Re: Selection-based vs intelligent evolution
- <"Life" is such a hard concept to pin down. There are so many different ways of defining it and none of them are fool-proof. Could you state what your definition of life is? I know it's a hard question to put to someone, as there are so many different contexts. Accepting some definitions of life would mean that the creation of life in a lab has already been achieved through synthetic creatures such as nano-bots which can self-replicate.>
Denis in the previous exchange we established that "life" or a life form could be passed off as merely a small bacteria cell or an equivalent. Its not human I know but the fellas (Ken and Les) here see that as the "life" form that came first and the very thing that evolved.
Creating life in a lab isn't the same as an original springing up billions of years ago through an accident of environment and natural chance. Life in a lab would be cheating, the material comes from pre-existing DNA from other living creatures.
--- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, "Al-Khwarizmi" <lokilad@...> wrote:
> --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777 <no_reply@> wrote:
> So Ken, responding to your initial hypothesis.
> > Different forms of matter can interact with different forms of
> > energy to produce an endless array of effects. What is striking is
> > the consistency of these things. Once I observe, or induce, an
> > interaction of specific matter and specific energy, noting the
> > results, I can reproduce those results by recreating the same
> > interaction.
> Okay, but up to this point I haven't exactly grasped by what you mean by "intelligence", except that you alluded to the idea that intelligence implies following some kind of pattern. If that's the case, then I think that what you define as intelligence is what I refer to as self-organising complexity. Such a thing has been observed in non-living things and is a product of physical forces and chemical reactions.
> > Now, the idea that "inert" matter, interacting with energy, could
> > never produce life is a flawed assumption. This is where the
> > creationist debate loses its grip. What will they say if man does
> > create life in a laboratory? Since I expect that will happen one
> > day, I will be fascinated to see the spin that is put on it when it
> > happens, if I am still alive to see it. (Hopefully we won't create
> > some germ that will wipe us all out.)
> "Life" is such a hard concept to pin down. There are so many different ways of defining it and none of them are fool-proof. Could you state what your definition of life is? I know it's a hard question to put to someone, as there are so many different contexts. Accepting some definitions of life would mean that the creation of life in a lab has already been achieved through synthetic creatures such as nano-bots which can self-replicate.
> If life means something that can breathe, then consider that there are various life forms that do not breathe at all. Same deal for living things that can think.
> > Here is what I think, and theorize: The intelligent design in
> > matter is passed onto simple life forms. Contained in RNA and DNA
> > is a predesigned reaction to different environmental conditions.
> > Just like light will slow down in water, so will RNA and DNA react
> > to different physical conditions of matter and energy.
> But aren't these predesigned reactions simply nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry?
> > The intelligence of matter seems to expand to a much more complex
> > level in living things, or organisms. But there was basic
> > intelligence in matter itself. Very simple life forms seem to have
> > barely more intelligent design than the matter that spawned them.
> > As life becomes more complex, it seems that the intelligent design
> > becomes more complex.
> Not necessarily. When you look at a swarm of insects or bacteria, you know that the individual members of the swarm are basically morons, yet the swarm as a whole is able to achieve complexity that is indeed intelligent.
> > I think the reason that this gets so jumbled is because we are
> > obsessed with the idea of finding out where this intelligence came
> > from. ... All we really know is that we can observe what would
> > seem to be intelligent design.
> Again, not so fast. There are four dynamics involved in the formation of complexity within systems: 1. Multiple interactions; 2. Positive feedback; 3. Negative feedback and 4. Fluctuating payoffs. Given that you know behavioural psychology, I wont explain these terms, as I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Maybe we can discuss this at greater length at a future time.
[The resurrection of the dead is as taught in the NT is unique and offensive to the Jewish understanding, hense why you have made it a whipping boy for Darren's sake.]
No. The resurrection of the dead is not unique, and not offensive to the rabbinical (orthodox) Jewish understanding.
If watched the first video, you could hear it from the guy, that the Pharisees did believed in it.
That is what Judaism 101 says about it:
"Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses."
That is what Paul used to divide his enemies.
Now, are some differences between Jewish and Christian belief about the resurrection, but not as much, that it is unconceivable that Christians got the idea from the Jews. They certainly did not pluck it out of the air.
[I challenge you view these short vids, not that I or they might convice you of the Christian position but that you obtain rounded understanding (still holding to your beliefs and disagreeing) and not comment in a half arsed way (as above) and yet be critical of others that do the same.
http://www.publicch ristianity. com/resvid1. html
http://www.publicch ristianity. com/resvid2. html
http://www.publicch ristianity. com/resvid3. html ]
I have watched them and I say, that the guy exaggerated on the number of "independent" sources and witnesses.
He forgot to mention, that we only know about all the witnesses from the Bible. That is three sources. One, the synoptic Gospels. Two, the Gospel of John. Three, Paul's letters. OK, from the Acts as well, but that was (most likely) written by Luke.
Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline