|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2005 : 13:16:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The evolving soul is the result of a co-dynamic between higher human mind activity and the indwelling divine spirit gift in the mind of man.
"higher human mind activity" - can you specify that?
Is a consciousness required in order to retain a soul?
What are the dynamics for a soul?
If I loose my soul (can that happen?) what happens then? Can another soul take it's place? Are souls interchangable? Can a soul be dammaged? Is the soul recieveing information from the world through the mind? Can the soul affect my mind, and affect the physical world? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 14:45:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
That is your opinion. I see a program which is capable of much lattitude, and even compromising of the program itself in some ways.
If it contains so much "latitude" that it's indistinguishable from evolution, then what difference does it make?quote:
Well I suppose that evolutionary theory would say that in time birds or humans could become almost anything. That is, it says that natural selection and mutation alone can produce just about any living thing in time.
No, it says all sorts of differents kinds of selection, and all sorts of different kinds of mutations, could, given enough time, create massive amounts of variations on previously-existing themes. As the available "themes" change, so will the variations.quote:
I say no, it depends on the existing DNA programming base.
So does evolution. The idea that, for example, humans will suddenly sprout functioning wings is nonsense. It sure didn't happen that way for birds.quote:
Yeah, but my point is that in our level of society, those natural selection factors which previously played a part are hardly playing a part anymore.
Name one of them. Name a selection factor which used to function, but no longer does.quote:
Among other things, proliferation of human traits which may be called sub average.
Like what? And how do you know that the environment won't change in such a way as to make such traits offer reproductive advantages?quote:
Such is fatal to a well functioning democracy.
Evolution doesn't predict the existence or continuation of democracy. Plus, a benevolent dictatorship would probably offer more advantages to the species as a whole. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 14:48:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Name a selection factor which used to function, but no longer does.
Animal predation.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 14:53:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Animal predation.
Funny, but people get killed by tigers, mountain lions, sharks, wild dogs, etc. every damn year. Obviously, they don't have the "stay out of the predator's habitat" genes, and so we see natural selection at work. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 16:16:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Animal predation.
Funny, but people get killed by tigers, mountain lions, sharks, wild dogs, etc. every damn year.
But not to the extent that it can still be considered a selection pressure. There is no "stay out of the predator's habitat" gene. I was thinking more along the lines of infirmities and deformities which would normally hinder an individual's chances of survival in the wild.
There may yet be remote places in the world where a people's proximity to predators places them in mortal jeopardy, but this not a usual concern of the population at large.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/23/2005 16:27:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 16:50:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
There may yet be remote places in the world where a people's proximity to predators places them in mortal jeopardy, but this not a usual concern of the population at large.
The actual point is that anyone who gets eaten prior to reproducing has their particular set of genes removed from the gene pool. Whether this is due to an actual selection pressure or not, it's still a negative selection of genes.
And the stay-out-of-the-habitat genes were tongue-in-cheek.quote:
I was thinking more along the lines of infirmities and deformities which would normally hinder an individual's chances of survival in the wild.
Survival in the wild isn't the issue: reproductive success is. The general shallowness of folks in the U.S. (at least), mean that plenty of people with deformities which wouldn't inhibit their survival in the wild won't have kids, regardless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 17:27:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
There may yet be remote places in the world where a people's proximity to predators places them in mortal jeopardy, but this not a usual concern of the population at large.
The actual point is that anyone who gets eaten prior to reproducing has their particular set of genes removed from the gene pool. Whether this is due to an actual selection pressure or not, it's still a negative selection of genes.
And the stay-out-of-the-habitat genes were tongue-in-cheek.quote:
I was thinking more along the lines of infirmities and deformities which would normally hinder an individual's chances of survival in the wild.
Survival in the wild isn't the issue: reproductive success is. The general shallowness of folks in the U.S. (at least), mean that plenty of people with deformities which wouldn't inhibit their survival in the wild won't have kids, regardless.
Yeah. I'm definately being selected against. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 17:46:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The actual point is that anyone who gets eaten prior to reproducing has their particular set of genes removed from the gene pool. Whether this is due to an actual selection pressure or not, it's still a negative selection of genes.
Well, fine. In that sense, anyone who dies anywhere at any time before reproducing has been selected against. By this thinking, using a blow dryer in the bathtub would be a "selection factor."
While I agree with you that humans still undergo natural selection, I think its silly to pretend that specific selection pressures have remained unchanged. Some have, and quite substantially so. Their removal affects the direction our species' evolution will take.
quote:
And the stay-out-of-the-habitat genes were tongue-in-cheek.
I know, but I didn't want you to gloss over the fact that there are actual genes and traits which would be selected against.
quote:
Survival in the wild isn't the issue: reproductive success is.
Of course. Obviously I meant surviving to reproduce. quote:
The general shallowness of folks in the U.S. (at least), mean that plenty of people with deformities which wouldn't inhibit their survival in the wild won't have kids, regardless.
Well, now you're talking about sexual selection, which has always gone on and will probably always go on in our species.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 18:03:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The evolving soul is the result of a co-dynamic between higher human mind activity and the indwelling divine spirit gift in the mind of man.
"higher human mind activity" - can you specify that?
Is a consciousness required in order to retain a soul?
What are the dynamics for a soul?
If I loose my soul (can that happen?) what happens then? Can another soul take it's place? Are souls interchangable? Can a soul be dammaged? Is the soul recieveing information from the world through the mind? Can the soul affect my mind, and affect the physical world?
Well to summarize, 'higher human mind activity' involve decisions of moral import in one way or another, and these contribute to the growth of the soul. Soul is generally passive but it can inform the mind on occassion, often unconsciously. A soul can lose its quality to the extent that there is no potential for rehabilitation, in which case the divine spirit leaves the person and what remains of his soul. After death such a soul is extinguished by those who have the authority to do so. Souls are kept in the custody of angelic beings until a time of evaluation/resurrection. Upon association with a new (higher) body, the reconstituted person awakes to consciousness.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 18:12:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
While I agree with you that humans still undergo natural selection, I think its silly to pretend that specific selection pressures have remained unchanged. Some have, and quite substantially so. Their removal affects the direction our species' evolution will take.
I'm not arguing that selection pressures have remained unchanged, I'm arguing only that no historical pressures (of which I'm aware) have changed to the point of complete elimination. markie seemed to be arguing that most selection pressures have dropped to zero, which is obviously nonsense.quote:
Well, now you're talking about sexual selection, which has always gone on and will probably always go on in our species.
And I think it's silly to discuss selection pressures as if natural selection were the only kind, or even as if selection were the only evolutionary mechanism present.
That is, after all, the main criticism of the Discovery Institute's list of 400 scientists who "dispute" evolution: the statement they signed says that the signatories disagree with the idea that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain life's diversity. Most professional evolutionary biologists disagree with that idea, as well, but only because there's so much more to evolution than mutation and natural selection. Hell, current thinking is that genetic drift is more responsible for present biodiversity than selection. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 18:46:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not arguing that selection pressures have remained unchanged, I'm arguing only that no historical pressures (of which I'm aware) have changed to the point of complete elimination. markie seemed to be arguing that most selection pressures have dropped to zero, which is obviously nonsense.
Ok, none have completely ceased to operate, but I'm of the opinion some have fallen low enough to discount them. Of course, whether markie is arguing they have fallen to zero or near zero is irrelevant--we can both agree his main point is still nonsense.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/23/2005 18:47:03 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 18:49:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. If it contains so much "latitude" that it's indistinguishable from evolution, then what difference does it make?
I suppose little in the end, except that it *predicts* the evolution to 'higher' forms. Traditional evolutionary theory is good for explaining variation within a genus, say, but hardly good at explaining the evolutionary leaps to higher forms.
quote:
I say no, it depends on the existing DNA programming base.quote:
So does evolution. The idea that, for example, humans will suddenly sprout functioning wings is nonsense. It sure didn't happen that way for birds.
Ah but if primitive cells with hardly any programming can advance to human in a billion years, why shouldn't humans develop wings in another billion years? (Assuming, say, there was a cataclysm and humans came to live in trees or some such thing.) My theory says that wings can develop only in those organisms which still retain the original (hidden) programming for flight development. Such programming needs only a requisite genetic alteration which has a cascading effect and presto, the flight apparatus appears *very suddenly*.
quote:
Yeah, but my point is that in our level of society, those natural selection factors which previously played a part are hardly playing a part anymore.quote:
Name one of them. Name a selection factor which used to function, but no longer does.
Well the ability to survive harsh conditions does select for both physical and mental fitness. In our society, those harsh conditions are essentially removed by the means of technology provided by society. Yet if that society permits the unrestrained reproduction of individuals who are of sub average ability, while those of average and above average ability conscientiously produce fewer children, there is clearly going to be a problem in the longer term.
quote:
Evolution doesn't predict the existence or continuation of democracy. Plus, a benevolent dictatorship would probably offer more advantages to the species as a whole.
I somewhat agree. Democracy is a very recent development which is supposed to safeguard against abuses by those in authority. The problem of course is getting long term benevolence in leadership. Interestingly my (religious) belief is that if it were not for angelic catastrophe concerning the overcare of our world, we would have long term benevolent counsellors (not dictators) guiding our societal progress.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 19:47:41 [Permalink]
|
H., we're drifting into the realm of zero vs. very close to zero. I discount the idea that a mouse could survive on the surface of the Sun for a week, even though the probability of that happening is not zero (but very close to it). In other words, I believe we're in agreement all around.quote:
Originally posted by markie
I suppose little in the end, except that it *predicts* the evolution to 'higher' forms.
And how, precisely, does your model accomplish that? Upon what observations and logic?quote:
Traditional evolutionary theory is good for explaining variation within a genus, say, but hardly good at explaining the evolutionary leaps to higher forms.
I'd go study more before making such sweeping statements, were I you. There are no "leaps" required.quote:
Ah but if primitive cells with hardly any programming can advance to human in a billion years, why shouldn't humans develop wings in another billion years? (Assuming, say, there was a cataclysm and humans came to live in trees or some such thing.)
If humans were to develop wings, it would probably be with the sacrifice of much of the functionality of our arms (see bats), and we would necessarily go through numerous transitional forms in between (which might even get fossilized).
As I said, no human is going to sprout functional wings. Any humanoid animal which does in the next billion years will likely not be of the species Homo sapiens to begin with, but will instead have different genes for mutations to play around with.quote:
My theory says that wings can develop only in those organisms which still retain the original (hidden) programming for flight development. Such programming needs only a requisite genetic alteration which has a cascading effect and presto, the flight apparatus appears *very suddenly*.
And upon what evidence does your theory postulate hidden programming?
More to the point, evolutionary biologists are quite content with the idea that flight has originated numerous independent times. And how does your theory cope with the vastly different modes of flight? A bat's wing and a bird's wing are very different, both mechanically and aerodynamically. And they're both different in those respects from flying insects.quote:
Well the ability to survive harsh conditions does select for both physical and mental fitness. In our society, those harsh conditions are essentially removed by the means of technology provided by society.
And every time that technology fails, due to blackout or tsunami or earthquake or what-have-you, we see just how susceptible we are to those selection pressures. They haven't been eliminated, they're just being masked.quote:
Yet if that society permits the unrestrained reproduction of individuals who are of sub average ability, while those of average and above average ability conscientiously produce fewer children, there is clearly going to be a problem in the longer term.
Only for the "above average" people left alive. Your argument here is reminiscent of that of fanatic environmentalists who say we need to "save the planet." Of course, the planet itself is in no danger from human beings (right now), and most of the biosphere is similarly unthreatened. What the environmentalists mean to say is, "save the humans." To get back to your statements, neither other animals nor evolutionary processes give a rat's ass about the average "ability" of human beings. If we're doomed to take a step backwards (in your opinion), oh well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2005 : 21:39:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. And how, precisely, does your model accomplish that? Upon what observations and logic?
??? Simply the proposition that the original cells were intelligently programmed to unfold in evolutionary time to yield, among other things, human beings.
quote:
Traditional evolutionary theory is good for explaining variation within a genus, say, but hardly good at explaining the evolutionary leaps to higher forms.quote:
I'd go study more before making such sweeping statements, were I you. There are no "leaps" required.
Do you deny that transitions in the fossil record occur abruptly?
quote:
My theory says that wings can develop only in those organisms which still retain the original (hidden) programming for flight development. Such programming needs only a requisite genetic alteration which has a cascading effect and presto, the flight apparatus appears *very suddenly*.quote:
And upon what evidence does your theory postulate hidden programming?
By hidden programming I simply mean genetic instructions that are not activated. A genetic alteration would result in a cascading effect which would activate the DNA programming.
quote:
More to the point, evolutionary biologists are quite content with the idea that flight has originated numerous independent times.
My theory of course predicts that similar mechanisms should arise across the animal kingdom at different times as (more or less) the same programming gets activated in different contexts.
quote:
And how does your theory cope with the vastly different modes of flight? A bat's wing and a bird's wing are very different, both mechanically and aerodynamically. And they're both different in those respects from flying insects.
Well if they are significantly different they arise from different programming that's all. But the theme - of getting off the ground - is the same.
Repeated themes in very diverse life forms is also expected of course in my model of intelligent programming, just as our engineers have developed different techiniques of flight.
quote:
Your argument here is reminiscent of that of fanatic environmentalists who say we need to "save the planet." Of course, the planet itself is in no danger from human beings (right now), and most of the biosphere is similarly unthreatened. What the environmentalists mean to say is, "save the humans." To get back to your statements, neither other animals nor evolutionary processes give a rat's ass about the average "ability" of human beings. If we're doomed to take a step backwards (in your opinion), oh well.
Make no mistake, my firm belief is that man is destined for a very high civilization. To my mind it is only a question of undue pain and time delay. A high human civilization can even serve to deliberately and intelligently *upstep* the biological life of the planet.
As the apostle Paul says cryptically, "all creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed..." so maybe nature does give a rat's ass after all, hehe.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2005 : 03:03:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well to summarize, 'higher human mind activity' involve decisions of moral import in one way or another, and these contribute to the growth of the soul. Soul is generally passive but it can inform the mind on occassion, often unconsciously. A soul can lose its quality to the extent that there is no potential for rehabilitation, in which case the divine spirit leaves the person and what remains of his soul. After death such a soul is extinguished by those who have the authority to do so. Souls are kept in the custody of angelic beings until a time of evaluation/resurrection. Upon association with a new (higher) body, the reconstituted person awakes to consciousness.
And what evidense do you have that makes all of this more than just religious based speculation?
Is a soul necessary for moral behaviour? Are souls for humans, only? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
