Creation vs. Evolution

[Imari]

And since we were discussing this, here's the first bit I've seen where h. naledi is being denied.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/10/supposed-human-ancestor-found/

I'll leave this excerpt here:

Lol.

"We know that this is wrong, but we're not quite sure how. But rest assured that we have our top 'scientists' on the case to figure out how to describe to you exactly how everything you've always believed is still true, and how this new discovery fits neatly (or not so neatly) into that story."

 

[JKgo]

And the flat Earth, supported on the backs of elephants riding a turtle, is the center of the Universe.

...RIP Pratchett.

 

[zzz_pt]

I think this fits the topic very well.



feat Richard Dawkins.

Nightwish 24m long track with the same title as one of his (Dawkins) books.

The opening track also starts with Dawkins.

 

[Scaff]

No DNA proves that the beginning of life is too complicated to have come about as a result of chance. Nothing to do with science's definition of evolution.

Citation required.

At least that's how I see it. Evolution maybe has some merit to it, but only for very small changes, certainly not tails, wings or fire-breath. And if I ever see a species changing into another species, then I would change my mind.

Good thing that not what the theory of evolution is about then.

I don't think you can say fairer than that.

Setting a standard based on a strawman, you can get a lot fairer than that.

 

[Dotini]

What, really, is life? What boxes need to be ticked in order to qualify?

 

[TexRex]

What, really, is life? What boxes need to be ticked in order to qualify?

Well...

The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses.

 

[Dotini]

An organism, eh? That seems to imply that life must be a plant, animal, or single cell biological creature. Seemingly ruled out is any possibility of non-biological life. If some advanced robotic entity were constructed that ticked those boxes except it wasn't biological, couldn't we still call that life?

 

[LennyB]

Is morality or consciousness a result of evolution?

 

[Dotini]

Is morality or consciousness a result of evolution?

Great question, but it's almost inconceivable that a definition of morality or consciousness could be agreed upon. Science as yet cannot seem to explain consciousness, and there must be a better term for morality, such as "value system".

 

[TexRex]

Is morality or consciousness a result of evolution?

They're two entirely different things, what with the concept of morality not being possible without consciousness. Morality is a construct of beings of sufficient intelligence (also requiring consciousness) to observe how their actions affect others.

Is artistic expression a result of evolution?

 

[LennyB]

They're two entirely different things, what with the concept of morality not being possible without consciousness. Morality is a construct of beings of sufficient intelligence (also requiring consciousness) to observe how their actions affect others.

If they were not two different things I would not have asked about both.

Are you saying that intelligence is a result of evolution? I'm really not sure I understand any of your post to be fair.

 

[Dotini]

Is artistic expression a result of evolution?

When Picasso was shown the Paleolithic cave paintings at Lascaux, he said to have remarked, "We have invented nothing."

 

[TexRex]

If they were not two different things I would not have asked about both.

And I stated that the former is not possible without the latter.

Are you saying that intelligence is a result of evolution?

I don't have any reason to think otherwise.

When Picasso was shown the Paleolithic cave paintings at Lascaux, he said to have remarked, "We have invented nothing."

So there were artists before Picasso...got it.

 

[LennyB]

And I stated that the former is not possible without the latter.


I don't have any reason to think otherwise..

So you have no answer to my question, or anything to add. It's usually pretty easy for the science type person to simply say "we don't know" or, have some sort of theory.

 

[TexRex]

It's usually pretty easy for the science type person to simply say "we don't know" or, have some sort of theory.

Those science type people only say that after exhausting all currently available means to find a logical conclusion...it's far easier for the religious type person to chalk things up to belief and simply say "I have faith."

 

[LennyB]

Those science type people only say that after exhausting all currently available means to find a logical conclusion...it's far easier for the religious type person to chalk things up to belief and simply say "I have faith."

My question has nothing to do with religion or faith, it has to do with perceptions humans have.

 

[TexRex]

My question has nothing to do with religion or faith, it has to do with perceptions humans have.

Okay, so what have you seen, heard or become aware of through the senses to accept what you do?

 

[Dotini]

And I stated that the former is not possible without the latter.

I disagree that morality is not possible without consciousness. That is, if you define morality as a system of values. I think you could conceive of a robot that has a system of values, yet which lacks consciousness. Computers can be more intelligent than humans, yet lack consciousness.

 

[LennyB]

Okay, so what have you seen, heard or become aware of through the senses to accept what you do?

That in no way addresses my question, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time here. To accept what I do would be to define my morality, I don't think many will question that morality exists, is it a cause of evolution.

 

[TexRex]

I disagree that morality is not possible without consciousness. That is, if you define morality as a system of values. I think you could conceive of a robot that has a system of values, yet which lacks consciousness. Computers can be more intelligent than humans, yet lack consciousness.

I think you're confusing morality with programming.

is it a cause of evolution.

Yep.

 

[LennyB]

Yep.

When is the first instance of it being observed in man or any other creature?

 

[yas]

You mean exact date and name? Some argue sentience is not observed even in babies... And I don't think somebody can go back through the ages and track for the first occurrence of it. Primates have different levels of intelligence and some of them appear to be conscious, others not - it does not mean their ancestors didn't have it. Would that mean that evolution has scrapped it from them as ineffective waste of energy?

And I don't think you can "just program" morality into a robot - you'd just be defining a set of rules (that would be hard not to conflict each other) which the robot would follow. Yet it has no concept of right or wrong and consequences on others, just allowed/not allowed. As said above, it as a function of sentience.

 

[LennyB]

You mean exact date and name? Some argue sentience is not observed even in babies... And I don't think somebody can go back through the ages and track for the first occurrence of it. Primates have different levels of intelligence and some of them appear to be conscious, others not - it does not mean their ancestors didn't have it. Would that mean that evolution has scrapped it from them as ineffective waste of energy?

No not the innocence of newborns, I was asking about the later. It seems to me it can be pinpointed to some degree based on what we know of the progression of species. I don't think it would be evolved out of a species as it seems to me to be something that helps perpetuate which is what all species are after.

I've been meaning to read this, so I'll do so now. I'll be honest though, if there is a heavy Darwin bit in there I'll most likely discount it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...on-of-morality-social-humans-and-apes/418371/

 

[Scaff]

I'll be honest though, if there is a heavy Darwin bit in there I'll most likely discount it.

Why discount it on that basis?

 

[LennyB]

Why discount it on that basis?

It's nothing against his work or him personally, I'd just like to see something from someone moving forward in the study without always resorting to him as a god.

BTW that article almost makes me want to buy the book.

 

[Scaff]

It's nothing against his work or him personally, I'd just like to see something from someone moving forward in the study without always resorting to him as a god.

BTW that article almost makes me want to buy the book.

Odd way to put it, given that I've never come across a single person who seriously looks at Evolution refer to him or his work in that way.

 

[Mr Tree]

I disagree that morality is not possible without consciousness. That is, if you define morality as a system of values. I think you could conceive of a robot that has a system of values, yet which lacks consciousness. Computers can be more intelligent than humans, yet lack consciousness.

The machine you describe is amoral. Without conscienceness it's not making moral choices it's following rules. Those rules can be moral but the machine itself is amoral. This is why some consider people who believe in 'a benevolent beeing made the rules of morality and we should adhere to those rules' amoral. Again this is NOT immoral they can follow perfectly moral rules but in the end they are not moral enteties as they don't consciencely wonder of the rule is moral or not.

 

[LennyB]

Odd way to put it, given that I've never come across a single person who seriously looks at Evolution refer to him or his work in that way.

Different circles I suppose, no big deal really. I simply did not need to read something explaining his theories to me as I already know them.

 

[Dotini]

The machine you describe is amoral. Without conscienceness it's not making moral choices it's following rules. Those rules can be moral but the machine itself is amoral. This is why some consider people who believe in 'a benevolent beeing made the rules of morality and we should adhere to those rules' amoral. Again this is NOT immoral they can follow perfectly moral rules but in the end they are not moral enteties as they don't consciencely wonder of the rule is moral or not.

Yes, since now we are considering morality to be the sense of sympathy and fairness, which is something more than programming a value system. Morality does appear to evolve, somewhat, but be sure to ask again after the next nuclear war. Probably Syrians, Yemenis, fish, animals and other species going extinct at our hands can hardly wait for it to evolve a bit more.

On the other hand, it may be that consciousness has devolved, or at least has a long way to go.

 

[TexRex]

Syrians, Yemenis, fish, animals and other species going extinct at our hands

So...you and Syrians or Yemenis are not of the same species? What species are you? Are there more of you?