|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23846214 - 11/18/16 06:24 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zzripz said:
Quote:
the physical body is literally a machine
No it isn't.
It is an organism; or as Alan Watts put it, an organismenvironment
yes you are right, there are different levels. and at one level all stuff is atoms (and quarks etc) then at a 'deeper' level matter and energy are one
but at the every day level a car is a machine. sure if it's functioning you can say: "it's an organism and part of the industrial/petrolium complex" or some such idea... but we take it to a mechanic to fix metal parts
what is surprising is the recent discovery that at a certain level, at the nanoscale level the physical life of the body is not just some sort of mysterious gooy liquid, but rather clearly defined molecular machinery as the videos show. Many other such discoveries, besides the cellular discoveries, show how viruses and DNA work, and once agin we see that is more 'digital' than 'analog'.
As you already know, although biology may have started out as a 'soft' science, it has become a science of measurements, and is no longer like alchemy, astrology or Jungian analysis conjuring up vague forces and other intangibles.
It seems to me If we examine the ecology of groups of organisms, again the only reason we can make sense of it is because of discrete effects and factors.
That DNA at the heart of every cell uses a digital sort of code, seems amazing.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: sudly]
#23846473 - 11/18/16 08:00 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Don't forget about the invention of genetically modified glow in the dark jellyfish sheep back in 2013.
I await the day geneticists invent a peanut butter and jelly fish.
--------------------
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
"peanut butter and jelly fish"
sounds fishy would be squishy
but CRISPR is no joke (makes GMOs & clones look like chicken shit) the world will be changed drastically
should we have the misfortune to live that long we will see it happen no one imagined the change computers brought 30 years ago it will not be regulated in China
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=CRISPR
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: laughingdog]
#23846630 - 11/18/16 08:51 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I want a tail and a third arm - and maybe a minor superpower.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: I want a tail and a third arm - and maybe a minor superpower.

I want that familiar super power without drugs
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: laughingdog]
#23848991 - 11/19/16 03:29 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
it is clear to me your a physicalist. I am not.
the body at 'that level' seems to you like machinery, but it isn't machinery. it does not function like a machine at all:
Quote:
“Integrative Science”: The Death-Knell of Scientific Materialism?
‘“One of the most spectacular and substantial difference[s] between machines and living systems is that in the case of machines the source of the work is not related to any significant structural changes. The systemic forces of machines ... work only if the constituents of the machine are taken into motion by energy sources which are outer to these constituents. The inner states of the constituents of a machine remain practically constant. The task of the constituents of a machine is to convert some kind of energy into work. In contrast, in the living systems the energy of the internal build-up, of the structure of the living matter is transformed into work. The energy of the food is not transformed into work, but to the maintenance and renewal of their internal structure and inner states. Therefore, the living systems are not power machines” (ibid., 64). The fundamental principle of biology acts against the changes which would set up in the system on the basis of the Le Chatelier-Braun principle (ibid., 59). The Bauer-principle recognizes the problem of the forces acting at the internal boundary surfaces as the central problem of biology....’
and as for your ideas about a brave new world of reductionism:
Quote:
Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology The claim made by Francis Crick (1966) that “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry” epitomizes the reductionist mindset that has pervaded molecular biology for half a century. The theory is that because biological systems are composed solely of atoms and molecules, without the influence of 'alien' or 'spiritual' forces, it should be possible to explain them using the physicochemical properties of their individual components, down to the atomic level. The most extreme manifestation of the reductionist view is the belief that is held by some neuroscientists that consciousness and mental states can be reduced to chemical reactions that occur in the brain (Bickle, 2003; Van Regenmortel, 2004).
Reductionists analyse a larger system by breaking it down into pieces and determining the connections between the parts. They assume that the isolated molecules and their structure have sufficient explanatory power to provide an understanding of the whole system. As the value of methodo-logical reductionism has been particularly evident in molecular biology, it might seem odd that, in recent years, biologists have become increasingly critical of the idea that biological systems can be fully explained using physics and chemistry. Their situation is similar to that of an art student asking about the significance of Michelangelo's David and being told that it is just a piece of marble hewn into a statue in 1504. This is certainly true, but it evades pertinent questions about the anatomy of the statue, its creation at the beginning of the Florentine Renaissance, its significance in European art history, or even the scars on its left arm that were plastered after it was broken in three places during the anti-Medici revolt of 1527. In an analogous way, the biology, development, physiology, behaviour or fate of a human being cannot be adequately explained along reductionist lines that consider only chemical composition. Anti-reductionists therefore regard biology as an autonomous discipline that requires its own vocabulary and concepts that are not found in chemistry and physics. Both sides have discussed their standpoints at several recent international meetings (Bock & Goode, 1998; Van Regenmortel & Hull, 2002; Van Regenmortel, 2004) and the main disagreement between the protagonists is about what constitutes a good scientific explanation.
Quote:
Systems thinking The fact that ecological sustainability is a property of a web of relationships means that in order to understand it properly, in order to become ecologically literate, we need to learn how to think in terms of relationships, in terms of interconnections, patterns, context. In science, this type of thinking is known as systemic thinking or "systems thinking." It is crucial for understanding ecology, because ecology – derived from the Greek word oikos ("household") – is the science of relationships among the various members of the Earth Household.
Systems thinking emerged from a series of interdisciplinary dialogues among biologists, psychologists, and ecologists, in the 1920s and '30s. In all these fields, scientists realized that a living system – organism, ecosystem, or social system – is an integrated whole whose properties cannot be reduced to those of smaller parts. The "systemic" properties are properties of the whole, which none of its parts have. So, systems thinking involves a shift of perspective from the parts to the whole. The early systems thinkers coined the phrase, "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."
What exactly does this mean? In what sense is the whole more than the sum of its parts? The answer is: relationships. All the essential properties of a living system depend on the relationships among the system's components. Systems thinking means thinking in terms of relationships. Understanding life requires a shift of focus from objects to relationships.
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi



Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,658
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23849123 - 11/19/16 04:20 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23849253 - 11/19/16 05:01 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Transistors aren't constant yo, they gave gates for the electrons.

Just as human cells have a plasma membrane for the movement of ions.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: zzripz] 1
#23849734 - 11/19/16 07:49 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
system thinking is interesting
The weather cannot be modeled for more than a few days out as the possible interactions become infinite. So is the weather alive or a machine? Inside stars like the sun thermonuclear reactions take place, but the activity on the surface of the sun is not entirely understood or predictable. So are stars machines? Or are they spirits or alive, or just part of a bigger machine called a galaxy and like wise for the galaxy it's part of a cluster. We can wonder about this and not much seems at stake - one could have a discussion about what does it mean to say something is mechanical.
When it comes to "life" we may have more emotional baggage...
When it comes to life if we go to a different level from the really strange goings on in cells. We do find at another level many rather predictable behaviors. An interesting one is population fluctuations between many prey and predatory species such as rabbits and foxes. So here on a large scale one sees no free will at all - the fact that it is predictable seems to imply a mechanical nature.
Consider: Programed cell death, or Apoptosis, "For example, the separation of fingers and toes in a developing human embryo occurs because cells between the digits undergo apoptosis." First the body makes unnecessary parts, (webs between the fingers in this case) because an old evolutionary programing hasn't been so to speak 'updated' and then destroys those parts, an inefficient use of resources. There are many such examples, which lend weight to a mechanical view. The most obvious being the simple program all life has to: grow, reproduce, and die. It doesn't get much simpler.
Most species are parasites. Even parasites have parasites. And many creatures eat each other alive. The reality is quite different from the Walt Disney shows I saw as a kid, or (in my view) the New age fluff spouted by guys like Deepak Chopra. But of course he gets very rich telling people what they want to hear, namely that they are special and spiritual and not mechanical.
Meanwhile advertisers, slot machine designers, and their ilk do just fine using a mechanistic understanding of human behavior. Millions and millions watch TV and join the armed forces of all the nations, so we have a vast continuous frenzy of men killing men. It wouldn't seem to matter much what we call it. Mechanical or relational interconnected system, physical or an immaterial dream, it's all still pretty stupid. But hey some Gap clothing and an iphone and i be cool & free.
|
phio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: sudly]
#23849750 - 11/19/16 07:53 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Transistors aren't constant yo, they gave gates for the electrons.

Just as human cells have a plasma membrane for the movement of ions.

Are those borders and border regulations at work serving to make for a functional system and harmonious system?
|
phio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: TFI]
#23849768 - 11/19/16 07:58 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TFI said: Not here to try and convert anyone but i have a few questions about the evolution of man. I personally believe in jesus christ as my lord and savior but thats me. Now me questions lol
Quote:
TFI said: 1. if we are so evolved and our relatives are monkeys, why did man loose his fur and strength in hands and feet?
Fur serves many purposes. One is the regulation of body temperature throughout the seasons. Man developed clothing and other forms technologies to solve this problem. There are other causes i'm sure if you google it. Man created google so you can look this kind of stuff up. Strength in hands and feet are relative to function. We developed tools and technologies.
Quote:
TFI said: 2. If we evolved from animals why can man not survive the seasons without building something for shelter or clothing or fire?
Technology is an evolutionary tool that is able to be forged by man's evolved brain. You're missing the point.
Quote:
TFI said: 3. Why is man the only species that cultivates food such as farming and ranching?
Technology. You're missing the point.
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi



Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,658
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: phio]
#23849774 - 11/19/16 07:59 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Mind Walk is a good movie all about systems thinking. Highly recommend it.
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: phio]
#23849793 - 11/19/16 08:06 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Different countries have different border regulations.
Different circuits have different pros and cons.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
phio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: The Blind Ass]
#23849819 - 11/19/16 08:18 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Blind Ass said: Mind Walk is a good movie all about systems thinking. Highly recommend it.
*Cheers. Will look into that.
|
phio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: sudly]
#23849824 - 11/19/16 08:20 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Different countries have different border regulations.
Different circuits have different pros and cons.
Indeed.. regulatory enforcements of border in the biological body can even be 'deadly' and for good reasons (pros/cons). They seemingly exist for good and functional reasons most often
Edited by phio (11/19/16 08:26 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: laughingdog]
#23849830 - 11/19/16 08:25 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: system thinking is interesting
The weather cannot be modeled for more than a few days out as the possible interactions become infinite. So is the weather alive or a machine? Inside stars like the sun thermonuclear reactions take place, but the activity on the surface of the sun is not entirely understood or predictable. So are stars machines? Or are they spirits or alive, or just part of a bigger machine called a galaxy and like wise for the galaxy it's part of a cluster. We can wonder about this and not much seems at stake - one could have a discussion about what does it mean to say something is mechanical.
When it comes to "life" we may have more emotional baggage...
When it comes to life if we go to a different level from the really strange goings on in cells. We do find at another level many rather predictable behaviors. An interesting one is population fluctuations between many prey and predatory species such as rabbits and foxes. So here on a large scale one sees no free will at all - the fact that it is predictable seems to imply a mechanical nature.
Consider: Programed cell death, or Apoptosis, "For example, the separation of fingers and toes in a developing human embryo occurs because cells between the digits undergo apoptosis." First the body makes unnecessary parts, (webs between the fingers in this case) because an old evolutionary programing hasn't been so to speak 'updated' and then destroys those parts, an inefficient use of resources. There are many such examples, which lend weight to a mechanical view. The most obvious being the simple program all life has to: grow, reproduce, and die. It doesn't get much simpler.
Most species are parasites. Even parasites have parasites. And many creatures eat each other alive. The reality is quite different from the Walt Disney shows I saw as a kid, or (in my view) the New age fluff spouted by guys like Deepak Chopra. But of course he gets very rich telling people what they want to hear, namely that they are special and spiritual and not mechanical.
Meanwhile advertisers, slot machine designers, and their ilk do just fine using a mechanistic understanding of human behavior. Millions and millions watch TV and join the armed forces of all the nations, so we have a vast continuous frenzy of men killing men. It wouldn't seem to matter much what we call it. Mechanical or relational interconnected system, physical or an immaterial dream, it's all still pretty stupid. But hey some Gap clothing and an iphone and i be cool & free.
Fwiw, while you are correct that many phenomena in our realm act mechanistically, our most fundamental scientific theory stipulates a cosmos that is in essence nondeterministic at root. Deterministic causality is a good approximation, but it is not really true, ultimately. This is known with precision.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: phio]
#23849902 - 11/19/16 08:59 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phio said:
Quote:
sudly said: Different countries have different border regulations.
Different circuits have different pros and cons.
Indeed.. regulatory enforcements of border in the biological body can even be 'deadly' and for good reasons (pros/cons). They seemingly exist for good and functional reasons most often

That's survival of the fittest for you.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
phio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: sudly]
#23850024 - 11/19/16 10:13 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
phio said:
Quote:
sudly said: Different countries have different border regulations.
Different circuits have different pros and cons.
Indeed.. regulatory enforcements of border in the biological body can even be 'deadly' and for good reasons (pros/cons). They seemingly exist for good and functional reasons most often

That's survival of the fittest for you.
fittest ...
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: phio]
#23850065 - 11/19/16 10:26 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You surprise me..
Quote:
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success.
Edited by sudly (11/19/16 10:40 PM)
|
phio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
|
Re: Flaws in the theory of evolution [Re: sudly]
#23850402 - 11/20/16 03:19 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: You surprise me..
Quote:
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success.

|
|