Advertisement
news.iskcon.com/node/2319/...tion_theory
excerpt:
"The examples in Nature’s IQ also point to a higher intelligence guiding every living being. In fact, Isvara says that his research has strengthened his own conviction in this intelligence, known in Vaishnava philosophy as Paramatma, or the Supersoul. “Through deeper analysis,” he says, “One can see that time, genetics, mutations and selection cannot explain the actual knowledge possessed even by lower species.”
One of the examples given in Nature's IQ to illustrate this point is that of the small fish the Blue-streak Cleaner Wrasse, which voluntarily swims into the mouth of the predatory Coral Gruper to eat the worms and dead skin from between his teeth. Amazingly, although the Coral Gruper eats all other fish of the same size, he does not harm the Cleaner Wrasse.
When Isvara Krishna once asked an evolutionist university professor to explain this behavior, the man tried to write a long article in response but finally admitted that he couldn’t—at least not at that moment. “This is a typical response,” says Isvara, who has participated in several public newspaper debates with Darwinist scientists. “Usually they say: ‘We cannot explain these behaviors now, but maybe in the future.’"
The video is great
www.naturesiq.com
excerpt:
"The examples in Nature’s IQ also point to a higher intelligence guiding every living being. In fact, Isvara says that his research has strengthened his own conviction in this intelligence, known in Vaishnava philosophy as Paramatma, or the Supersoul. “Through deeper analysis,” he says, “One can see that time, genetics, mutations and selection cannot explain the actual knowledge possessed even by lower species.”
One of the examples given in Nature's IQ to illustrate this point is that of the small fish the Blue-streak Cleaner Wrasse, which voluntarily swims into the mouth of the predatory Coral Gruper to eat the worms and dead skin from between his teeth. Amazingly, although the Coral Gruper eats all other fish of the same size, he does not harm the Cleaner Wrasse.
When Isvara Krishna once asked an evolutionist university professor to explain this behavior, the man tried to write a long article in response but finally admitted that he couldn’t—at least not at that moment. “This is a typical response,” says Isvara, who has participated in several public newspaper debates with Darwinist scientists. “Usually they say: ‘We cannot explain these behaviors now, but maybe in the future.’"
The video is great
www.naturesiq.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 8:59 PMSo your main argument is that anything you are ignorant about must be god.
There is nothing higher than cooperative self interest guiding the cleaning stations. No need for a god micromanaging existence.
But way to stack up the fallacies. It’s nice how you weave them together into a semi-plausible whole. The interplay between appealing to ignorance and appealing to authority is nice as it anthropomorphizing nature and the expecting others to explain your fantasy scientifically.
Lack of "higher" intelligence...how do ignoramiums deal with it? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 8:22 AM<<So your main argument is that anything you are ignorant about must be god. >>
No the argument is that such finding in nature cannot be explained by the evolutionary theory. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 9:28 AMHi Nityananda,
I hope you can understand that "have not" and "cannot" are *very* different things.
You have tried to show that there are gaps in the understanding of evolutionary theory.
You have not even proposed so much as a weak and unsupported form of inferential reasoning regarding why evolutionary theory cannot ever fill in those gaps.
Warm Regards,
Ryan -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 10:49 PM
evolution theory, can have a theory, but Can't fill the gaps,
because it doesn't/can not detect "Intelligence" which is unseen ...yet we know Intelligence be to true and real,
because Evolution is just based on materials, and not it's intelligent source
...for this you need a Meditation
IDT speaks of it, but only goes so far, but it's a beginning, and why this debate to teach in school
as a science was so important, it would open up a whole new science
IDT states only that there is an intelligence behind it,
(and to think this debate came to a dead end because of atheist and religions, and not science itself)
IDT, or my opinion of it, is based this "Nature" being of an orderly arraignments of intelligent sophistication
on the lowest levels of dna and atoms etc. A vibrational harmony that makes up the elemental laws
basically saying nature is intelligent,
"The materialist world view completely misses all the other worlds that exist, and only knows a dead mechanical world. William Blake called it "Single vision & Newton's sleep". Single vision has crippled our life, turning it into a bleak vale of tears.We need to open the third eye and have multiple vision, then we will know the glories of creation."
There are many levels or planes of existence or manifestations
science is not based on our awareness, but only our awareness of materials....
and no Materialist has yet to define for me what is this "Nature", seems like just another word put in place of God
based on Scientism and them getting us away from the outdated dogma of most religions,
but isn't this just the other side of the same coin?
there are many other worlds
"There are terrestrial and celestial worlds, emotional worlds our emotional bodies, our feelings (our Soul worlds), there's noumenal and phenomenal realms, physical and ethereal planes, material and spiritual bodies, heavens, fairy-lands, underworlds, hells, limbos, Isles of the Blessed, Elysian Fields, the meadows of Aarru-Hetep and homes on high." -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 11:32 PM
>"So your main argument is that anything you are ignorant about must be god.<"
so is your argument (Swarm) that what you're ignorant (ignore) must not be or exist until we figure it out?
yet "we will not and can not know"??
and yet you say there is no need for A god, yet could it be plausible that "that Self " you mentioned
which you say is "cooperative self interest" be A god?... which is "micromanaging" (y)our existence?
>"Lack of "higher" intelligence...how do ignoramiums deal with it?"<
by using words that sound like they are calling others ignorant
and what does "ignorance" and "authority " ... have to do with "anthropomorphizing nature" Hmm
i think your god intelligence has answered the question for us
"fantasy scientifically".... or science fiction...you don't know, but yet you say it's "fantasy"... Hmmm
now isn't that a fallacy...?
>"Lack of "higher" intelligence...how do ignoramiums deal with it?"<"
by spiritually growing up and opening our hearts ...it too has an intelligence
we can know natures IQ, god intelligence, by way of the heart and love ...
science can't tell us about love, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist
the GAps are like the silence between the notes of music, it makes the music
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 11:49 AMBehaviour is also evolutionarily influenced.
So sorry, this line of argumentation doesn't work and is, indeed, another argument from ignorance.
It's also trying to claim supposed evidence AGAINST evolution (which this isn't) is somehow evidence FOR a god, which this is not. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 12:58 PM
evolution has no evidence, that's why it's a theory ...a belief, a faith
seasons change, the earth moves around the son... 365 days of perfection
that's not evolution... that's divine -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 1:32 PMYou STILL don't know what theory means?
Or evidence?
Or faith?
Come on, we've been at this a while, you should have absorbed that much.
No, orbital mechanics isn't evolution, it's orbital mechanics. It's still not divine though.
-
Re: Nature's IQ
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 4:16 PMGod Star: "365 days of perfection"
Actually it's 365.242199 days of perfection.
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 11:48 AM
>"Actually it's 365.242199 days of perfection."<
This is amazing, check it below lol ... this is what i've been telling you all, and this divine intelligence
they (Kemeties) knew we wouldn't understand it until now...and what 2012 is all about
based on time and cosmology (and Astrology) etc...
but just see how much god intelligence they had, and what it means to us today
check it ...
There is an ancient Egyptian word which the Wikipedia records as ‘bakiu’ and which apparently referred to groups of stars which were used in measuring time.
"The first brief appearance of Sirius in the eastern sky was an important event in the Egyptian year. The next morning Sirius would appear some minutes earlier, and so on, so that before long Sirius would no longer herald the dawn, and some other bright star would serve this purpose. (remember Sirius is the dog Star or God Star - this is Jesus... or Heru)
This measuring of the days by the heliacal rising of stars gave rise to the system of decans, in which each chosen star would serve its dutyof noting the last hour of night for 10 days (or nights), so that there would be 36 decans distributed through the mornings of the year. Of course not all decans would be visible through any given night. At the time of the inundation, when Sirius rises heliacally, 12 decans (Zodiac) rise during the night, and thus the "hours" of the summer night were determined."
There's a bit more, but this is the main idea behind the decan or bakiu.
The Kemetian dual calendar system included the Sothic calendar based upon the heliacal rising of the star Sirius that occurs every 365.2500 days. The civil calendar was 365 days in length. Thus, the two Egyptian calendars precessed over a cycle of 1460 years (365 years / 0.25 day).
A priest living for forty-eight years would have lived through a twelve day shift in the calendars, and that would be sufficient to trigger an inquiry into the calendar precession leading to a realization of the celestial precession, even though the stars had change position relative to the vernal equinox by less that forty minutes of arc.
*The precision with which the Egyptians laid out their temples indicates that they never forgot they were on the Sun Boat "until the Roman Annexation". They preserved the sacred truth in the cosmic story for the New Age. This was perfectly in line with the death and resurrection of Ausar/Osiris, and they saw it coming for thousands of years.
Humility is not a common trait for knowledgeable scientists, and the humble Kemetian priests certainly were not expecting a people that declared themselves to be more noble than others to suddenly accept humility as the gateway to wisdom.
Very good
www.siloam.net/NewYorkWTC.../part6.html
www.greatdreams.com/constell...atlas.htm
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 9:40 AM"Instinct" Scientists joker card. When they don't know how something works in nature they just pull this card and hope that no one notices. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 5:37 AMDoes behaviour 'A' increase or decrease survival advantage, or have no real effect either way?
If it increases survival, it propagates.
If it decreases survival it will tend to be selected away from.
Voila, 'instinct'. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 6:00 AMhow do we determine empirically whether something has/had evolutionary merit? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 6:24 AMDirect observation, historical consequence and examining the impact of those behaviours/adaptations in situ.
Of course, in humanity social change progresses faster than biology so it's not as useful. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 6:27 AMso everything we have (our brain structures etc) are all a consequence of them being directly involved in being 'useful' to our survival from an evolutionary point of view? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 7:34 AM1. That.
2. Or they're being weeded out by natural selection.
3. Or they have no overall effect on our survivability.
Keep in mind that, as I said, society and technology move faster than our biology. Many of our adaptations are suited to plains-wandering hunter gatherers, but can be maladaptive in modern society. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 8:48 AMGrim
Not quite answering what I asked, which is a yes or no answer.
I'll ask it simpler:
Yes or no. Is it true that everything is a consequence of the fact that, at least at one point, it was useful to our survival? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 2:54 PMIt's not a simple yes or no answer because there's complications like sexual selection which are more to do with survival of _genes_ rather than personal survival.
Plus the non-affecting mutations, behaviours and changes that don't influence survival one way or the other. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:09 AMGrim
In which case, seeing as how culturally the majority of people believe in a God, and because science has indicated that the belief in the supernatural may be 'in built' in the brain, one can presume that a belief in God, at one point in our evolutionary history at least, was either conductive to our survival, or that it wasn't hazardous along such lines as to be 'weened out'. True? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 1:14 PMWhat about the bird?
Paul, that was an argumentum ad populum. Religion does prey upon weaknesses in human psychology though and probably DID used to have evolutionary advantage but, as pointed out before, social and technological progress outstrips biological progress.
Even if we did have a god instinct, that wouldn't mean god was real. Sickle cell anaemia is the cost for malaria resistance, that doesn't mean sickle cell anaemia is a good thing. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 1:42 PMI implied biological. The brain itself seem predisposed to believe in a god.
Whether or not one exists it seems probable that this belief served/serves a purpose. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 1:56 PMThe brain isn't predisposed to believe in _god_ per se, it is predisposed to pattern recognition and to read intention, unfortunately even when that's not there.
Not everything necessarily follows its 'intended' purpose. Cells turn cancerous after all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 8:49 AMJust to clarify, I am talking only about biological processes - not technological.
"Or they have no overall effect on our survivability. "
Why have we evolved them then? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 10:14 AM
"direct observation"???
Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news....html
"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings."
"discovered in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a site called Aramis in the Middle Awash region, just 46 miles (74 kilometers) from where Lucy's species, was found in 1974. Radiometric dating of two layers of volcanic ash that tightly sandwiched the fossil deposits revealed that Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago."
"Older hominid fossils have been uncovered, including a skull from Chad at least six million years old and some more fragmentary, slightly younger remains from Kenya and nearby in the Middle Awash."
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 2:55 PM"Why have we evolved them then?"
Because they don't have a negative effect and so aren't wiped.
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:04 AMGRIM so how do you explain your theory in relation to original post about the east Australian Mallee fowl ?
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:36 PMmost of the creatures that evolved went extinct before humans even had a chance to evolve
That's a lot of failed evolutionary experiments that came and went, ideas that become fossilized on the cutting room floor.
considering the percentage of species with the IQ or should we say the adaptability to make it from jurassic to present relatively unchanged is rather small, one can say that even "simpler" organisms that exist today have been through a trial by fire in it's evolutionary history.
It's kind of like the theory that if you had several billion years of Chimpanzees banging away randomly on a set of typewriters, given enough time and typewriters, one might type a Shakespearen sonnet without intention. So it is with nature, a lot goes on randomly, over a lot of time and in many places.
As they say in NYC, you throw enough shit against the wall and some of it will stick.
We marvel at the random shit-stain on the wall, for it's resemblance to Elvis or the Virgin of Guadalupe, and ignore the huge pile of excrement beneath it, all the time pretending that the pile isn't there... acting as if the hand of God himself appeared after some rectal digging and drew it there to teach us some deep meaning.
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 6:26 AMI don't know.
Appending word extenders such as "ness" "super" ( yadda yadda yadda) and pretending to some huge wordy pointless philosophy doesn't go very far at making the underlying points without which the whole house of cards falls.
Mind you, I don't mean that in a bad way. It's just that all these new age crapola mishmash bastardizations of dead religious notions (which richly deserved death) are all - - well - - - they are nothing more remarkable than tiresome.
Oh look. I have some moldy crap I brewed from rotting orange juice and some rocks I dug from the garden Lets invoke the goddess and have a rikie healing while we expand our consciousness-ness-ness-es into nirvana.
UUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
And in the background one can hear Sargent Pepper marching off a cliff - again.
Or stated another way:
Pretending that nature is sentient doesn't go very far toward making it so.
Then, asking a question which first presupposes this ridiculous notion doesn't encourage serious thought.
It encourages laughter.
But, as I said, I don't mean any of this in a bad way.
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 6:43 PMWhat about the bird? Any Darwinians have an explanation? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:09 PM
Meaning slips through the fingers of science.
The materialistic bias of science leads it to shun things that cannot be directly contacted by the senses. Yet nature has reserved a huge region set apart for things that cannot be seen, touched, or weighed. If you have ever observed a flock of swallows flying at dusk, you have seen them wheel and turn together, veering off at impossible tangents in the blink of an eye.
How does each bird know to turn at the precise instant the others do? Scientists have established that there is no bird acting as leader -- the impulse is somehow shared by every bird at once. The magic lies in each one but also in between, over, and around them. It is fluid and invisible, like the air, but more so.
-Deepak -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:12 PM
Physics Leading The Way To Metaphysics
"Traditionally, religion has looked on the world of natural science as opposed to the world of Spirit, but paradoxically, today, it is the world of science that is unwittingly preparing human thought for this breakthrough, by uncovering the ephemeral nature of matter at it's basic levels, and showing the relationship between mind and matter."
"This makes it easier to conceive of a mental or a transcendent reality. Thought is more prepared to consider the spiritual foundations of theology, and eventually to connect with the creative governing intelligence of the universe, that we call God." -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:22 PM
G-O-D. The generator, the organizer and the deliverer of the universe.
It's an intelligence infinite, unbounded, eternal, beyond space and time
it's ALSO a field of intelligence
nature is intelligent, that there is the orchestration of the infinite information and energy in nature, that space-time is structured out of a singularity, that mathematical laws that are very precise govern the workings of the universe, and therefore, I believe in an infinite intelligence that does that. You know, there are 300 million things that each cell in my body is doing. Every cell knows what the other cell is doing. A human body can think thought, play piano, kill toxins, and make a baby at the same time. And once it does that, it tracks the movement of stars. That's infinite intelligence.
is pure potentiality. Pure potentiality means that it has information, energy, matter and the fabric of space-time in virtual form, which means it exists only as potential, and that's what God is, infinite potential. Where is the thought before you have it.
The first step is the ability to sit down quietly, close your eyes and do nothing and listen to the silence within you. As the Bible says, "Be still and know that I am God," which literally means if you go in the gap within your thoughts, which is the window to your soul, you start to eavesdrop on the cosmic mind.
You don't have to believe in God, you don't have to have faith in God, just like, you know, you don't have to believe in gravity to experience gravity, you don't have to believe in electricity to see a light bulb, so do the following things, and you'll have the experience.
-Deepak -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:29 PM
ok LAST ONE... ;-p
Deepak Chopra interview on Larry King Live regarding God and the Tsunami, 1/7/05
KING: Deepak Chopra, how can you have faith when you see something like this?
DEEKAPK CHOPRA, AUTHOR: Hi, Larry. In fact, your faith increases, Larry.
Because faith is trusting that God is all the forces, the forces of creation, the forces of protection and the forces of destruction. This is an opportunity for us to transcend our religious differences, our ethnic boundaries, and create a new humanity which is based on love, sharing, compassion, giving.
And we are seeing that. The militaries of the world are getting together to bring relief. People are losing their differences in Sri Lanka. The Buddhists and the Hindus and the Muslims are getting together. This is our opportunity.
You know in historical traditions, in religious traditions, God rained on the earth for 40 days. And from that came Noah's Ark and the creation of a new humanity. Can we create a new humanity that is not based on militarism ethnocentrism, racism, bigotry, hatred, and prejudice?
KING: Deepak, if he loves us why does he bring us such pain that could be prevented?
CHOPRA: I think, Larry, one of the problems right now is we keep referring to God as him and his. We have a very sexist, male identity that we've given to God. I agree with Michael Lerner, that our idea of God, our concept of God, our experience of God, changes as we evolve. I think the idea of sin and punishment is very, very primitive. And we have to ask ourselves right now, are we going to choose between sin and compassion? Compassion is the way to go right now.
And you know, there's lots of evidence, even scientific, that the earth is a living organism. The gaia (ph) hypothesis. Is it possible that our consciousness and the turbulence in our consciousness has anything to do with the turbulence in nature? Michael Lerner just referred to that.
One of the very interesting things that happened with the tsunami was, no animal died. The elephants. The hares. The rabbits. The birds. They were so tuned in to the forces of nature that they escaped. They ran. Some of the elephants broke their chains and ran to the high level mountainous area where the tidal waves could not reach. We have lost that connection. Is there a way that we can collectively transcend to a level of consciousness where we see that the turbulence in our collective mind, possibly, is inseparable from the turbulence in nature? Because we are part of nature.
KING: Is it hard, Deepak Chopra, to stay up? In other words, is it hard to ground that feeling of good will when you see a tragedy like this?
CHOPRA: No, it in fact helps you ground that feeling of good will, Larry. You have to remember, as again, Rabbi Lerner said something very profound. The actual figure is 40,000 children are dying every day of preventable causes. 23 million people have died since World War I due to war and related violence. Right now there are 35 wars going on in our world.
This is an opportunity for us to say, the cataclysmic events in nature are so big, but the inhumanity of man to man is even bigger. And can we learn from this, that at least there are certain things that we can do to make this a better world? What can we do? This is our opportunity to go beyond our religious differences because of what's happening. It brings out the essential goodness of man.
CALLER: The question is, do you have any advice as to the masses, exactly how to keep this a little more balanced?
KING: Good question.
CHOPRA: It's a very good question. You know, the idea here is that if we quiet the turbulence in our collective mind and heal the rift in our collective soul, could that have an effect on nature's mind, if nature has a mind? The gaia hypothesis says nature does have a mind, that the globe is conscious.
So a critical mass of people praying or a critical mass of people collectively engaging in meditation could conceivably, even from modern physics point of view, through non-local interactions, actually simmer down the turbulence in nature. And there are precedents for this in all the religions. That when you pray, that you quieten your mind, that you go into deep silence, you change the way nature behaves. That it's not a cause/effect relationship; it's the inseparability of one consciousness that manifests itself in the diversity of creation.
KING: Deepak, do you doubt?
CHOPRA: No, Larry, I don't doubt. But I do feel sorry sometimes that we have allowed God to be hijacked by religious dogma. For example, right now on the show there aren't any women. You know, why is that? Every time we do a show on God, religion, it's always us males representing these different traditions.
We need to realize that when we share our suffering, out of that comes compassion. And out of compassion comes love and understanding. And from that comes healing. As long as we stick to "my" version of God, we're going to have problems. I say that right on the show -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:41 PM
The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question!
people.tribe.net/chaz/blog...1229ae82a0
Beginnings
people.tribe.net/chaz/blog...edf4bf9c6a
KMT Ontology and Cosmogenesis
people.tribe.net/chaz/blog...c2b523ce1b
DARK MATTER - BLACK ENERGY - IS the Universal Mind - AMEN
tribes.tribe.net/kmt/threa...a42fffcb65
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 8:41 AMI've always thought of Deepak as an idiot savant whose one skill is elegant wordiness in a pointless sort of way. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:40 PMwell said
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 10:14 PMNeither your ignorance nor that there remain unexplained phenomena means god. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 12:33 PM>"Neither your ignorance nor that there remain unexplained phenomena means god."<
but knowing your secrets and inside your soul does -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:41 PMno chaz, your delusions don't prove god either.
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 10:32 PM"What about the bird? Any Darwinians have an explanation?"
What about the bird do you think requires an explanation?
And 'Darwinian' is really an outmoded term. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:15 AMDoes GRIM or anyone for that matter care to give a scientific explanation, even just a plausible theory?
Any educated scientist here who care to give us a theory? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 12:31 PMI guess no evolutionist here have an answer.
I just asking for a theory of how the mystery with East Australian Mallee fowl.
There are many many other examples.
here is one. There are certain fish that enter predatory fishes mouths and clean the inside. How does evolution explain that anomaly?
How did the deep see Anglerfish develop its glowing appendage?
Let’s imagine a fish
that did not have a luminescent bulb in the
middle of its forehead. Instead, the first
spoke of its dorsal fin—from which, says the
theory of evolution, the appendage must
have somehow developed—was completely
normal. Let’s suppose that a random genetic
mutation caused minor changes in the first
spoke of the dorsal fin: it became a little
longer or a little wider, or maybe it got
placed a little more forward. This slight
change in the dorsal fin would not benefit
the fish in the least, since it would not
attract any smaller fish. And since this
feature would not give the fish an
advantage in survival over other fish of the
same species, the process of natural selection
would not come into play to create the
new species of anglerfish. And even if
somehow the fish with the slightly changed
dorsal fin mutated again so that the fin grew
slightly longer, this longer appendage would
still be useless and thus not enhance
survival.
We should also note that the anglerfish’s
lamp is not just a simple protuberance. It
contains rare bacteria that produce luminescent
chemicals. This fact further reduces
the chance that this “chemical factory”
developed on its own through a series of
chance events that one day all of sudden
produced a little radiant club.
here is another on for you Among land reptiles and amphibians we
find even more intricate feeding habits. The
small bulge on the tongue of the alligator
snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii)
resembles a worm. During the day this
snapper rests with its mouth wide open on
the bottom of ponds or streams and waits for
a small fish to see the “worm” and swim into
its mouth. This behavior could not have
developed through a slow learning process.
How would a turtle know that its tongue
reminds small edible fish of a worm? And
why would it open its mouth wide and sit in
one place? Even if a highly gifted (or very
lazy) turtle had done so in the past, this
behavior would not have appeared in its
offspring, because acquired behavioral
patterns are not inherited. Abilities an
organism acquires through learning or practice
do not affect the organism’s genetic
material and thus are not passed on to its
offspring, just as the knowledge we acquire
during our studies is not passed on to our
children. So the alligator snapping turtle’s
special daytime feeding behavior—to open its
mouth wide and become motionless—must
be a reflex, not a result of conditioning
there are 100's of examples.
but I will settle for just on answer. Pick the bird, the fish whatever. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:38 PMWhat do you think are problematic about any of these?
Bioluminescence has many uses and occurs for different purposes in many deep sea fish, different behaviours in combination with variable behaviours lead to different 'tools'. No mystery there.
Same with mouth-cleaning fish, a pair of behavioural evolutions in tandem.
All of these occur because there's survival advantage to them.
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 6:51 PMNeither your ignorance nor that there remain unexplained phenomena means god.
Flagellar Motor
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi
Once one of the "inexplicables" which was used as an argument from ignorance by the ignorant, we know know quite a bit about how it works and where it came from evolutionarily speaking.
read to your heart's content: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:43 AMThanks swarm for bring up the Flagellar motor. The theory of evolution holds that there is a change of species based on 'survival of the fittest"
So in that theory we start with a cell without a motor and end up with a cell with a motor.
The cell that is developing a motor has to be fit for survival or competitive for survival.
So what are the stages of a cell without a motor, to a cell with a incomplete motor, to finally a cell with a working motor? How are these intermediate stages competitive for survival? How is having incomplete motor competitive for survival? -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:06 PMYou do not seem to understand what survival of the fitest means.
All it means is that the organism is able to survive and reproduce successfully each generation. Nothing else. You can have all manner of seemingly useless stuff, like peacock tails, as long as you are able to survive long enough to reproduce.
So we start without a motor or long tail, ie cilia which are common to many organisms. Moving from cilia to flagella is not difficult to conceive and they have found the rotor protiens in other cell structures in bacteria which lack flagella, ie the rotor is made from parts which are already present in other forms. A reasonable progression would be the domination of the cilia in the current flagella position and atrophy of the other less used cilia until the flagella dominates.
But the "intermediate" stage doesn't have to be useful. It just has to not kill the organism before it reproduces. Much like belief in god.
The development of the eye is a perfect example where there are a number of intermediate stages which still exist, from jellies with nothing but clear bodies and photo sensitive neual nets that lack even a centralized structure, to eye buds which are simple cups, to pin hole based eyes, to eyes with focusing lenses.
None of which requires anything other than natural selection.
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 10:00 AM*************************Let’s imagine a fish *****************
And there in lies the failure point in your entire message.
You enter a room and want to talk about intangibles like the things you imagine and stuff you tell yourself that you sense.
Then you demand rational scientific responses to non rational things.
Look it's really vbery simple.
You can't prove or disprove God using the scientific method. God as it is posited exists outside of time space and dimension. God is infinite.
Nothing in the physical realm has been proved to be infinite. This simply because humans have nothing that can measure infinity.
We talk about the infinite reaches of space but, no one has ever been outside this solar system - let alone to the infinite reaches. We observe light and radio waves as they drift to us here on earth and calculate distances and other things but as far as knowing that space is infinite: It's just a good hypothesis. For all any one knows there is a lip to the universe outside of which is a titan child's tea set.
But, I'm not betting on the tea set.
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:16 AMI assume you watched the video so you can reply to my post. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 4:29 PM
Great points Nityananda...
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 3:24 PMI watched the video. Thanks.
Respectfully...
I am not completely closed to the idea of there being a higher intelligence out there. Nor am I closed to the idea that there might be no such thing as a god entity after all. So, I guess to be honest I cannot simply discount the possibility that there is a higher intelligence that influences animal behavior.
I do think that as humans, we have a tendency for too quickly assigning the unknown to the "unknowable". Over time, much of what was considered mysterious, spiritual or metaphysical or simply unknowable has been explained via discovery.
That said, I think the case of the Maillee fowl is similar to other examples of "fixed action patterns". So my take here? As I am not a scientist (an artist and theologian-turned-agnostic) my best guess(es) is/are:
1. Behavior is physiologically situated - particularly repetitive behavior. In the case of humans, we created neural boutons that provide neural shortcuts. This makes things more streamlined and efficient. It can also work against us as our habits can sometimes hurt or even kill us.
2. Ancestors of the bird find, either by serendipity (by those who prefer rotting leaves as bedding) or by more intentional search criteria, that there are sources of continual warmth and are attracted to it. I don't think there is anything miraculous about that. I saw my dogs do it all the time. It is possible that within one generation with birds that lay eggs numerous times in their life cycle, they learn to associate the warmth with favorable breeding. Why not - it frees up a lot of time and energy for the parents if there is an external heat source for incubation. That they learn to harness it does not really trip me out. Like I said, my dogs alone were masters at that. What we take to be "lazy" characteristics in animals are usually behaviors tailored to expend as little energy as possible while finding food and finding favorable reproduction conditions. Natural selection over time (if by no other mechanism via than those who breed more successfully due to the opportunities presented by an external incubation heat source) embeds this behavior in birds.
3. At first, it takes more complex cues (relatively) to trigger this behavior but soon it becomes streamlined relying on less and less external cues and learning to rely on the most reliable, simple cues (i.e. salinity changes, temperature patterns, certain molecules in the air stream, etc...). This happens all the time in nature in order to save time and energy.
3. Generations of repetitive behavior patterns created genetic bents that are carried to later generations.
4. In a micro/macro way of looking at things, even the broad behaviors genetically transmitted also become more streamlined throughout a species through natural selection as a species learns to arrive on simple cues that have become reliable over time. This explains why birds seem to miraculously know when to take a less typical migratory route than previous years in order to maintain ideal food supplies and mating conditions for wintering.
5. Soon, the cues themselves can become situated is sign-behavior within members of the species (if the process is repetitive and kept) through the behavior signs of the animals themselves.
5. Selection and time produce "fixed action patterns".
www.britannica.com/EBchecke...n-pattern
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixe...on_pattern
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etho...munication
Honestly, the case of this Maillee fowl really does not seem to fall outside of this potential so it doesn't raise the question of higher intelligence at play for me, personally.
Peace!
MC
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 3:26 PMI wrote: "In the case of humans, we created neural boutons that provide neural shortcuts..."
===========
...we CREATE boutons...
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 5:58 AMHey MC. Good to see you again. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 2:38 PMS:"Hey MC. Good to see you again. "
=================
Howdy! I've had some shifts in my perspectives since I was on here last. :)
Peace.
MC -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Thu, November 12, 2009 - 7:01 AMWell I hope it didn't leave you "see"sick. ;) -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Thu, November 12, 2009 - 11:29 AMNope. Just another level attained in terms of favoring the broad and grey vs. the monolithic and high-contrast. However I have pretty much killed any chance of more church work from here on out - well if i am to be honest. In contrast to now, i would say i was previously "mostly agnostic". I got off that fence after an encounter with psilocybin a few months back. Here is a reflection on my experience:
www.michaelchung-design.com/writ...t.pdf
Its really just a gut level reflection. What resulted later was a renewed desire to foster openness towards others in myself and others, a deeper suspicion of monolithic world views and also a renewed sense of self-confidence about being honest of my views. That and the conviction I am meant to work for the non-profit sector as I do more good there on a month than I have done for 30 years in the church.
I left my last church gig in August with nothing to back me up and I am piss poor broke as a result. But happier. :) I grew terminally tired of my bosses putting the church above people.
I suppose I could work for a church again if they were cool with my pretty clearly defined plurality (that I see Xianity is just one approach and as potentially flawed as any other), my assertion that we cannot say with any certainty that there is a god(s), my objections with some basic pillars of Christian theology (well at least in terms of Soteriology), my view that Scripture is fallible and errant, my sense of ease with the use of ethnobotanicals/entheogens and my conviction that GLBTQs ought to be able to marry whoever they want (or not) - to name a few. I do sense there are possibly facets of consciousness that might tap into some sort of collective (or perhaps another storage device like genetics) but its an intuition.
Peace.
MC
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 6:07 AMI'm not getting what you find so incredible about Mallee fowl. Lots of animals take advantage of compost for heat. I'd say crocks are way more interesting there since by controlling the temp within a few degrees they determine the sex of their babies.
But really termite mounds are way more interesting. Air conditioned, humidity control, hydroponics, nurseries, proportionally grander than anything we have. Amazing engineering all done without any central authority or control or brains bigger than a pin. Self organizing systems are tres cool. -
-
Re: Nature's IQ - how do Darwinians deal with it?
Tue, November 17, 2009 - 11:35 AMTermites and ants are the source of the foundational bacteria you need to make yogurt and kifir They either gather or generate the dozens of anti fungal, anti bacterial, and anti viral organisms that go into good home spun yogurt making.
I posted a video of a Turkish peasant woman tearing an ant hill apart for the bacteria on the eggs - and then using 'em to make yogurt on the Kifir making tribe
Interestingly if you are in the wilderness and in serious need a topical anti bacterial you can use ants. Either dig up a nest and use the soil from inside or find the eggs and roll them around or just let the ants crawl all over the wound dressings you plan to use.
-
-
-
-