Darwin re-visited

[Thunderbird]

Why not? You sound disappointed. Is it not a truly incredible prospect to consider? What are you suggesting would have established any pre-existing principles?

Your two assumuptions in this statement are off track. one is that Pyrotex are yourself have something to teach me about the process of evolution which has been a passion of mine for 30+ years, and the other is that there is only two camps on the issue. If you can now predict what I will contribute to the conversation next, you could prove yourself to be less assumptive. I am well aware of the standard models. You two seem to not be unaware that there are other models that illuminate these process to the fullest possible range of science to date. There is much more to the order of life than mere chance.

[Buffy]

There is much more to the order of life than mere chance.

Of course there is, but you should be aware that your writings seem to indicate that you have a highly--and unfairly--restricted definition of "chance" that seems to accommodate only Poisson distributions. Systems governed by complex formulas are just as chancy as a roulette wheel or the distribution of raindrops in a square meter, and discovering that they work together seems in my mind to be hardly a "third view of evolution"....

 

Its one thing to apply new ideas more rigorously to existing theories and improve them in the process. Its quite another to belittle those existing theories as irrelevant and wrong, and disingenuously claim that they are more simplistic than we all know them to be.

 

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants, ;)

Buffy

[REASON]

Your two assumuptions in this statement are off track. one is that Pyrotex are yourself have something to teach me about the process of evolution which has been a passion of mine for 30+ years, and the other is that there is only two camps on the issue. If you can now predict what I will contribute to the conversation next, you could prove yourself to be less assumptive. I am well aware of the standard models. You two seem to not be unaware that there are other models that illuminate these process to the fullest possible range of science to date. There is much more to the order of life than mere chance.

 

Geez T-Bird, you don't have to be so defensive. While I respect what Pyro has to say on the subject, he and I are not some tag team. I don't presume either of the things you presume of me. Unlike you, I don't claim to be an expert on evolution. I've learned what I've learned, that's it. I currently align my understanding of evolution with a mainstream position. But I have always been open to new information. It's unreasonable to be closed minded, don't you think? I'm like a sponge. I'm here not just because I think I have something to offer, but more because this community has so much to offer me, including you T-Bird.

 

There’s nothing presumptuous in my questions. I was reacting to your tone, and your suggestion of inherent pre-existing principles. In all honesty, I’m not comfortable with that notion. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I don’t need Pyro or anyone else to arrive at that conclusion. All I did was ask you why the notion that life developed by chance is unacceptable to you, and what do you think is the origin of these pre-existing principles you’re referring to.

 

 

Can you respond to those relevant questions?

[modest]

It seems like what Thunderbird is saying could be open to a very wide interpretation. Perhaps that life is bound by and derived from pre-existing principles of physics and chemistry. Therefore life is a property of matter and the universe whereby the structure of the universe (its laws and contents) only allow for a limited design on life. Meaning life will develop similarly under similar circumstances anywhere in the universe.

 

He equally could intend that there is a divinity that either actively initiated the genesis of life or set rules whereby it would form.

 

I hope you would elaborate Thunderbird. I honestly can't discern what you're meaning but I'd like to. I personally don't think the play book on evolution is closed and there may even be room for rather large and course-changing theories in the discipline.

 

-modest

[REASON]

I think those are good observations modest.

 

But based on what I've read of T-bird's previous posts on the subject, I would think your first point is more accurate. He has rejected the idea of a supernatural force in other threads.

[Thunderbird]

There’s nothing presumptuous in my questions. I was reacting to your tone, and your suggestion of inherent pre-existing principles. In all honesty, I’m not comfortable with that notion. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I don’t need Pyro or anyone else to arrive at that conclusion. All I did was ask you why the notion that life developed by chance is unacceptable to you, and what do you think is the origin of these pre-existing principles you’re referring to.

 

 

Can you respond to those relevant questions?

 

 

 

I’m attempting to highlight something about not only the evolutionary process, but also the knee jerk reaction people have when attempting to present an expanded view point on life that is not chemical or strictly biological.

 

 

People get a little nuts and presumptuous around here on the subject,. If you don’t believe me just look at Buffy’s post WTF over.

 

 

Why do you say “I’m not comfortable with that notion” Believe it or not, this has to do with your presumption and conditioning that Darwin needs defending.

 

Darwin doesn’t need defending. Science moves forward, it never should be dug in defending.

 

A model as important and central as this one should be a water shed for all the other sciences that pertain to it. Systems Theory, Chaos Theory, Non Linear dynamics, Quantum DNA coherence, Kaufmanns Autocatalytic Loops,

Why doesn’t that happen here? Because when these things are brought up people get uncomfortable, They gang together into a mob mentality group think. If you think I am over reacting go back and look in other threads on evolution and see how you guys act on discussing this subject..

 

Science now has much more to tell us about life’s origins than was learned 150 years ago. Life in all its sophistication deserves more respect than, “its just all chance” nothing more to see here folks move along before we all get hijacked by the creationist.

 

Its pretty amazing really anytime someone talks about advancing Darwinian Models into the 21 century by utilizing models that do not focus on the materiel components, but rather the dynamical system aspect people get uncomfortable. Why is this I wonder?

 

Do you guys just like the idea of life is part or partials first and foremost, rather than unsubstantiated cycles, pulses, waves, basins of attraction, or autocatalytic loops, are these of no importance? These descriptions or better… so my toys are better, but know body wants to play, they only want to big a trench, or call a name or allude to a creationist that was never There.

[modest]

Tbird,

 

Let me apologize for my last post. I was uninformed as to your position considering I hadn't kept up with the thread. I've now read through all that I missed and see better where you're coming from.

 

Like others I think it would be beneficial if you explained the pre-existing principles you've mentioned. Is this a reference to life's property of striving for complexity which you've discussed or is it more / different? Also, if you explained how these principles demonstrate themselves with maybe an example it would go a long way for your position.

 

Peace,

-Modest

[freeztar]

Like others I think it would be beneficial if you explained the pre-existing principles you've mentioned. Is this a reference to life's property of striving for complexity which you've discussed or is it more / different? Also, if you explained how these principles demonstrate themselves with maybe an example it would go a long way for your position.

 

Peace,

-Modest

 

I agree.

What exactly is your official position TB?

[REASON]

You know, I can't become more comfortable with a new perspective when the person offering it would rather piss and moan than explain it.

[Buffy]

I’m attempting to highlight ... the knee jerk reaction people have when attempting to present an expanded view point on life that is not chemical or strictly biological.

 

People get a little nuts and presumptuous around here on the subject,. If you don’t believe me just look at Buffy’s post WTF over.

You might try reading the post again, though! :hihi:

 

Can you tell me why you insist on believing that "chemical and biological" are the only views being applied to Evolutionary theory? I would assume that in your studies you've come across mathematical principles being used to study chemistry? Perhaps even physics? You've honestly encountered no application of Complexity in any of these fields? Worse, open hostility? Really?

 

I'm just trying to understand why you want so badly for the application of complexity theory to be revolutionary to the point of making the other elements irrelevant. Why do you work so hard to belittle the fairly clear application of your favorite field of mathematics to all of these other sciences?

Darwin doesn’t need defending. Science moves forward, it never should be dug in defending.

Far from "defending" Darwin, what I have said here is more about being incredulous that you think that Darwin has no relevance! That it somehow needs a completely different "third theory" because its "only about pure chance."

A model as important and central as this one should be a water shed for all the other sciences that pertain to it. Systems Theory, Chaos Theory, Non Linear dynamics, Quantum DNA coherence, Kaufmanns Autocatalytic Loops...

Absolutely! Its really useful stuff! Yet you seem to dismiss my arguments as exactly the opposite!

 

Why?

Why doesn’t that happen here?

It does! Why do you insist that it does not?

Because when these things are brought up people get uncomfortable, They gang together into a mob mentality group think. If you think I am over reacting go back and look in other threads on evolution and see how you guys act on discussing this subject..

And quite honestly, this is exactly the same argument we get from the folks who support The Final Theory and other charlatanism.

 

What you seem to be missing out on is that the real problem is *not* the theory you're promoting--which not only do most of us who think about it agree with and think there should be more work done on--but your insistence that those who do not bow down and kiss the feet of the God of Complexity theory and insist that we reject all other Lesser Gods who are "scared" of the new God and accept it as the Revolutionary Sole Truth Unrelated to All Other Sciences.

 

Now before you insist that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying, do listen to your own words:

Life in all its sophistication deserves more respect than, “its just all chance” nothing more to see here folks move along before we all get hijacked by the creationist.

That's seething with disgust, origin unknown.

 

What evidence do you have that pure chance is the only thing that is considered relevant by every Evolutionary Theorist? I know a few, and they're all studying exactly what you're talking about. Where's "the enemy" here that you are railing against?

 

Moreover, do you realize that such ranting and dismissiveness of all that went before simply makes people think you *don't* know what you're talking about?

 

Its quite obvious that you *do* know what you're talking about, and I agree with most of the specific concepts you've posed. It seems that the problem you have with what I'm saying is that your insistence that no one other than you is smart enough to see the "brilliance" of Complexity.

 

Now that's offensive, and you really ought not be surprised at the reaction! :)

so my toys are better, but know body wants to play...

We're playing too! Why do you insist that its all invalid if *we* touch your toys?

 

You are not superior just because you see the world in an odious light,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Dear TundraBird,

I echo, ditto and repeat everything Buffy said in the previous post.

I haven't said very much in this thread, though I would have liked to -- principally because of your debating style, your evasive flippancy.

I sincerely request that you address Buffy's concerns and questions.

Thanks.

Pyro the Pernicious

[Thunderbird]

You might try reading the post again, though! :)

 

Can you tell me why you insist on believing that "chemical and biological" are the only views being applied to Evolutionary theory? I would assume that in your studies you've come across mathematical principles being used to study chemistry? Perhaps even physics? You've honestly encountered no application of Complexity in any of these fields? Worse, open hostility? Really?

 

I'm just trying to understand why you want so badly for the application of complexity theory to be revolutionary to the point of making the other elements irrelevant. Why do you work so hard to belittle the fairly clear application of your favorite field of mathematics to all of these other sciences?

Far from "defending" Darwin, what I have said here is more about being incredulous that you think that Darwin has no relevance! That it somehow needs a completely different "third theory" because its "only about pure chance."

Your completely misrepresenting my position, as your usual tactic. If the above were my position, I would be not only an idiot... but quite insane. So if you believe the above is my position then why don't you just call me an insane idiot.

 

These tactics are dishonest and serve no propose in intelligent debate. You are however predictable and can be relied upon to make my point for me.

 

Why do feel it is necessary to rely on this type of deception and misdirection on someone position. Do not tell me this was by mistake because I haven't yet had a chance to really make any of my points clear. It seems I spend way to much time on damage control made by this type of tactics. It is clear however you intent has nothing to do with your curiosity on any of my view points.

[Thunderbird]

Dear TundraBird,

I echo, ditto and repeat everything Buffy said in the previous post.

Pyro the Pernicious

Dear Stereo... I am sure you can be relied upon to back up your peers.

Thunderbird the Underdog;):)

[Thunderbird]

Tbird,

 

Let me apologize for my last post. I was uninformed as to your position considering I hadn't kept up with the thread. I've now read through all that I missed and see better where you're coming from.

 

Like others I think it would be beneficial if you explained the pre-existing principles you've mentioned. Is this a reference to life's property of striving for complexity which you've discussed or is it more / different? Also, if you explained how these principles demonstrate themselves with maybe an example it would go a long way for your position.

 

Peace,

-Modest

Great.. But let me try to do this as an exsersise in thinking out side the box about life.

 

This can be fun if every body can play fair and share their toys. Two questions for ye.

 

What would be the best description of a tornado, or a flame?

 

Is a turtle more like a rock, or a beam of light?

 

If anyone thinks this is to cryptic of a start, and you do not want to play be a spectator.. if it looks like fun play along.

[Ahmabeliever]

Awww. C'mon Thunderbird. You're teasing.

 

You are answering questions with questions.

 

At least some guidelines of the game, a few rules....

 

Or should we go in blind, in case we pre-concieve things by being given reference points...

 

I cannot speak for other members but I seek truth and if you can in any way enlighten me I am all ears.

 

We could all write a different description (perception) of the things you listed. If that's the point I'm already there.

[Thunderbird]

Awww. C'mon Thunderbird. You're teasing.

 

You are answering questions with questions.

 

 

 

We could all write a different description (perception) of the things you listed. If that's the point I'm already there.

Yep.. that is the point

 

 

Its the only way I know to start is to allow everyone to thow into the mix how they see what life is.... and what life is not..... What a thing is... what a thing is not. Its a thought experiment and I do not know what the results will be. Want to play:)

[modest]

Ok, Thunderbird. I'd agree different people might have different ideas about what makes something alive. You could just come out and say that. I'm not a Castaneda character here - please just say what you mean. I've got interest on the topic and respect your obvious knowledge on the subject.

 

Are we getting to the pre-existing principles?

 

-modest