Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition People Serge Patlavskiy Today at 2:47 PM To Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com BCC Yahoogroups Message body - Adam Kun on May 21, 2017 wrote: >So you want me to make a list of anatomical features that makes it  >clear that pigs are not our closes relatives while apes are? [S.P.] When I say that our (human) biology tells us that, anatomically, we are the closest relatives with pigs, I mean, first of all, the structure and functioning of viscera. But let us return to analytics.  I want again to draw your attention to the seventh question I have formulated in my previous post, and which you have ignored. Namely, I mean my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories --1) the theory of the origin of life and consciousness; 2) the theory of consciousness; and 3) the theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- for these theories to possess necessary explanatory and predictive power. My idea is that whatever theory of evolution we construct, it will not be a theory until we construct another two theories as well. So, let us start from the problem of the origin of life. Suppose, a first living organism appears somehow from dead matter. The word "somehow" includes also a certain solution to the problem of irreducible complexity which we will not touch here. Now then, the first way of appearance of a living organism is to appear directly from dead matter. Two questions here. First question: was the act of appearing of the living organism directly from dead matter a solitary act? I mean, was it the ONLY ONE living organism that has appeared in such a way? Or, maybe, the way of appearance of living organisms directly from dead matter was a routine procedure which lasted for a long time, and maybe it lasts even up to nowadays?   Second question: were the living organisms (that appeared directly from dead matter) quasi-identical organisms, or they were different organisms? For me, they had to be different organisms since the material (chemical, etc.) conditions under which the acts of appearance of living organisms have taken place were permanently changing. Here, I put aside the question of which material conditions are required for the living organism to appear from dead matter. The biologists seems to adopt the idea that the act of appearing of the living organism directly from dead matter was a solitary act, and all the other organisms started to appear in the second way -- they somehow started to appear from other living organisms, say, through scissiparity. As one can see, we need to use the word "somehow" for the second time already. The word "somehow" presumes there to be some mechanism. But, what mechanism it could be? If we suggest that the ability for scissiparity appeared due to evolution (through natural selection and survival of the fittest) then we come to contradiction in our reasoning. I mean that the living organism would first have to evolve the very ability to evolve, and only then its ability to evolve would cause its ability for scissiparity. So, it would be nonsensical to argue that after having appeared directly from dead matter, the living organism, due to evolution, has evolved the very ability to evolve.  So, how the very ability to evolve came into existence? This ability could not be in a dormant (or potential) state at the moment when the first living organism has appeared directly from dead matter. And here the traditional evolutionists' argument that there is always a plenty of time in Nature does not work. If a pot is empty and is covered with hermetic lid, it will stay empty for the forthcoming billions of years. Nothing appears from nothing. I mean that there is no necessity in a second way of appearance in case the first way of appearance works fine and is the only one known for Nature and for the living organism. Indeed, why the living organism should bother itself with questions of how to give birth to offsprings if it itself has successfully appeared directly from dead matter? Therefore, there is no necessity in scissiparity and evolution in case the living organisms continuously appear directly from dead matter. In such a case, the observed biodiversity is caused by permanently changing material conditions under which the concrete living organism appears directly from dead matter.  But, if the mechanism of transition from the first way to the second way was not based on evolution, then what caused such a transition? Where the ability of scissiparity came from? Without answering this question we cannot precede to considering evolution as such, because the mechanisms which stand beyond the transition from the first way to the second way may turn to be much more powerful and important than the mechanisms of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. We have to apply the Occam's razor principle here: if there are some powerful mechanisms at work, then the other conjectured mechanisms of doubtful effectiveness have to be rejected.   Now then, I have elaborated the methods and models which are able to deal with complex systems. I consider some special mechanisms -- the laws which govern the development of complex systems. I demonstrate that these same special mechanisms stand as beyond the origin of living organisms, so beyond the activity of consciousness, and these same special mechanisms also are responsible for observed biodiversity. So, I apply these special methods and models when explaining:  1) the origin of life and consciousness,  2) the role of consciousness in sustaining life (here, by "consciousness" I mean a natural ability of the living organism to reduce own entropy by transforming the physical sensory signals into the elements of this organism's subjective experience), and 3) the evolution of the complex self-organizing systems (such as a living organism and biocenosis). Hence follows my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories for each of them to possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. For example, if we aim to construct only a theory of consciousness, and, in so doing, we ignore the other two theories, then our theory of consciousness will not be a theory as such, in sense that it will not be the framework which is able to explain something and predict something. The mechanisms of biodiversity through natural selection and survival of the fittest are good, maybe, for children at school, but, in fact, the actual mechanisms are much more complex. At any rate, the mechanisms based on the laws governing complex systems make it possible for me to solve the problem of irreducible complexity, to explain why there are such species but not the other species, and to explain the fact of total absence of transitional forms between the species. So, my approach is naturalistic, and I speak equally as against creationistic religious approaches so against Darwinian and neo-Darwinian dogmatic approaches. In so doing, I do not reject the possible role of external factors such as genetic engineering performed by third parties on the concrete planet. With respect, Serge Patlavskiy From: Ádám Kun To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition Dear Serge, So you want me to make a list of anatomical features that makes it clear that pigs are not our closes relatives while apes are? I have chosen hands, not just because that is obvious, and hands with opposable thumb is a characteristic we share with Old Word monkeys (apes included). But pigs are members of the Artiodactyla, even-toed ungulates, their defining characteristic is the hoofed leg with the 3rd and the 4th fingers holding their weight. So this characteristic (hand vs. hoofed leg) is something we share with our close relatives. We find no hands among the even toed ungulates and we do not find hoofs among the apes (not even the primates as a whole). Or should I also list the lack of tail, which is something specific to the apes (Hominoidea). Pigs do have tails. Pigs are used in medical science for practice, as they are of comparable size to humans and widely available. Apes are a slow growing and endangered species, and while they would be a better candidate to train doctors on / do medical research, they are just too similar to us to kill. The fact that a species not very close to us in the mammalian phylogenetic tree is still this similar proves a common ancestry. We are both part of the Boreoeutheria branch of the placental mammals which evolved in the northern supercontinent as opposed to the Atlantogenatha which evolved on the southern supercontinent. Pigs are in the Laurasiatheria clade (insectivores, whales, ungulates, carnivores, bats, etc.), primates are in the Euarchontoglies clade (rodents, rabbits, primates, etc.). best wishes,   Ádám > - > Adam Kun on May 19, 2017 wrote: > >Pigs do not have hands for example, apes do. > > [S.P.] Sorry, but I expected to hold this discussion on "a bit" higher > analytical level. > > Best, > Serge Patlavskiy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Ádám Kun > *To:* Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 11:50 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science > Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition > > Dear Serge, > > > > > > > [S.P.] First. What we see around us is that every living organism, to > > stay alive, must be expediently evolved. It seems that every living > > organism is satisfied with what it is now and it (me including) shows > > no interest to "evolve" into other species. > > Have you ever heard wishes like: Wish I could fly! Wish I could go on > with much less sleep! Or eat as much as I want and still stay thin, grow > muscles without going to the gym, etc. Indeed we very much want to > become another species. > > > > > Second. Our (human) biology tells us that, anatomically, we are the > > closest relatives with pigs. But, this notwithstanding, I want to > > congratulate you on that the apes are your personal predecessors. May > > I know which apes in particular? What about Darwinian idea that the > > humans and apes could have had a common ancestry? As I see, you > > disagree with this idea? I have used the modal word "could" because > > there are still no ancient fossils found. > > Noone told that we are anything like a pig. Pigs are just generally more > available for anatomical studies than apes. Pigs do not have hands for > example, apes do. > > I do not understand your next 2 questions. The common ancestor of > humans, chimps and bonobos were a species disctinct from all three and > taxonomically belonged to apes (Hominoidea). As for fossils, there are > some that could have been one of those common ancestor. Check Orrorin > tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Albeit jungles and woody > savannas are not very good for fossilization. > > > > > When the coelacanth was found alive and kicking, many evolutionists > > must have gone out of their mind at that very moment. Instead, there > > are a lot of fossilized remnants of gigantic humans found all over the > > globe. These remnants are being stubbornly ignored by academic > community. > > What is the problem with the coelacanth? > > > > > Third. What do you think about the hypothesis of involution which > > holds that, in fact, the hominids descend from humans, but not vice > versa? > > I do not think that we can "unevolve" our ability for language and all > the higher mental facilities we display. Civilization can collapse, but > we won't go back to the trees munching leaves. > > > > > Fourth. What do you think about the idea that the human races are the > > results of exquisite genetic experiments performed in pre-ancient > > times by some highly developed civilization in laboratories situated > > on different continents? This same pertains to such plants as wheat, > > maize, soya, etc. -- they could not in principle appear in result of > > selection from wild predecessors. > > The idea of origin of life on other planet, or genetic experiments by > some aliens just push the problem of evolution of life and intelligence > to another place. It does not solve the problem. Is Earth such a bad > place that life cannot form here, or that intelligent life cannot > emerge? What is missing? In what kind of environment did those aliens > evolved? > > > > > Fifth. What do you think about my idea that the natural selection is > > always a conscious selection? I mean that every organism is able to > > make a conscious choice whom to mate. > > I do not prefer the broad definition of consciousness adpoted here. For > me this word means something deliberate, something I ponder on for a > while and then give an answer. The answer I give here are conscicious > efforts. Mate choice have quite some elements that are subconscious. > Many here just use the word consciousness as a synonym for "able to > react to the environment". As organism live in the environment, they > have to be able to react to it in order to stay alive. > > > > > Sixth. What do you think about the evolution of consciousness? My > > approach is that for a living organism to stay alive, it must possess > > the expediently evolved and necessarily potent exemplar of > > consciousness. All the living organisms are "equal" in the sense that > > they all are alive. The exemplars of consciousness of all possible > > living organisms are "equal" in the sense that these all exemplars are > > expediently evolved and necessarily potent. > > > > Seventh. What do you think about my idea that we have to consider > > simultaneously three theories --1) the theory of the origin of life > > and consciousness; 2) the theory of consciousness; and 3) the theory > > of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- for these > > theories to possess necessary explanatory and predictive power? I mean > > that whatever theory of evolution we construct, it will not be a > > theory until we construct another two theories as well. > > > > And, finally, I would much like to know your opinion concerning the > > ideas I have expressed in my post on April 23, 2017. I case you have > > missed it, it is here: > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/Qndwndi8CwAJ > > > > > I did read it and were puzzled that you think that evolution theory does > not have predictive and explanatory power. Why? Give an example of a > theory (from any disciple) that have according to your definition. > > best wishes, >  Ádám > Вірусів немає. www.avast.com