Why the Belief in Evolution Should produce a Belief in God!

[jonathan]

Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form
by Chris Lucas

"The view of evolution as chronic bloody competition among individuals
and species, a popular distortion of Darwin's notion of 'survival of the
fittest,' dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong
interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not
take over the globe by combat, but by networking."

~Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Slanted Truths



Hierarchical Levels

"...but we do need to be aware that self-organizing emergence is an
hierarchical process. Sub-atomic particles give rise to Atoms
(which have emergent properties - e.g. density), these in turn combine
to form Molecules which have different emergent properties (e.g. shape),
which in turn form Metabolisms with yet more properties (e.g. cycles),
which constitute Cells with further properties (e.g. movement), and then
to Organisms at a yet higher level (goals) and on to Humans (abstractions).
These levels cannot easily arise by means of standard mutation and
crossover operations but seem to require a new form of evolution,
sometimes called 'compositional evolution', 'cooperative coevolution',
'synergistic selection' or 'holistic darwinism', a symbiotic form that
allows separately evolved functional building blocks to combine in
modular fashion, improving overall combinatorial fitness.
http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm



The definition of God could be 'that which is as far above humans
as we are above animals'. And believing evolution is limited to the
level of humanity, or tracking sideways from here, contradicts all
the evidence of the past, in that we see a clear progression of
capability and organization as life evolves, from microbes to
microsoft, so to speak.

Simply extrapolating the known properties of evolution into the
....future should make it obvious and almost inevitable that this
universe can and will produce 'Gods'.

But it should be remembered, emergent properties are not
things themselves, they are system tendencies having no
observable physical existence outside of their effects on
the whole. For instance, market forces, natural selection,
wisdom or God.

And while typing this, I turned on my TV and a popular religious
program just happened to be on the channel, and the preacher
makes a surprising statement.

"God did not create all the things of the universe, God caused the
things of the universe to work together towards a higher goal."


No one that believes in science and Darwin should be embarrassed
or otherwise hesitant to believe in God. Quite the contrary, if one
takes a 'strong view' of Darwin or evolution, the more logical and
rational becomes the belief in God.


Thanks for reading


Jonathan



"I never saw a Moor
I never saw the Sea
Yet know I how the Heather looks
And what a wave must be.

I never spoke with God
Nor visited in Heaven
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the spot were given"



s

[Rolf]

"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:OaednawJH_osOCDM...@giganews.com..

[snip]

We don't believe in evolution, we know and understand that evolution is the
only possible explanation of the facts, unless we want to invoke magic and
deceiving coverup on a grand scale. But that would be religion, not science.

The fact of evolution and a lot of other facts shows that the traditional
God of the Christians and most other gods as well are inventions from
ignorance and superstition.

Now tell us that you have studied the theory of evolution and is familiar
with and understand the evidence.

[Robert Carnegie]

No. Natural selection favours living things that are better
at what they do than their relatives. And that includes
being better at co-operating. Even if God created the
initial living microscopically tiny slime, evolution
works fine for the slime without God's further actions.
So that only leaves creation of life - rather unimpressive
life - as grounds to believe in God. And that isn't
what you claimed.

[Nick Keighley]

On Jun 16, 12:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form
> by Chris Lucas
>
>   "The view of evolution as chronic bloody competition among individuals
>     and species, a popular distortion of Darwin's notion of 'survival of the
>     fittest,' dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong
>     interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not
>     take over the globe by combat, but by networking."
>
>       ~Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Slanted Truths

how nice

> Hierarchical Levels
>
> "...but we do need to be aware that self-organizing emergence is an
> hierarchical process. Sub-atomic particles give rise to Atoms
> (which have emergent properties - e.g. density),

atoms don't. Large arrangements of atoms do. Is a water molecule wet?

> these in turn combine
> to form Molecules which have different emergent properties (e.g. shape),

<snip>

> These levels cannot easily arise by means of standard mutation and
> crossover operations

molecules don't arise at all by mutation!

> but seem to require a new form of evolution,

not really.

> sometimes called 'compositional evolution', 'cooperative coevolution',
> 'synergistic selection' or 'holistic darwinism',

in my country we use the term "bollocks"

> a symbiotic form that
> allows separately evolved functional building blocks to combine in
> modular fashion, improving overall combinatorial fitness.http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm

in what sense is a water molecule "more fit" than the atoms it is
composed of?

> The definition of God could be  'that which is as far above humans
> as we are above animals'.

could be. It doesn't agree with many of the other definitions of god.
Where is the evidence for this god?

> And believing evolution is limited to the
> level of humanity,

evolution (like all the other sciences) is limited to that which is
observed. No evidence for god therefore no god.

> or tracking sideways from here, contradicts all
> the evidence of the past,

no. Just because I can hypothesise something doesn't mean it exists.
Consider unicorns.

> in that we see a clear progression of
> capability and organization as life evolves, from microbes to
> microsoft, so to speak.

no.

> Simply extrapolating the known properties of evolution into the
> ....future should make it obvious and almost inevitable that this
> universe can and will produce 'Gods'.
>
> But it should be remembered, emergent properties  are not
> things themselves, they are system tendencies having no
> observable physical existence outside of their effects on
> the whole. For instance, market forces, natural selection,
> wisdom or God.
>
> And while typing this, I turned on my TV and a popular religious
> program just happened to be on the channel, and the preacher
> makes a surprising statement.
>
>  "God did not create all the things of the universe, God caused the
>    things of the universe to work together towards a higher goal."
>
> No one that believes in science and Darwin should be embarrassed
> or otherwise hesitant to believe in God. Quite the contrary, if one
> takes a 'strong view' of Darwin or evolution, the more logical and
> rational becomes the belief in God.

<snip>

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm glad for you that you find spiritual enlightenment with Evolution.
Ironically, so does Richard Dawkins, but in an entirely different way.
As for me, I find Evolution and God irrelevant to each other. The
arguments from those who claim Evolution proves God, and those who
claim Evolution disproves God, and those who claim God disproves
Evolution, I find equally erroneous.

[Burkhard]

On Jun 16, 12:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form
> by Chris Lucas
>
>   "The view of evolution as chronic bloody competition among individuals
>     and species, a popular distortion of Darwin's notion of 'survival of the
>     fittest,' dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong
>     interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not
>     take over the globe by combat, but by networking."
>
>       ~Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Slanted Truths
>
> Hierarchical Levels
>
> "...but we do need to be aware that self-organizing emergence is an
> hierarchical process. Sub-atomic particles give rise to Atoms
> (which have emergent properties - e.g. density), these in turn combine
> to form Molecules which have different emergent properties (e.g. shape),
> which in turn form Metabolisms with yet more properties (e.g. cycles),
> which constitute Cells with further properties (e.g. movement), and then
> to Organisms at a yet higher level (goals) and on to Humans (abstractions).
> These levels cannot easily arise by means of standard mutation and
> crossover operations but seem to require a new form of evolution,
> sometimes called 'compositional evolution', 'cooperative coevolution',
> 'synergistic selection' or 'holistic darwinism', a symbiotic form that
> allows separately evolved functional building blocks to combine in

> modular fashion, improving overall combinatorial fitness.http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm

>
> The definition of God could be  'that which is as far above humans
> as we are above animals'.

You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
sized carrot". Even easier, and even less relevant, for an existence
proof.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

>The definition of God could be 'that which is as far above humans
>as we are above animals'.

That leaves open the question of the intended meaning of
"above". Since the only way in which humans are arguably
superior to other animals is in our conceptualization,
communication and time-binding abilities, this would say
that God has abilities in these areas greater than ours. But
logically, of what use is any but the first to an immortal
who is not part of a culture?

<snip>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Rolf]

"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:OaednawJH_osOCDM...@giganews.com...

All right, I'll take you on your word:

Use some of your logical and rational arguments to tell mey why I should
believe in your god.

I am looking forward to learn something new.

[Arkalen]

On 16/06/13 19:26, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The definition of God could be 'that which is as far above humans
>> as we are above animals'.
>
> That leaves open the question of the intended meaning of
> "above". Since the only way in which humans are arguably
> superior to other animals is in our conceptualization,
> communication and time-binding abilities, this would say
> that God has abilities in these areas greater than ours. But
> logically, of what use is any but the first to an immortal
> who is not part of a culture?
>
> <snip>

And that clearly conflicts with the evidence showing God is absolutely
terrible at communicating with us.

[John Stockwell]

No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms. Nor do scientists "believe in evolution" the way a religious person believes in God.

An evolutionary explanation for why many people seem to demand that there is a deity, could be a harkening back to our heritage of having a dominant male leader of small family groups, as is seen today in baboons. So speculated Desmond Morris.

-John

[Kermit]

On 16 June, 04:46, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form
> by Chris Lucas
>
>   "The view of evolution as chronic bloody competition among individuals
>     and species, a popular distortion of Darwin's notion of 'survival of the
>     fittest,' dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong
>     interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not
>     take over the globe by combat, but by networking."
>
>       ~Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Slanted Truths

Part of that networking includes parasitic wasps who lay their eggs in
living hosts such as spiders and such, which then hatch and eat their
way out of their host. Also, cheetahs that catch their prey and crush
or rip their throats. And sharks, who don't bother killing their food
before they start eating them. But yes, there is symbiosis and
cooperation also.

>
> Hierarchical Levels
>
> "...but we do need to be aware that self-organizing emergence is an
> hierarchical process. Sub-atomic particles give rise to Atoms
> (which have emergent properties - e.g. density), these in turn combine
> to form Molecules which have different emergent properties (e.g. shape),
> which in turn form Metabolisms with yet more properties (e.g. cycles),
> which constitute Cells with further properties (e.g. movement), and then
> to Organisms at a yet higher level (goals) and on to Humans (abstractions).
> These levels cannot easily arise by means of standard mutation and
> crossover operations but seem to require a new form of evolution,
> sometimes called 'compositional evolution', 'cooperative coevolution',
> 'synergistic selection' or 'holistic darwinism', a symbiotic form that
> allows separately evolved functional building blocks to combine in
> modular fashion, improving overall combinatorial fitness.http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm

This sounds a little forced. Cycles as emergent properties of
metabolism? How are scientists, BTW, seeing Darwinism as anything but
"wholistic"? I use scare quotes because that term is often used to
mean something other than looking at all pertinent data, but I've
never been able to determine what, exactly, unless it's an excuse for
ignoring, you know, details.

>
> The definition of God could be  'that which is as far above humans
> as we are above animals'.

And it could be something else entirely, and often is.

> And believing evolution is limited to the
> level of humanity, or tracking sideways from here,

This shows a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. We are
not the goal, nor the pinnacle.

> contradicts all
> the evidence of the past, in that we see a clear progression of
> capability and organization as life evolves, from microbes to
> microsoft, so to speak.

Or microbes to microbes, which is most of life.

>
> Simply extrapolating the known properties of evolution into the
> ....future should make it obvious and almost inevitable that this
> universe can and will produce 'Gods'.

Or at least slime mold.

>
> But it should be remembered, emergent properties  are not
> things themselves, they are system tendencies having no
> observable physical existence outside of their effects on
> the whole. For instance, market forces, natural selection,
> wisdom or God.

What effects does God have on the whole? How would the whole look
different without god and how could we test this claim?

>
> And while typing this, I turned on my TV and a popular religious
> program just happened to be on the channel, and the preacher
> makes a surprising statement.
>
>  "God did not create all the things of the universe, God caused the
>    things of the universe to work together towards a higher goal."

A common belief among theists who are reality-friendly. Scientists who
think this usually do not claim this is a scientific proposition. They
know there is no way to test it, nor any way to determine what this
higher goal might be.

>
> No one that believes in science and Darwin should be embarrassed
> or otherwise hesitant to believe in God. Quite the contrary, if one
> takes a 'strong view' of Darwin or evolution, the more logical and
> rational becomes the belief in God.

Or at least the more consistent with reality. More power to 'em, bless
their hearts.

>
> Thanks for reading
>
> Jonathan
>
> "I never saw a Moor
> I never saw the Sea
> Yet know I how the Heather looks
> And what a wave must be.
>
> I never spoke with God
> Nor visited in Heaven
> Yet certain am I of the spot
> As if the spot were given"
>
> s

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

- WBY

kermit

[jonathan]

"Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kpkdlr$dji$1...@news.albasani.net...

>
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:OaednawJH_osOCDM...@giganews.com..
>
> [snip]
>
> We don't believe in evolution, we know and understand that evolution is
> the only possible explanation of the facts, unless we want to invoke magic
> and deceiving coverup on a grand scale. But that would be religion, not
> science.
>
> The fact of evolution and a lot of other facts shows that the traditional
> God of the Christians and most other gods as well are inventions from
> ignorance and superstition.

If you would have read past the title, you'll see God is defined by
the well known properties of biological evolution, namely the
concept of emergence. Nothing at all irrational about it.

In fact my definition is entirely consistent with both science
/and/ religion, making it the simplest explanation, which is usually
the better one.


Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[jonathan]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:f662ff42-45fb-4639...@googlegroups.com...

I firmly believe science and religion are separated
merely by two different frames of references wrt
causation. One reductionist, the other holistic.

My hobby of Complexity Science is science but
within a systems or holistic framework. So I feel
any definition of God must be equally consistent
with both.

So I use the concept of emergence to define God, and
merely inverse the standard view of looking to the past
by extrapolating emergence into the future and to it's
logical conclusion. Which is that if the strong view
of evolution Complexity Science takes is allowed to
play out, Gods should be a normal consequence.

But just like emergence, the effects and existence of
God would remain illusive.

Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[jonathan]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16rrr85aid9kadprv...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>

>
>

> I'm glad for you that you find spiritual enlightenment with Evolution.
> Ironically, so does Richard Dawkins, but in an entirely different way.
> As for me, I find Evolution and God irrelevant to each other. The
> arguments from those who claim Evolution proves God, and those who
> claim Evolution disproves God, and those who claim God disproves
> Evolution, I find equally erroneous.
>

I don't really care how everyone else defines science, religion
or evolution. I know with complete certainty that there exists
only ...one way...in which the universe and all things came
into being. Not one for science, another for religion, and
many other subsets, but a single universal process of creation
and organization....The Truth!

And The Truth applies with equal validity to questions of science
and meaning.


"In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen!"


It should be a given and our ultimate initial assumption that
God and evolution should be defined in exactly the same way.
I use emergence, the strong version, as defined by
Complexity Science.

Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form

http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm




I Died for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.

He questioned softly why I failed?
"For beauty," I replied.
"And I for truth,-the two are one;
We brethren are," he said.

And so, as kinsmen met a night,
We talked between the rooms,
Until the moss had reached our lips,
And covered up our names.




Poems by E Dickinson


s

[jonathan]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:bf0sr8humtcuuvfi4...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>>The definition of God could be 'that which is as far above humans
>>as we are above animals'.
>
> That leaves open the question of the intended meaning of
> "above". Since the only way in which humans are arguably
> superior to other animals is in our conceptualization,
> communication and time-binding abilities, this would say
> that God has abilities in these areas greater than ours. But
> logically, of what use is any but the first to an immortal
> who is not part of a culture?

The concept of emergence would give a good idea of
the differences. For example, wisdom or collective
intelligence would emerge from a large collection
of individual minds. Or a society from a large number of
interacting people, and so on.

And we can't predict exactly what will the effects or capabilities
emergence will produce, no more than an animal could predict
what the emergence of intelligence has in store.

But we can 'know' that it is most likely to be yet another
wonder of nature, and times ten since emergent properties
open up the possibility space by ...orders of magnitude.

[jonathan]

"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6666fb0f-3e6e-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...

> No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms.

Of course we are.

[Bill]

On Jun 17, 12:11 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> You can make your life even easier if you define God as  "a medium
> sized carrot". Even easier, and even less relevant, for an existence
> proof.

But given existence, can you prove uniqueness?


>

>

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 17 June 2013 17:10:37 UTC+1, jonathan wrote:
>
> I Died for beauty, but was scarce
>
> Adjusted in the tomb,
>
> When one who died for truth was lain
>
> In an adjoining room.
>
>
>
> He questioned softly why I failed?
>
> "For beauty," I replied.
>
> "And I for truth,-the two are one;
>
> We brethren are," he said.
>
>
>
> And so, as kinsmen met a night,
>
> We talked between the rooms,
>
> Until the moss had reached our lips,
>
> And covered up our names.
>
>
>
> Poems by E Dickinson

Supposedly there's an underground wall in
Belfast City Cemetery, nine feet deep, that would have
prevented Catholic corpses from fraternising with
Protestants. But in the end, the Catholics didn't
go there. I suppose practically the thing would have
been about "consecrating" the burial ground on this or
that side of the wall. If that counts as "practically".

Still, E Dickinson was a queer bird, wasn't she?

[John Stockwell]

Not in any real terms. Actually, bacteria are vastly more successful as
organisms than we are. Each of us have more bacterial cells than human
cells.

-John

[John Stockwell]

God is best defined as a character in a class of stories that humans
tell each other.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:10:37 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:16rrr85aid9kadprv...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> I'm glad for you that you find spiritual enlightenment with Evolution.
>> Ironically, so does Richard Dawkins, but in an entirely different way.
>> As for me, I find Evolution and God irrelevant to each other. The
>> arguments from those who claim Evolution proves God, and those who
>> claim Evolution disproves God, and those who claim God disproves
>> Evolution, I find equally erroneous.
>>
>
>
>I don't really care how everyone else defines science, religion
>or evolution.

That's fine, unless you're going to have conversations about these
things with other people. Then you need a consensus definition at
least, else you wind up talking past each other. You might have
noticed that in your posts.

>I know with complete certainty that there exists
>only ...one way...in which the universe and all things came
>into being. Not one for science, another for religion, and
>many other subsets, but a single universal process of creation
>and organization....The Truth!

That may be true, but the trick is to figure out which one of all the
competing Truths is the correct one.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:17:53 -0400, the following appeared

Ummm...OK. Now if you could explain how that refutes my
claim, or addresses my question...?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:18:57 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

>

No, we're not. We have certain enhanced abilities with
respect to other animals (with some possible exceptions;
some cetaceans *may* possess those same abilities to the
same degree), but we have no *unique* abilities. It's a
continuum, not a staircase. Or a cliff.

[Earle Jones]

In article <51o*Vl...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:

> On 16/06/13 19:26, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> The definition of God could be 'that which is as far above humans
> >> as we are above animals'.

*
That is a very interesting thought: Since we ARE animals, we are not
ABOVE animals. And therefore, according to the thought, God is not
above us.

Pretty true in all respects.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <6MWdnSE81L7dqCLM...@giganews.com>,

*
Quoting Emily Dickinson poems to support religious arguments is probably
not a very good strategy.

"In Dickinson's teen years, a wave of religious revivals moved
through New England. One by one, her friends and family members made the
public profession of belief in Christ that was necessary to become a
full member of the church. Although she agonized over her relationship
to God, Dickinson ultimately did not join the church--not out of
defiance but in order to remain true to herself: "I feel that the world
holds a predominant place in my affections. I do not feel that I could
give up all for Christ, were I called to die" (L13). By the time the
First Congregational Church moved to a site near the Homestead on Main
Street in 1868, Emily Dickinson had stopped attending services
altogether."

In my opinion, this gives a better idea of her feelings:

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.

--Emily Dickinson

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <c8269a48-8487-4383...@googlegroups.com>,

*
I vote for the cockroach, if successful and long-term existence counts.

Although the great white shark is no slouch.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:47:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:18:57 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:6666fb0f-3e6e-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms.
>>
>>
>>Of course we are.
>
>No, we're not. We have certain enhanced abilities with
>respect to other animals (with some possible exceptions;
>some cetaceans *may* possess those same abilities to the
>same degree), but we have no *unique* abilities. It's a
>continuum, not a staircase. Or a cliff.

Also, our fellow organisms have certain enhanced abilities we do not.
It's blatant chauvinism to assume our enhanced abilities puts us on
top. Maybe that's what hyenas are laughing about.

[Inez]

On Jun 16, 4:46 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form

> by Chris Lucas
>
>   "The view of evolution as chronic bloody competition among individuals
>     and species, a popular distortion of Darwin's notion of 'survival of the
>     fittest,' dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong
>     interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not
>     take over the globe by combat, but by networking."
>
>       ~Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Slanted Truths
>
> Hierarchical Levels
>
> "...but we do need to be aware that self-organizing emergence is an
> hierarchical process. Sub-atomic particles give rise to Atoms
> (which have emergent properties - e.g. density), these in turn combine
> to form Molecules which have different emergent properties (e.g. shape),
> which in turn form Metabolisms with yet more properties (e.g. cycles),
> which constitute Cells with further properties (e.g. movement), and then
> to Organisms at a yet higher level (goals) and on to Humans (abstractions).
> These levels cannot easily arise by means of standard mutation and
> crossover operations but seem to require a new form of evolution,
> sometimes called 'compositional evolution', 'cooperative coevolution',
> 'synergistic selection' or 'holistic darwinism', a symbiotic form that
> allows separately evolved functional building blocks to combine in
> modular fashion, improving overall combinatorial fitness.http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm
>

> The definition of God could be  'that which is as far above humans
> as we are above animals'.

It actually can't be, because humans are animals.

But leaving that aside, haven't you noticed that when people use the
term "God" they are talking about a magical invisible or
intermittently visible being who is in charge of the universe, or some
portion of it? What you are trying to describe is Marilyn vos Savant.

>And believing evolution is limited to the
> level of humanity, or tracking sideways from here, contradicts all
> the evidence of the past, in that we see a clear progression of
> capability and organization as life evolves, from microbes to
> microsoft, so to speak.

Your term "level" is probably not the sort of thing that can be
explained with any detail. How is a human at a higher "level" than a
dolphin? How do you know when a higher "level" creature wanders
across the stage?

>
> Simply extrapolating the known properties of evolution into the
> ....future should make it obvious and almost inevitable that this
> universe can and will produce 'Gods'.

This is just a bait-and-switchy thing in which you define God in a
vague and non-standard way to make the term acceptable. A creature
that is smarter than humans (if this is the measurement you prefer) is
not a god, and certainly not God.

[jonathan]

"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-F268...@news.giganews.com...

Well I believe in her philosophy on nature and spirit immensely, and
will put her mind up against anyone on the planet.

As the short prayer above indicates, she worshipped nature
and equated nature to god, as I do.now. She was a naturalist
of the highest order.

>
> "In Dickinson's teen years, a wave of religious revivals moved
> through New England. One by one, her friends and family members made the
> public profession of belief in Christ that was necessary to become a
> full member of the church. Although she agonized over her relationship
> to God, Dickinson ultimately did not join the church--not out of
> defiance but in order to remain true to herself: "I feel that the world
> holds a predominant place in my affections. I do not feel that I could
> give up all for Christ, were I called to die" (L13). By the time the
> First Congregational Church moved to a site near the Homestead on Main
> Street in 1868, Emily Dickinson had stopped attending services
> altogether."

This poem might explain why she didn't respect organized
religion, for all the grandiose and empty promises.



I MEANT to have but modest needs,
Such as content, and heaven;
Within my income these could lie,
And life and I keep even.

But since the last included both,
It would suffice my prayer
But just for one to stipulate,
And grace would grant the pair.

And so, upon this wise I prayed,-
Great Spirit, give to me
A heaven not so large as yours,
But large enough for me.

A smile suffused Jehovah's face;
The cherubim withdrew;
Grave saints stole out to look at me,
And showed their dimples, too.

I left the place with all my might,-
My prayer away I threw;
The quiet ages picked it up,
And Judgment twinkled, too,

That one so honest be extant
As take the tale for true
That "Whatsoever you shall ask,
Itself be given you."

But I, grown shrewder, scan the skies
With a suspicious air,-
As children, swindled for the first,
All swindlers be, infer.


Which is echoed in this blistering commentary
on fire and brimstone preachers. While still holding
to the underlying religious concept of love.


HE preached upon "breadth" till it argued him narrow,
The broad are too broad to define:
And of "truth" until it proclaimed him a liar,-
The truth never flaunted a sign.

Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence
As gold the pyrites would shun.
What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
To meet so enabled a man!

>
> In my opinion, this gives a better idea of her feelings:
>


> "Faith" is a fine invention
> When Gentlemen can see
> But Microscopes are prudent
> In an Emergency.

But she was clear that Science and religion
should be one in the same as in below.



Truth is as old as God
His Twin identity
And will endure as long as He
A Co-Eternity

And perish on the Day
Himself is borne away
From Mansion of the Universe
A lifeless Deity.



Suddenly it becomes obvious the solution to the riddle of
god and heaven is simple.....this IS Heaven, we're
already there. Being able to ask the question is the
pinnacle.



The Fact that Earth is Heaven --
Whether Heaven is Heaven or not
If not an Affidavit
Of that specific Spot
Not only must confirm us
That it is not for us
But that it would affront us
To dwell in such a place --



And that realization changes ones entire world view.
Now every moment, good, bad or painful, is just
another step in The Garden. As she says below
not being able to tell the difference between earth
and heaven fills one with a sense of complete joy.
No matter what.



One Blessing had I than the rest
So larger to my Eyes
That I stopped gauging satisfied
For this enchanted size

It was the limit of my Dream
The focus of my Prayer
A perfect -- paralyzing Bliss
Contented as Despair

I knew no more of Want or Cold
Phantasms both become
For this new Value in the Soul
Supremest Earthly Sum

The Heaven below the Heaven above
Obscured with ruddier Blue
Life's Latitudes leant over full
The Judgment perished too

Why Bliss so scantily disburse
Why Paradise defer
Why Floods be served to Us in Bowls
I speculate no more



Which leads to the conclusion asking questions
about the past is a fools errand. What really
matters to us is the...future. Instead of questioning
the past, we should be acting to make a better future.


TO be alive is power,
Existence in itself,
Without a further function,
Omnipotence enough.

To be alive and Will-
'T is able as a God!
The Further of ourselves be what-
Such being Finitude?





s





>
> --Emily Dickinson
>
> earle
> *
>

[jonathan]

"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c8269a48-8487-4383...@googlegroups.com...

That view completely ignores the qualitative differences.




> -John
>

[alextangent]

On Jun 17, 8:48 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I firmly believe science and religion are separated
> merely by two different frames of references wrt
> causation. One reductionist, the other holistic.

Which makes those who think this is a false dichotomy go ballistic.
Religions have many frames of convenience; generally, as many as there
are objects to inspect and subjects to discuss.

[alextangent]

In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category.

[jonathan]

"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edc6ddf1-e888-491a...@q10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Or how about restating the the definition you use in a more abstract way?
'God is about a magical or invisible force which is pushing the universe
towards good.'

A market force pushes the markets towards innovation and
efficiency. Society pushes individuals towards doing the
right thing or natural selection tends to favor the better
adaptation, and so on.

There are only two general forms in the universe, there exists
the system components, and there exists their emergent system
properties.

The components are open to objective methods of proof and certainty.
While the system tendencies are ethereal in nature, having no physical
existence in themselves, only in their effects.Yet they guide the whole
towards the better solution.

So which of the two is more defining in understanding how
nature works and in predicting the future? Neither, the solution
is in the relationship between the two, not one or the other.
The answer is not in detailing the parts or visions of god.
But in understanding how a collection of parts works together
to become /more/ than it's sum.

And that extra added value, which pushes the whole towards
good, yet remains intangible and mysterious, provides the
definition of God, in a way consistent with the common notions
of science and religion.

Truth equals meaning.

> What you are trying to describe is Marilyn vos Savant.
>
>>And believing evolution is limited to the
>> level of humanity, or tracking sideways from here, contradicts all
>> the evidence of the past, in that we see a clear progression of
>> capability and organization as life evolves, from microbes to
>> microsoft, so to speak.
>
> Your term "level" is probably not the sort of thing that can be
> explained with any detail. How is a human at a higher "level" than a
> dolphin?

It's self evident. I don't need to quantify or prove that humans
are more intelligent than animals. Or that intelligence has far more
capability and potential than instinct.

>How do you know when a higher "level" creature wanders
> across the stage?

You won't. Will an animal ever understand and recognize
intelligence? So how can we ever hope to know god in
any objective way? But just because a component can't
directly measure or 'know' emergent properties does not mean
those properties, or god, does not exist.

But if we understand the relationship between the component
and emergence, we can infer god has all the abstract qualitites
of any emergent property.

>>
>> Simply extrapolating the known properties of evolution into the
>> ....future should make it obvious and almost inevitable that this
>> universe can and will produce 'Gods'.
>
> This is just a bait-and-switchy thing in which you define God in a
> vague and non-standard way to make the term acceptable. A creature
> that is smarter than humans (if this is the measurement you prefer) is
> not a god, and certainly not God.

What would emerge from the interaction of countless human minds
would be collective intelligence, or wisdom (god).

And as the world continues to connect into a massively parallel
network via The Internet (which is the ideal condition for emergence)
then God/Nature is returning to Rule the Earth once again
as we speak.


The definition of God and evolution should be one in the same.
But that's only possible if both concepts are placed in abstract
form, so they're no longer apples and oranges. The abstract
concept of emergence provides that common ground.

Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

In more detail, the science of self organization, now
called complexity science, provides the mat to abstractly
understand how any collection of parts can 'spring to life'.

Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm








s







>
>

[jonathan]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hrgur89nconfc6par...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:10:37 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:16rrr85aid9kadprv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm glad for you that you find spiritual enlightenment with Evolution.
>>> Ironically, so does Richard Dawkins, but in an entirely different way.
>>> As for me, I find Evolution and God irrelevant to each other. The
>>> arguments from those who claim Evolution proves God, and those who
>>> claim Evolution disproves God, and those who claim God disproves
>>> Evolution, I find equally erroneous.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I don't really care how everyone else defines science, religion
>>or evolution.
>
>
> That's fine, unless you're going to have conversations about these
> things with other people. Then you need a consensus definition at
> least, else you wind up talking past each other. You might have
> noticed that in your posts.

What concensus? The problem with finding a universal solution
to the great questions is in trying to find a concensus, or proof.
Science looks from the ground up, religion from the top down.
Entirely different perspectives and languages all their own.
But nature is both and neither, it requires both perspectives
at the /same time/ for a full and accurate understanding.

The objective component details, plus the ethereal or subjective
emergent system properties, both modeled by a common
mathematics.

..

>
>
>>I know with complete certainty that there exists
>>only ...one way...in which the universe and all things came
>>into being. Not one for science, another for religion, and
>>many other subsets, but a single universal process of creation
>>and organization....The Truth!
>
>
> That may be true, but the trick is to figure out which one of all the
> competing Truths is the correct one.

Or just start over from scratch. Create a new language for both.

For instance, God/Nature/Evolution can be defined by this
new form of abstract mathematical language in this way...

With hands both steady and trembling, the natural games played
and the invasion into the adjacent possible are maximized, so the
whole then self tunes with Adam Smith-like invisible hands, creating
all of the Darwinian furniture of the universe out of that which
will never exist.





INVESTIGATIONS

THE NATURE OF AUTONOMOUS AGENTS

AND THE WORLDS THEY MUTUALLY CREATE


STUART A. KAUFFMAN


http://www.cap-lore.com/books/Kauffman/Investigations.html

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 00:22:40 UTC+1, alextangent wrote:
> In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category:

>
> > You can make your life even easier if you define God as  "a medium
> > sized carrot".

It's a really fruitful month for Chez Watt.

[Nominates this post as well. Yes, /this/ one.]

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:46:10 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hrgur89nconfc6par...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:10:37 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:16rrr85aid9kadprv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:46:12 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad for you that you find spiritual enlightenment with Evolution.
>>>> Ironically, so does Richard Dawkins, but in an entirely different way.
>>>> As for me, I find Evolution and God irrelevant to each other. The
>>>> arguments from those who claim Evolution proves God, and those who
>>>> claim Evolution disproves God, and those who claim God disproves
>>>> Evolution, I find equally erroneous.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't really care how everyone else defines science, religion
>>>or evolution.
>>
>>
>> That's fine, unless you're going to have conversations about these
>> things with other people. Then you need a consensus definition at
>> least, else you wind up talking past each other. You might have
>> noticed that in your posts.
>
>
>What concensus? The problem with finding a universal solution
>to the great questions is in trying to find a concensus, or proof.

You're confused. Consensus has nothing to do with proof. It has to
do with finding a common understanding agreeable to all, if only for
that discussion, however constrained and arbitrary it might be, even
if the agreement is accepted for argument's sake, just to move along
the discussion.

>Science looks from the ground up, religion from the top down.
>Entirely different perspectives and languages all their own.
>But nature is both and neither, it requires both perspectives
>at the /same time/ for a full and accurate understanding.
>
>The objective component details, plus the ethereal or subjective
>emergent system properties, both modeled by a common
>mathematics.

The above isn't a complete sentence. You don't mention a conclusion
to go with your conditions.

>>>I know with complete certainty that there exists
>>>only ...one way...in which the universe and all things came
>>>into being. Not one for science, another for religion, and
>>>many other subsets, but a single universal process of creation
>>>and organization....The Truth!
>>
>>
>> That may be true, but the trick is to figure out which one of all the
>> competing Truths is the correct one.
>
>
>Or just start over from scratch. Create a new language for both.

If you're going to do that, then please create new words to complement
your new language. Or at least use words not in common use, or
obsolete words. It helps to avoid confusion instead of creating it,
you know.

>For instance, God/Nature/Evolution can be defined by this
>new form of abstract mathematical language in this way...
>
>With hands both steady and trembling, the natural games played
>and the invasion into the adjacent possible are maximized, so the
>whole then self tunes with Adam Smith-like invisible hands, creating
>all of the Darwinian furniture of the universe out of that which
>will never exist.

Which way? Where is your redefinition? Is the above supposed to be
a description of a new form of abstract mathematical language? If so,
you must have redefined "abstract", "mathematical", and "language".

[Kermit]

On 17 June, 18:41, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> �ｿｽtowards good.'

If down is good, then you are describing gravity.

And I am not trivializing what you said; what you said is so substance-
free that this would be impossible.

God has no intelligence, then? Force means something in physics. In
what noticeable way is the universe being pushed toward anything that
is not simply a matter of physics?

I note that you do not include intelligence or awareness in your
definition. I do not see how any of this relates to evolution of
species.

>
> A market force pushes the markets towards innovation and
> efficiency.

In my observation it as often pushes markets towards stifling
innovation. And efficiency seems to mean "most efficient shoveling of
money into the pockets of already-rich people".

> Society pushes individuals towards doing the
> right thing

It is not immediately clear to me that we are doing the right thing
more than paleolithic hunter gatherers did.

Perhaps if that term incorporates knowledge, then yes.

> or natural selection tends to favor the better
> adaptation, and so on.
>
> There are only two general forms in the universe, there exists
> the system components, and there exists their emergent system
> properties.
>
> The components are open to objective methods of proof and certainty.
> While the system tendencies are ethereal in nature, having no physical
> existence in themselves,
> only in their effects.Yet they guide the whole
> towards the better solution.

How are you defining "better" in this statement?

>
> So which of the two is more defining in understanding how
> nature works and in predicting the future? Neither, the solution
> is in the relationship between the two, not one or the other.
> The answer is not in detailing the parts or visions of god.
> But in understanding how a collection of parts works together
> to become /more/ than it's sum.
>
> And that extra added value, which pushes the whole towards
> good, yet remains intangible and mysterious, provides the
> definition of God,

A value which is mysterious defines God. Hmm. And you really need to
explain how this is all "working toward the good". <waves hand>

> in a way consistent with the common notions
> of science and religion.

I do not see how religion is testable, nor what verifiable evidence
religion is based on, although I freely admit that "religion" covers
a lot of ground. The more mysterious your nebulous term "God" is, the
less it has to do with science.

>
> Truth equals meaning.

I am not sure that
"something + something else = something else altogether"
is a true statement.

>
> �ｿｽ> What you are trying to describe is Marilyn vos Savant.

>
>
>
> >>And believing evolution is limited to the
> >> level of humanity, or tracking sideways from here, contradicts all
> >> the evidence of the past, in that we see a clear progression of
> >> capability and organization as life evolves, from microbes to
> >> microsoft, so to speak.
>
> > Your term "level" is probably not the sort of thing that can be

> > explained with any detail. �ｿｽHow is a human at a higher "level" than a
> > dolphin?
>
> It's self evident. �ｿｽI don't need to quantify or prove that humans

> are more intelligent than animals. Or that intelligence has far more
> capability and potential than instinct.

We *are animals.

>
> >How do you know when a higher "level" creature wanders
> > across the stage?
>
> You won't. Will an animal ever understand and recognize
> intelligence?

Was it Hume who said that if Man is a rational animal, then most of
the people he has met are not men?

I hesitate to say that engineered animals, future animals, E.T.
animals, dolphins, elephants, and gorillas do not understand
intelligence.

> So how can we ever hope to know god in
> any objective way?

You haven't defined "god" in any discernible way, let alone
established its existence.

> �ｿｽBut just because a component can't

> directly measure or 'know' emergent properties does not mean
> those properties, or god, does not exist.

Minus the phrase "or god", that sentence makes sense, but is not very
useful.

>
> But if we understand the relationship between the component
> and emergence, we can infer god has all the abstract qualitites
> of any emergent property.

What? Why? So far you have only claimed that god (is "god" supposed to
be a proper name, or a noun?) is a universal force (with no examples
given of such a process) for good (which is undefined).

>
>
>
> >> Simply extrapolating the known properties of evolution into the
> >> ....future should make it obvious and almost inevitable that this
> >> universe can and will produce 'Gods'.
>
> > This is just a bait-and-switchy thing in which you define God in a

> > vague and non-standard way to make the term acceptable. �ｿｽA creature

> > that is smarter than humans (if this is the measurement you prefer) is
> > not a god, and certainly not God.
>
> What would emerge from the interaction of countless human minds
> would be collective intelligence, or wisdom (god).

So far I see warfare, and knowledge, and some pretty good art. I'm not
sure about wisdom, and I certainly don't see how society is an
argument for gods.

>
> And as the world continues to connect into a massively parallel
> network via The Internet (which is the ideal condition for emergence)
> then God/Nature is returning to Rule the Earth once again
> as we speak.

I do not see how you could know this; I am not sure what it means; I
wonder where it has gone in the meanwhile. Nature is not ruling Earth?

>
> The definition of God and evolution should be one in the same.

So God is natural selection and neutral drift, plus maybe some other
processes, acting upon a pool of inheritable variation. In other
words, the term adds nothing to science and our understanding of how
nature works.

> But that's only possible if both concepts are placed in abstract
> form, so they're no longer apples and oranges. The abstract
> concept of emergence provides that common ground.

It sounds more like you want to remove all useful language from
science.

>
> Emergencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>
> In more detail, the science of self organization, now
> called complexity science, provides the mat to abstractly
> understand how any collection of parts can 'spring to life'.
>
> Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQhttp://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
>
> s
>

kermit

[jonathan]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hl00s859b23le40d6...@4ax.com...

Every term in the above statement is a well defined mathematical
concept. For instance the last term...

"that which will never exist"

There is the entire range of possibilities
(that which can exist)

There is the much smaller subset which Darwinian
processes have produced
(that which exists)

There are the possibilities which were not selected
(that which will never exist)

And the terms 'hands' come in three different forms

Steady: static attractor
Trembling: chaotic attractor
Invisible: dynamic or emergent attractor

Darwinian furniture is all the organized systems
physical, living and platonic.

And so on.

>

[Inez]

And here is the switchy part of your bait-and-switch. Your argument started out with the claim that gods should evolve naturally, and now you're on about a magical invisible force. Notice that the Universe is billions of years old and hasn't advanced noticeably towards "good."

>
>
> A market force pushes the markets towards innovation and
>
> efficiency.

Not always true.

> Society pushes individuals towards doing the
>
> right thing or natural selection tends to favor the better
>
> adaptation, and so on.
>

Society pushes people to get along with the society, that's not exactly the same thing as "doing the right thing."

>
> There are only two general forms in the universe, there exists
>
> the system components, and there exists their emergent system
>
> properties.
>
>
>
> The components are open to objective methods of proof and certainty.
>
> While the system tendencies are ethereal in nature, having no physical
>
> existence in themselves, only in their effects.Yet they guide the whole
>
> towards the better solution.
>
>
>
> So which of the two is more defining in understanding how
>
> nature works and in predicting the future? Neither, the solution
>
> is in the relationship between the two, not one or the other.
>
> The answer is not in detailing the parts or visions of god.
>
> But in understanding how a collection of parts works together
>
> to become /more/ than it's sum.
>

Your argument is largely gas which cannot be condensed into anything solid.

>
> And that extra added value, which pushes the whole towards
>
> good, yet remains intangible and mysterious, provides the
>
> definition of God, in a way consistent with the common notions
>
> of science and religion.
>

This is the sort of argument and view of god that is popular with people who like to say they believe in god without actually believing in much of anything. If you are unacquainted with what people mean when they say "God" then you ought to look it up, you might find it interesting. I for one would be interested in some sort of example of how the universe is being pushed towards "good."

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:39:04 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Here's where using new words would help avoid confusion, instead of
redefining existing words.

[Glenn]

"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Notice that the Universe is billions of years old and hasn't advanced noticeably towards "good."

42.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:56:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:47:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:18:57 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6666fb0f-3e6e-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course we are.
>>
>>No, we're not. We have certain enhanced abilities with
>>respect to other animals (with some possible exceptions;
>>some cetaceans *may* possess those same abilities to the
>>same degree), but we have no *unique* abilities. It's a
>>continuum, not a staircase. Or a cliff.
>
>
>Also, our fellow organisms have certain enhanced abilities we do not.

True, but to most people our mental abilities are what make
us "superior". Our status as generalists helps in the
"evolution race", too, although most people don't seem to
consider that.

>It's blatant chauvinism to assume our enhanced abilities puts us on
>top. Maybe that's what hyenas are laughing about.

Could be. Or maybe they get a kick out of being able to
crunch buffalo femurs like candy... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:13:54 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

True; bacteria have yet to invent a way to wipe themselves
out, making them morally superior.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:42:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[alextangent]

It makes a fine pear.

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:23:33 PM UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:56:14 -0400, the following appeared
>
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:47:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:18:57 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:6666fb0f-3e6e-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Of course we are.
>
> >>
>
> >>No, we're not. We have certain enhanced abilities with
>
> >>respect to other animals (with some possible exceptions;
>
> >>some cetaceans *may* possess those same abilities to the
>
> >>same degree), but we have no *unique* abilities. It's a
>
> >>continuum, not a staircase. Or a cliff.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Also, our fellow organisms have certain enhanced abilities we do not.
>
>
>
> True, but to most people our mental abilities are what make
>
> us "superior". Our status as generalists helps in the
>
> "evolution race", too, although most people don't seem to
>
> consider that.

We are a social species that is currently in a condition that we would
call an "outbreak" in other species in that we are influencing ecosystems
around the planet and contributing to the demise of many species.

[John Stockwell]

what do you get when you multiply 7 times 6.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:23:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:56:14 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:47:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:18:57 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:6666fb0f-3e6e-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course we are.
>>>
>>>No, we're not. We have certain enhanced abilities with
>>>respect to other animals (with some possible exceptions;
>>>some cetaceans *may* possess those same abilities to the
>>>same degree), but we have no *unique* abilities. It's a
>>>continuum, not a staircase. Or a cliff.
>>
>>
>>Also, our fellow organisms have certain enhanced abilities we do not.
>
>True, but to most people our mental abilities are what make
>us "superior".

Yes. That's why it's chauvinist. A shark doesn't care anything about
my mental abilities.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:25:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:13:54 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
>>"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:c8269a48-8487-4383...@googlegroups.com...
>
>>> On Monday, June 17, 2013 10:18:57 AM UTC-6, jonathan wrote:
>>>> "John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6666fb0f-3e6e-4e6f...@googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> > No Jonathan, humans are not "above" our fellow organisms.
>
>>>> Of course we are.
>
>>> Not in any real terms. Actually, bacteria are vastly more successful as
>>> organisms than we are. Each of us have more bacterial cells than human
>>> cells.
>
>>That view completely ignores the qualitative differences.
>
>True; bacteria have yet to invent a way to wipe themselves
>out, making them morally superior.

Hmm... If one is morally inferior, it would be a morally superior act
to wipe oneself out. But then one would be wiping out a superior
being, which makes it a morally inferior act.

This chain of reasoning has a broken link somewhere.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:29:36 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Thanks; now I have a headache.

>This chain of reasoning has a broken link somewhere.

Sure it's not just a missing link?

[duke]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:13:42 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
>news:OaednawJH_osOCDM...@giganews.com..
>
>[snip]
>
>We don't believe in evolution, we know and understand that evolution is the
>only possible explanation of the facts, unless we want to invoke magic and
>deceiving coverup on a grand scale. But that would be religion, not science.
>
>The fact of evolution and a lot of other facts shows that the traditional
>God of the Christians and most other gods as well are inventions from
>ignorance and superstition.

God created 13.7 billion years ago and then turned it over to evolution. I'm
betting you're silly enough to think creation is a 6000 year old story.

>Now tell us that you have studied the theory of evolution and is familiar
>with and understand the evidence.
>

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************

[duke]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:48:17 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:f662ff42-45fb-4639...@googlegroups.com...
>> No. Natural selection favours living things that are better
>> at what they do than their relatives. And that includes
>> being better at co-operating. Even if God created the
>> initial living microscopically tiny slime, evolution
>> works fine for the slime without God's further actions.
>> So that only leaves creation of life - rather unimpressive
>> life - as grounds to believe in God. And that isn't
>> what you claimed.

>>
>
>I firmly believe science and religion are separated
>merely by two different frames of references wrt
>causation. One reductionist, the other holistic.
>

>My hobby of Complexity Science is science but
>within a systems or holistic framework. So I feel
>any definition of God must be equally consistent
>with both.
>
>So I use the concept of emergence to define God, and
>merely inverse the standard view of looking to the past
>by extrapolating emergence into the future and to it's
>logical conclusion. Which is that if the strong view
>of evolution Complexity Science takes is allowed to
>play out, Gods should be a normal consequence.
>
>But just like emergence, the effects and existence of
>God would remain illusive.
>
>Emergence
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

God didn't "emerge". God is.