Does that really sound right, to anyone? Clearly sex was made to be pleasurable, to encourage reproduction, CONSCIOUSLY intended, by some force, in its initial manifestation. After that point, I have no trouble trusting natural selection, to take care of the rest.



I'll leave it there, for now, and save my other example, for next time.

 

@WillReadmore

My only point on this evolution subthread was that successful genetic mutations will appear in the fossil record with greater abundance than mutation failures, and it's simple logic that if they appear in greater abundance, since fossil discovery is about odds, the odds of finding evolutionary advances are going to favor the successful mutations. Since mutation failures, of varying successes, are going to appear, in terms of general odds of discovery, proportionally to their success/failure rate, more or less. It's quite possible an archaeologist/paleontologist might find an unsuccessful mutation, of course, but the odds are they are going to stumble upon the successes in greater numbers rather than the failures, if they are found at all.


Now, how does this relate to the topic of the OP? Randomity. That the point of successful mutations in evolution is happening purely in randomity suggests that it's not being 'intelligently designed' which goes to the point of the OP that the concept doesn't conflict with my faith driven 'belief' that a spiritual non intelligence, a spiritual force, as it were, is behind existence. Now, of course, that belief isn't falsifiable, and if it ever becomes falsifiable whereupon it becomes clear it is, indeed, false, I will defer to science and discontinue my belief in it. It is precisely why I do not believe 'God' is an intelligence, because, as I look at the physical evidence, it suggests that there is no such thing as God, in the traditional sense. So, I posit 'God' in a non traditional sense, that there is a spiritual basis to life, but it is essentially a force, though spiritual ( in that it cannot be detected by human technology ) and not an 'intelligence'.

As for 'sex'. Sex had to be pleasurable in order for reproduction to occur. Why would an organism, incapable of reasoned thoughts, consciously choose to have sex if the organism didn't have the urge to do it, and the urge to do it is driven by pleasurable experience? Pleasure in sex, therefore, must have been negotiated in the process very early on in the development of evolution. The fact of sex doesn't alter the 'randomity' of the process, and thus, it doesn't prove 'intelligent design'. Remember, whatever level of 'consciousness' an organism possesses, such as you, me, or anyone, possesses, does not prove intelligent design as we are the product of evolution, we, as conscious beings, are not the intelligent designer driving the whole shebang, and I think you are confused on that point where you are not making the distinction between the consciousness of an organism and the absence of consciousness of 'God', the driving force ( as opposed to intelligent force ) behind the whole of existence.

In short, you have made the error of extrapolation, where, given that organisms which have varying degrees of consciousness, you have mistakenly extrapolated that to assume that 'God', must also be 'conscious', or rather, be an intelligence. No, there is no logical reason to make that extrapolation.

 

If God knows everything then what is there to think about. Must be pretty boring actually.