Bravo! Essay On The Intelligence of Nature

Bravo indeed!

See, that's exactly where my thoughts that Darwin's Theory of evolution was faulty lie. The Earth has so many systems and eco systems that all must work together, rely on one another to sustain life. Throw off one system and life cannot occur or be sustained.. So how, over time, did the systems come together to make life sustainable? They couldn't. All of theses synergistic systems had to begin at the same time.

Now, as impossible as a mathmatic probability that that is, let's throw in life. Humans, animals, etc. also have many, many systems that work together synergistically to keep life going. One system fails, you're a goner. How could just one small organism develop at a time in the molecular or cellular level and live with out the other synergistic systems? They couldn't. No brain function, you're dead. No heart beating? You're dead. No lung function? You're dead. No kidney function? Dead. No liver function? Dead. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you're getting my point. All of these systems have to be working together at the same time.

But let's go deeper than that. Have you ever studied DNA? Do you realize that there is so much coding and programming in a single strand of DNA that determines every molecule, cell, coloring, development, muscle, sinew, organs, skin, hair, gender, etc.?

It's way more complex than computer programming. And this code keeps working every second, minute, hour, day, month, year and so on, sending out the codes for growth, for taking nutrients and feeding the body, for sight, for taste and then how do you even explain consciousness? The brain's functioning, our being? We are live energy!

Sorry, but in my opinion, evolution is a huge fail! It can't explain it.


Terra

I always thought that Darwins theory was built on environment driven mutations which lead to a advantageous property for survival. Always hate this subject in biology! How far wrong am I?

Butters,

You're right, but darwin strongly implied that that was INFINITE! In other words, something like a simple amoeba became HUMANS! HE used, as an example, a monkey like creature becoming human, but the idea was that the parts were on the earth, like they are on all other planets, and that some spark happened(perhaps LITERALLY), and started a bunch of mutations that created all the creatures on the planet. Earlier, they called it the THEORY of evolution. TODAY, whatever they call it, they treat it as FACT.

With regard to nature adapting, etc... That is BULL! It CHANGES! There are tilapia fish in Africa that, if they get a few degrees warmer, or a bit colder, they would cease to reproduce. How many other creatures met similar fates? The EPA wants a raise that is over 200% the increase due to inflation. Their head, and sessions had a little talk. He should have thrown her in jail for fraud and contempt. But Sessions had a good comeback to the GW argument! It echos what I have said in part! He said "CO2 is PLANT FOOD, and harmless!"! Many may take umbrage to the term harmless, but it is dangerous only when it severely overwhelms, and that tends to be AWAY from plants.

It is funny though, darwin never explained a lot of the questions he raised. Outside of the idea of God creating humans in his image, and the idea, that is prevalent but I don't believe it is biblical, that god doesn't change things, darwin never really countered anything. ONE raised question, that he never answered, was how the base knowledge of creatures appeared. Let's face it! Without that knowledge, the average creature wouldn't make it past the first few weeks, on average. And I STILL haven't had an answer on how two compatible animals mutate in the same way at the same time. I mean if a lizard suddenly became a chicken, it would eventually die out, never having had offspring. A lot of very similar creatures can maybe reproduce, but have progeny that can't, like the mule and horse. And suppose the creatures were defective, or failed to mate, or were too far away. You CAN'T use one! Statistically, TWO would likely not be good enough. You would likely need DOZENS, or HUNDREDS!

Anyway, many animals do REMARKABLY well even where you would think they would fail. The tilapia, for example, have this ODD way of doing things. The female acts like any other fish, since the male has to fertilize the eggs in the usual way. She THEN does something UNUSUAL. She, being one of the most voracious predators for her size, STOPS EATING, digs up the eggs, and holds them in her mouth until they can fend for themselves. It is interesting. On the one hand, it saves them from predators. On the other hand, it helps keep the temperature stable. BTW that is something they apparently just KNOW! WHY?

Steve

First -- TB Thank you for this thread! I am loving this discussion.
Second - I feel like I'm back in my philosophy classes. Everyone has very good points in here. Of course, this issue is pretty much "meaning of life" type thinking that we might never answer, but being human, will always strive to.

I also have not read the article yet, because I wanted to see how much of the drift I could get in here and see what points of view on the subject are before I get into it (plus, I'm gonna need another cup of coffee for this one).

Does anyone remember the experiment back around 3 or 4 decades ago that involved a piece of technology they point at planets to try to determine the existence of life? They pointed it back at earth and announced that the earth is a living entity? (Might have been too broad of a statement, but we got the drift - life is interactive in the extreme). Then there's this scientist in Japan that has "shown" that water reacts almost as if intelligently, too. Whatever we think about that one, he had at least amounts of evidence that makes his issue a valid one, even if it sounds far fetched. After all - what could even be more far-fetched an idea than the idea of beings such as humans if you get down to it?

I've known many physicists and read a lot more. Many of them are convinced of the need for intelligent design for the universe to run as it does. Mark is very right that our universe runs mathematically.

Natural selection seems like a "no-brainer" idea. Our planet, nor the entire universe itself, has never been stagnant. It would seem unusual for beings not to be able to change to adapt to their changing ecosystems - and those ecosystems change geologically first. This change often causes chaos and death for species. Yet enough have survived and adapted to have keep life flourishing. Example: Elephants used to have fur, and so did Rhinos. They lost most of it in their warmer climates. There is obviously something in our constituency that allows our bodies to strive for normalization within our ecosystems. If an ecosystem gets upset, there's a few choices - adapt, migrate, or die. We have seen the results of all of these.

Yet as "intelligent" as our DNA may be, because of changes that effect us -sometimes rather rapidly, not everything has time to change, not everything makes the right change when a sudden and new condition is thrown at them. If you are a tropical life form, and suddenly find yourself in an ice age (which have been found to be able to come on within 10 years, hardly enough time to evolve protective covering), if you can't migrate and do it now, you're dead.

So while there does seem to be intelligence in nature, there also remains at some points, a roll of the dice nature to existence. While, ultimately, there may be a determination and predictability in the disasters that happen on earth, there doesn't seem to be any determination in evolution that predicts these types of changes in the life forms on the planet. There doesn't seem to be a 100% coordination between evolution of geology and that of carbon based life. What happens if the animals that migrate to a volcanic area breed offspring that are more adapted to that particular ecosystem, then suddenly that volcano goes off and wipes out the evolved animals?

The answer seems to be intelligence without pee-determination.

One thing I do know is that you can't outsmart nature. We've been trying for damned long time now, and about when we think we've done so, nature smacks the crap out of us and shows us that we're stupid for even thinking about it.

When I get time I'll be back and read that article and see if what I just said is in any accordance to this guy's ideas or whether my philosophies go against his.

P.S. -- Mark, I thought your argument was really sound and worthy of consideration.............then you had to ruin it by attacking people on a personal level. Dude - chill out.

What a load of crap.


Joe Mobley

But Sal, what if the problem space is really

THE FIFTH DIMENSION???????

I like this so much, I'm just going to repost it and pretend it's mine.

So.....while we're on the subject of pschopathy and how it's at least partly due to hard-wiring in the brain.........

I'm wondering if that condition is a genetic hangover from human evolution in areas where empathy actually was something that would get people killed. Consider living where survival meant gathering food, where "saving" other people would do nothing but get both the victim and the hero killed, etc. and so forth. Was lack of empathy something that ended up hardwired to an extent specifically as a survival method in harsh environments before technology made life easier?

Look at our need for calcium. We can probably thank our early hunter and gatherer tribes that consumed a lot of plants that were high in the element for that. So isn't it likely that the survivors of extreme survival that used to be the average experience on the planet were the ones that weren't so overly empathetic that they ended up getting their own butts wiped out?