Are Natural Systems Smart

[Art2249]

One day science might be able to see what was before the big bang but even then there will be another threshold. And then another. Sooner or later we will come face to face with God.

 

[Art2249]

I just had an insight. My fish, they don't believe in me. They might have for a brief time, like when they were in the net. But the more comfortable they become in their surroundings, the less they remember me. That's ok. I still love them just the same.

 

[ReeferReefer]

I am saying that coral is more than alive. No need to believe me, read the scientific peer reviewed article that I linked.

This scientific paper as well as numerous other scientific papers document that coral can influence both bacteria and algae populations to its benefit. I call that Intelligent. You call it what you want to call it. If you want to believe that “Random or Natural Selection” produced those results, that is your choice. I prefer to think that I was not an accident of “Random Selection”.

I did not evolve from the primeval slime of early earth. I claim a higher power, but that is me.

If citing scientific literature makes you right, I have a stacks of papers for you to check out.

Not a single respected scientist believes the drivel you are spouting. The fossil record is pretty clear.

 

[ReeferReefer]

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.

 

[Prestomagic17*]

Flip a coin a million times and then look back at the pattern. In retrospect it would seem wildly improbable that such an exact sequence would happen by chance. And yet.....

99+% of life on earth has also gone extinct. I expect humans will as well. That argues more for "matter & energy allow random possibilities" rather than "the universe is intelligently designed to achieve a certain outcome".

I also actually think it is dang cool that we evolved from slime. But that is me.

this statement makes no sense. how does flipping a coin a million times =extinction?

 

[Prestomagic17*]

One day science might be able to see what was before the big bang but even then there will be another threshold. And then another. Sooner or later we will come face to face with God.

there was nothing before the bang. so big bangest would find nothing. might as well call yourself a hindu and say you have reached nirvana lol.

 

[Subsea]

Flip a coin a million times and then look back at the pattern. In retrospect it would seem wildly improbable that such an exact sequence would happen by chance. And yet.....

99+% of life on earth has also gone extinct. I expect humans will as well. That argues more for "matter & energy allow random possibilities" rather than "the universe is intelligently designed to achieve a certain outcome".

I also actually think it is dang cool that we evolved from slime. But that is me.

While matter & energy are limiting factors in nature, man builds machinery to offset those considerations.
If mankind goes extinct, it will be man’s doing.

From having been in the hobby since 1971, I have seen advances in technology and many fads fading in & out. I have practiced the Trenton Method for 35 years. The Chinese have practiced the Trenton Method for 2000 years. Nature had had a few billion years to workout the details.

I like the way Walter Adey said it.

As many naturalists and environmentalists have suggested, we should set aside our arrogance,
our desire to conquer and control everything, and walk hand in hand with Mother Nature. -Walter Adey

 

[Subsea]

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.

https://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-vs-evolution-n.htm

Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor [4] who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

 

[Scott Campbell]

this statement makes no sense. how does flipping a coin a million times =extinction?

Three separate and unconnected statements.

One - what appears improbable and even miraculous is often just the result of a long chain of random and ordinary events.

Two - non-stop extinctions seems an odd "design". Unless the higher purpose is to create life simply to extinguish it.

Three - evolving by chance from "slime" seems no less amazing than being "designed" by some all-powerful being.

 

[ReeferReefer]

https://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-vs-evolution-n.htm

Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor [4] who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

Sorry but that's straight up false. The mechanisms of evolution are well studied and published on.

What is this mysterious lack of mechanism that you are talking about. I have published on evolution of fossil species so I'm very curious to see what your talking about. Paleontology and evolutionary biology have made huge strides over the last decade.

The entire scientific community stands against you. You can spout nonsense on the internet all you want but it won't make you right.

Intelligent designs takes a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it. Science takes evidence and makes a conclusion based on it.

 

[Subsea]

Sorry but that's straight up false. The mechanisms of evolution are well studied and published on.

What is this mysterious lack of mechanism that you are talking about. I have published on evolution of fossil species so I'm very curious to see what your talking about. Paleontology and evolutionary biology have made huge strides over the last decade.

The entire scientific community stands against you. You can spout nonsense on the internet all you want but it won't make you right.

Intelligent designs takes a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it. Science takes evidence and makes a conclusion based on it.

You have made the “theory of evolution” your religion. You need more faith to believe random selection as the origin of the species than I to believe Intelligent Design.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[Todvod]

Considering the complexity of the coral holobiont, the human body and the Boson particle, I say random evolution did not make this perfection. If you are more comfortable with a “higher power” than “Intelligent Design” latch on to it. For certain, it is simplistic to say, that because there was 5 billion years, random selection evolution could work it out. I for one, say “I did not come from primeval slime”. I choose to claim a Creator.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/


See what scientist say:

Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Yes Subsea! I choose to claim a Creator too!

 

[Todvod]

I just had an insight. My fish, they don't believe in me. They might have for a brief time, like when they were in the net. But the more comfortable they become in their surroundings, the less they remember me. That's ok. I still love them just the same.

Thaaaaaatttt!.....is a cool thought!

 

[Prestomagic17*]

Sorry but that's straight up false. The mechanisms of evolution are well studied and published on.

What is this mysterious lack of mechanism that you are talking about. I have published on evolution of fossil species so I'm very curious to see what your talking about. Paleontology and evolutionary biology have made huge strides over the last decade.

The entire scientific community stands against you. You can spout nonsense on the internet all you want but it won't make you right.

Intelligent designs takes a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it. Science takes evidence and makes a conclusion based on it.

"The only barrier to truth is the assumption that you already have it." -Chuck Missler

 

[Todvod]

If citing scientific literature makes you right, I have a stacks of papers for you to check out.

Not a single respected scientist believes the drivel you are spouting. The fossil record is pretty clear.

“Not a single respected scientist.” Really?
Here’s 50: https://g.co/kgs/f69Qgx

 

[Todvod]

Sorry but that's straight up false. The mechanisms of evolution are well studied and published on.

What is this mysterious lack of mechanism that you are talking about. I have published on evolution of fossil species so I'm very curious to see what your talking about. Paleontology and evolutionary biology have made huge strides over the last decade.

The entire scientific community stands against you. You can spout nonsense on the internet all you want but it won't make you right.

Intelligent designs takes a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it. Science takes evidence and makes a conclusion based on it.

Wrong. Science doesn’t make ANY conclusions. Scientists do. And their prejudice to exclude god is not an honest look at the facts.

 

[biophilia]

That organisms are able to manipulate their environment (and even in some instances "create" the very conditions that are necessary for their survival) is super interesting, but is not in itself evidence of something outside of those systems creating them. It's just earth systems theory or systems ecology...

Other cool manipulations of the surrounding environment by marine organisms:

There is some recent evidence (Soetart et al. 2016) that cold-water coral mounds deep below the surface can interact with tidal forces to preferentially draw down food from surface waters (e.g. downwelling) to keep themselves fed. In other words, the corals themselves create the environmental conditions that allows them to survive.

Some marine phytoplankton ( like coccolithophores) bloom exponentially under conditions of increasing solar irradiance which in turn causes them to produce large amounts of dimethyl sulfide gas -- which enters the atmosphere where it serves as a cloud condensation nucleii. This process can form rain clouds which in turn helps block the solar irradiance that initiated the bloom to begin with. This process is also believed to be behind a significant portion of moisture that is brought to the various continents as well.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

Let’s move this to lounge #mods
Will you please be more clear? To me, this is a bunch of words on a screen, nothing anyone can make sense of. Mabye in your own words, will you restate what you just put down?

Speak for yourself, you need to go to charm school. Hate to offend you. But I did.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

That's the problem today ,when there's no creator involved, there's no accountability , plain and simple .

 

[Subsea]

That organisms are able to manipulate their environment (and even in some instances "create" the very conditions that are necessary for their survival) is super interesting, but is itself not evidence of something outside of those systems creating them. It's just earth systems theory or systems ecology...

Other cool manipulations of the surrounding environment by marine organisms:

There is some recent evidence (Soetart et al. 2016) that cold-water coral mounds deep below the surface can interact with tidal forces to preferentially draw down food from surface waters (e.g. downwelling) to keep themselves fed. In other words, the corals themselves create the environmental conditions that allows them to survive.

Some marine phytoplankton ( like coccolithophores) bloom exponentially under conditions of increasing solar irradiance which in turn causes them to produce large amounts of dimethyl sulfide gas -- which enters the atmosphere where it serves as a cloud condensation nucleii. This process can form rain clouds which in turn helps block the solar irradiance that initiated the bloom to begin with. This process is also believed to be behind a significant portion of moisture that is brought to the various continents as well.

I enjoyed reading your writing style on this subject. However, “It’s just earth systems theory or systems ecology ....” shrugs off the complexity of the Corol Holobiont. You addressed the heart of the discussion with three dots and just.

I