0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why do you post an old theory in the new theory section of the forum
If ignorance is bliss, why do we seek the font of all knowledge?
angstYou are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.stevewillie
Quote from: stevewillie on 18/09/2008 20:00:32angstYou are very perceptive. I wrote a book on all of this. Check my biography.stevewillieInteresting. I may well seek it out.....
Darwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species.
QuoteDarwin fooie, Could you ever imagine a dog turning into a goober, a kangaroo turning into a possum, an ape turning into a human, a fly turning into yet another species.That isn't what Darwin said, in the first place. It's certainly not what is thought 150years later - things have moved on a bit since then, you know.Perhaps you can't 'imagine' how evolution works. I find it even harder just to offset the whole process onto someone else's shoulders but can see why it may be more attractive an idea for people who can't handle big numbers or who can't analyse evidence objectively.
I find it odd that mainly scientist speak of gods. It seems that a limited imagination is divided between evolving from one species to another or god.
I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.
Hi all. This is indeed still a very interesting topic, no matter how often the subject is addressed. My question is: When we finally determine that an AI is indeed in our midst, then what? Would it not be expedient and beneficial to already have ethics in place so that the AI is treated with autonomy and humanity? I would enjoy hearing responses, as I am sure there are many opinions out there. 
Quote from: echochartruse on 11/03/2009 03:47:52I forgot to mention that I had read a little about Darwin. I believe he married into the Wedgewood family and that family had a great influence both politically and socially at that time.QuoteI fail to see how that is relevant.Then you dont think politics can influence science? or promote one persons theory ove another?..How society can influence the way we think?...If people are talking about ID then that is all that matters, it really doesn't matter if some science hasn't caught up with the idea.ID may be just another link to discovering something else, who knows.
I fail to see how that is relevant.
didnt Darwin say we evolved from apes? Didn't Darwin say that the Kangaroo decided to climb a tree and became a possum? or was that someone else who said that? Or are we just speaking of adaptation within the same species? If we are speaking of adaptation, then we humans should be catagorised in the ape species or have I got it wrong.
On the other hand maybe there is a link between one species turning into another and intelligent design. After all those 'intelligent engineered stem cells' seem to know exactly what they want to become as if they have a mind of their own. Oh and God, yea he may be the third element but i doubt anything to be just black or white, one or the other, creation or god, that seems to be very limited in imagination. I dont know if you are talking about Jesus, his father or another interpretation of what some think God is.
So let me get this right we all came from one species and that just happened due to the environment that one species was in at the time that caused it to develop differently from the next. Do I have it right? Is that what the theory of evolution is based on?
Much like "intelligent Stems cells"So could you extend the "Theory of Evolution" here please to explain why stem cells develop differently depending on the environment.I chose intelligent stem cells as we can actually see the process in our own time and we dont have to wait millions of yrs.It just helps me understand the other theory.
Stem cells are not intelligent. They have their DNA, which reacts to the environment. Different genes get switched on by different environments. Embryonic stem cells are very special, because they still can become every type of cell needed in a body, they are called totipotent. A nerv cell can only become another nerv cell during mitosis.All this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the change over time in whole groups of animals. Stem cells are parts of a body.
“These are cells which can differentiate into bone,
Why are you so hung up about this word 'Intelligence'?
The only way you can use the word design, I contend, is in a process involving conscious planning.
Embryonic stem cells are very special, because they still can become every type of cell needed in a body, they are called totipotent.
Can you answer who designed the stem cell to know exactly what to do then stop after it has done it? Maybe it has something to do with "INTELLEGENT ADAPTATION". Something that all stem cells are capable of doing given the right environment. Without direction on how to do it, they know when to stop doing it without help from any human or god like designer.
Can you answer who designed the stem cell to know exactly what to do then stop after it has done it?
There's no need for intelligence anywhere here, and stem cells are not intelligent.Intelligent adaptation seems to be an excuse to wedge the word intelligent into what we see around us. How about just adaptation? Why do you feel the need for there to be intelligence involved somewhere?
I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed. Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. They cannot even mention the possibility that—as Newton or Galileo believed—these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. Ben Stein, author, actor, film-maker EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
into what we see around us.
"Nature has created an incredibly elegant and simple way of creating variability, and maintaining it at a steady level, enabling cells to respond to changes in their environment in a systematic, controlled way," adds Chang, first author on the paper.Children's Hospital Bostonhttp://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P1sublevel427.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
They were produced by you and me and other animals. Are you putting the cart before the horse, here?
I don't understand where you want to take all this. Do you want stem cells to be the new God?
Do you want them to surplant the 'selfish gene? They are, surely, just another specialised cell type. In their case, the speciality is that they can take on the characteristics of other cells. What's so magical about that? Every cell contains the information to do that but it, clearly, would not be advantageous for all cells to do so.
It happens to be an advantage for stem cells to exist - so they do.
How is that any more or less 'intelligent' than any other cell doing what it does when in its right place.
Is this some sort of religion with you? What are you actually trying to open all our eyes to? Will you only be happy when we all agree to use the word "intelligent" to describe this small sub set of life?They are just a part of the system!
I have tried to find where Badylak says what you claim he has said. I can't. You are quoting him selectively, I think, and attempting to get on his bandwagon without understanding what his real message is.Give us a link to the full version of the statement you claim he has made to support your argument.
People keep quoting Einstein and Darwin to 'prove' all sorts of loopy ideas. They would turn in their graves if they knew. Poor old Dr. Badylak is getting the same treatment, now.
Really, I didn't think anyone bothered to quote Darwin any longer.
looking for a solution. Because intelligent design is not constrained by the naturalistic axiom, the failure of science to find a plausible solution disproves the initial assumption that life evolved by purely naturalistic means. The time that science has to find a solution is key here. Science has had roughly 150 years (since Darwin) and 50+ years since Miller to find a solution to the mystery of life's origin. Every year that passes with no solution strengthens the design inference.
"stem cells differentiate" ........ but some refuse to accept that this is some sort of planning which requires some sort of intelligents.
All I am saying is if we cant find DNA in reptiles that carry information for wings (birds) then why do some think that a bird evolved from a reptile?
"the reason why they do it"
"where does the info that the DNA carries comes from?"
"It could not be random"
"and if it doesn't "just happen" for no reason - or "just happen" for a reason, you must ask why, how, and a whole lot more questions."
Science assumes that life evolved without the help of a designer, and then sets about describing how this might happen. If it fails to find an adequate description, then the assumption that life evolved without the help of a designer is not disproved. Quotelooking for a solution. Because intelligent design is not constrained by the naturalistic axiom, the failure of science to find a plausible solution disproves the initial assumption that life evolved by purely naturalistic means. The time that science has to find a solution is key here. Science has had roughly 150 years (since Darwin) and 50+ years since Miller to find a solution to the mystery of life's origin. Every year that passes with no solution strengthens the design inference. http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap18/alternatives-to-intelligent-design.php [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]If we give up asking questions, we may never know. One should not just accept things without thinking or asking questions, emotional axiom can contribute to finding solutions.
"where does the info that the DNA carries comes from?" - From evolution.
All I am saying is if we cant find DNA in reptiles that carry information for wings (birds) then why do some think that a bird evolved from a reptile?...If a bird evolved from a reptile then why on earth should a reptile have the genes for wings? That's like asking why a house without a chimney doesn't have a blueprint for a chimney somewhere inside it. Why should it?
"the reason why they do it" - Why does there have to be a reason?
''the Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance'.For that matter, science cannot even disprove the idea of intelligent design. Science is, and only is, an explanation that best fits the data we currently have.''
intelligent design is a framework of logical thinking based on the observable axiom that can be used to analyze scientific data.