Johnnie Cake Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: One man's mistake is another man's invisible plan. Mistakes are a deviation from an intended purpose- so unless life itself is a mistake, mutations cannot be mistakes. It's really an odd point of view. The other half of the alleged mistake is how the organism interacts with the environment- it either survives or does not. The environment makes the decision if it was a mistake or not. Interesting how Hopkins' statement anthropomorphizes evolution. To make a "mistake" you have to have a purpose in mind which goes against a purpose. So then what is the tacit assumption there of what the purpose of evolution is? It cannot be random then according to that logic. So is life itself a mistake? An interesting view, but I would wonder from who's standpoint it is a mistake. Is this a secret Freudian slip about his own personal life being a mistake?? Yeah it's projecting a lot, but what kind of attitude would it take to see all life as a "mistake"? Not one I would like to have. Pragmatically that is a hopeless position. No thanks. Although DNA usually replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen. ... errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations - nature.com A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a ... or can occur if a mistake is made as DNA copies itself during cell division - National Library of Medicine About 1 out of every 100,000,000 times, a mistake occurs during copying, which can lead to a mutation - Science.howstuffworks.com How are mistakes corrected? Most DNA mutations occur when your cells divide. But your DNA is also under constant attack from other chemicals in your cells -sciencemuseum.org.uk The use of the word mistake...seems appropriate
Kenngo1969 Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 On 10/18/2016 at 8:39 AM, Johnnie Cake said: ... I do find it ironic that a show that is filmed in Utah probably won't be watched by the majority of Utahans due to the mental conditioning of its people. Oh. You were serious, weren't you? Sorry. Carry on! 1
Johnnie Cake Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, cinepro said: I've had similar thoughts about God "using" evolution to "create" the animals and humans on Earth. I mean, obviously he could have done it (since He can do anything), but why would He? We're told that He created everything spiritually before it was created physically, and you can't "evolve" something spiritually, so that means he had to plan out evolution beforehand, and every single step of the process (including dead ends) was created spiritually first. And He knew all along what the end result would be, so it wasn't evolution to adapt, it was evolution to achieve a pre-determined final result. So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends when the end result was known and pre-determined? It would be like trying to make Nestle Toll House chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”? You always amaze me Cinepro...one of the best arguments for why there is no need for a god figure in human development in light of the reality of evolution that I've ever read. (I don't know if that was your objective, but thats what I got out of it) Edited October 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Oh. You were serious, weren't you? Sorry. Carry on! Then you're watching Westworld I take it... cuz if you are not...that kind of proves my point. Edited October 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Although DNA usually replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen. ... errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations - nature.com A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a ... or can occur if a mistake is made as DNA copies itself during cell division - National Library of Medicine About 1 out of every 100,000,000 times, a mistake occurs during copying, which can lead to a mutation - Science.howstuffworks.com How are mistakes corrected? Most DNA mutations occur when your cells divide. But your DNA is also under constant attack from other chemicals in your cells -sciencemuseum.org.uk The use of the word mistake...seems appropriate If you are a sloppy thinker, probably. Who do is responsible for that "mistake"? It's a "mistake" that no one made. That's like saying any act of nature is a mistake. Landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis are mistakes? Who do I sue? I want to get in on that action. How much can we get for a tsunami? Yes mutations happen and are permanent. But they are not "mistakes" any more than a tornado is. Stuff happens 1
Johnnie Cake Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: If you are a sloppy thinker, probably. Who do is responsible for that "mistake"? It's a "mistake" that no one made. That's like saying any act of nature is a mistake. Landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis are mistakes? Who do I sue? I want to get in on that action. How much can we get for a tsunami? Yes mutations happen and are permanent. But they are not "mistakes" any more than a tornado is. Stuff happens You're using the word as a verb...it can also be used as a noun...who's being sloppy?
bcuzbcuz Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Oh gosh Read the d... OP will you please? I did not call them mistakes. Sorry. It's just that when you used the word "mistake", 11 times in your post I was referring to, I thought you were trying to say something about "mistakes"
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 41 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You're using the word as a verb...it can also be used as a noun...who's being sloppy? Oh come on- are you serious? Ok who made the mistake of blowing up Mt St. Hellen's? 1
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 42 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Sorry. It's just that when you used the word "mistake", 11 times in your post I was referring to, I thought you were trying to say something about "mistakes" HUH?
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, cinepro said: I've had similar thoughts about God "using" evolution to "create" the animals and humans on Earth. I mean, obviously he could have done it (since He can do anything), but why would He? We're told that He created everything spiritually before it was created physically, and you can't "evolve" something spiritually, so that means he had to plan out evolution beforehand, and every single step of the process (including dead ends) was created spiritually first. And He knew all along what the end result would be, so it wasn't evolution to adapt, it was evolution to achieve a pre-determined final result. So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends when the end result was known and pre-determined? It would be like trying to make Nestle Toll House chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”? Poor argument It's just the old freewill vs determinism thing. If God knows what I would do , then I cannot do otherwise. Quote And He knew all along what the end result would be, so it wasn't evolution to adapt, it was evolution to achieve a pre-determined final result. Straight determinism. Snore. Some might simply say this was part of the whole creation process since God works with "matter unorganized" For the literalists, we just say that God did "what has been done in other worlds" and replicated the process by which other humans "evolved" on other worlds. Problem solved. I personally think that these are stories to show that we are God's spiritual children- that he is the father of our spirits and the whole argument itself is ridiculous, but for those that want to argue about what is ridiculous to me, who am I to argue? With your argument you could just dial it back to the beginning and ask why God waited BILLIONS of years before getting the "predetermined final result" of a cool earth Or better yet- why make an earth at all if the results were predetermined?? Just assign his kids to where they belong in whatever kingdom he predetermined they would belong! Or better yet- why even make spirit children at all? Let him just float around in the universe forever looking for something to do! Or best- no God at all! I don't think your argument contributes to the discussion. It is one literalist explanation to replace another literalist explanation of "how it really happened" when we have no clue about any of that. It's about as good as a 6000 year history of the earth to me. It's one quasi-scientific explanation after another to explain a God who cannot be judged or perceived scientifically. Edited October 19, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
cinepro Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah and let's just cut to the celestial kingdom and leave genuine choice out of all of it. This is just the tired old determinism argument. Yawn. If God knows how it is going to turn out then we cannot do otherwise. Sigh. You can do better than this. Well, if we're going to say that God used evolution to create our physical bodies, then He obviously started out knowing what the final form would look like (i.e. Him). And for every step of the way, he needed to create each different mutation spiritually first. I'm not sure if that's "determinism", but it is certainly a weird way to use evolution to create something.
cinepro Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah and let's just cut to the celestial kingdom and leave genuine choice out of all of it. This is just the tired old determinism argument. Yawn. If God knows how it is going to turn out then we cannot do otherwise. Sigh. You can do better than this. DP Edited October 19, 2016 by cinepro
Kenngo1969 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) On 10/18/2016 at 8:39 AM, Johnnie Cake said: ... I do find it ironic that a show that is filmed in Utah probably won't be watched by the majority of Utahans due to the mental conditioning of its people. 3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Oh. You were serious, weren't you? Sorry. Carry on! 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Then you're watching Westworld I take it... cuz if you are not...that kind of proves my point. It doesn't prove your point at all, my dear "Johnnie Cake," because your (frankly lazy) reasoning suffers from one or more fatal logical flaws. Roughly, your argument takes the following form: [X]-es believe [Y]. Since [X]-es believe [Y], they will not do [Z]. That argument posits that there is one, and only one, one reason why [X]-es will not do [Z], when, in fact, there is more than one potential reason why [X]-es will not do [Z]: Lack of time, lack of interest, interests which run in other directions, choice-driven lack of the necessary technology, otherwise-limited resources, and so on. Edited October 20, 2016 by Kenngo1969 2
Atheist Mormon Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 6 hours ago, cinepro said: I've had similar thoughts about God "using" evolution to "create" the animals and humans on Earth. I mean, obviously he could have done it (since He can do anything), but why would He? We're told that He created everything spiritually before it was created physically, and you can't "evolve" something spiritually, so that means he had to plan out evolution beforehand, and every single step of the process (including dead ends) was created spiritually first. And He knew all along what the end result would be, so it wasn't evolution to adapt, it was evolution to achieve a pre-determined final result. So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends when the end result was known and pre-determined? It would be like trying to make Nestle Toll House chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”? "one of the best arguments for why there is no need for a god figure in human development in light of the reality of evolution that I've ever read" This was one of the responses I read, reflected my sentiments... .But....I liked MFBukovski's answer much more amusing ....He is calling your response "poor argument" and my OP "totally absurd"....I'm in good company, I'm honored.
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 47 minutes ago, cinepro said: Well, if we're going to say that God used evolution to create our physical bodies, then He obviously started out knowing what the final form would look like (i.e. Him). And for every step of the way, he needed to create each different mutation spiritually first. I'm not sure if that's "determinism", but it is certainly a weird way to use evolution to create something. Yes it is determinism. It is weird to me to think anyone knows how God makes anything. A tiny seed grows into a huge redwood in a few hundred years. Totally inefficient process. The poor tree has no choice to even sit down. Clearly that is a mistake
Calm Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: You're using the word as a verb...it can also be used as a noun...who's being sloppy? Huh? What word are you claiming he is using as a verb? If you mean "mistake", you don't put "that" and "a" (or any other definite or indefinite articles) in front of verbs. http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm Bcuz, he is saying something about the usage of the term "mistakes" in his post, which is to condemn the interchangeable use of the term "mistake" with "mutation" by the OP, Atheist Mormon, and now Johnnie Cake. He is rejecting labeling evolutionary results as "mistakes". My opinion, mutations are merely outcomes and if the organism survives, a generally successful outcome, at least until it dies. Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 It's obvious God had a hand in evolution.
ERayR Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 8 hours ago, Calm said: Why do you assume something spiritual cannot evolve? But as cinepro has pointed out why would he use a slow cumbersome procedure when he had the direct blueprint before him all along. He has done this innumerable times and is very good a it.
Atheist Mormon Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: One man's mistake is another man's invisible plan. Mistakes are a deviation from an intended purpose- so unless life itself is a mistake, mutations cannot be mistakes. It's really an odd point of view. The other half of the alleged mistake is how the organism interacts with the environment- it either survives or does not. The environment makes the decision if it was a mistake or not. Interesting how Hopkins' statement anthropomorphizes evolution. To make a "mistake" you have to have a purpose in mind which goes against a purpose. So then what is the tacit assumption there of what the purpose of evolution is? It cannot be random then according to that logic. So is life itself a mistake? An interesting view, but I would wonder from who's standpoint it is a mistake. Is this a secret Freudian slip about his own personal life being a mistake?? Yeah it's projecting a lot, but what kind of attitude would it take to see all life as a "mistake"? Not one I would like to have. Pragmatically that is a hopeless position. No thanks. mutations cannot be mistakes What are you going to claim next; mutations have brains? Mutations are random choices, no intelligence behind them. Edited October 20, 2016 by Atheist Mormon
Calm Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: mutations cannot be mistakes What are you going to claim next; mutations have brains? Mutations are random choices, no intelligence behind them. Are you guys not reading what he says? Mistakes require an intelligence that errs; if it is random, it cannot be labeled a mistake. 4
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 25 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: mutations cannot be mistakes What are you going to claim next; mutations have brains? Mutations are random choices, no intelligence behind them. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is called for YOU are the one who called them mistakes!!!!!!! Read your own OP Just incredible. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 On 10/17/2016 at 7:52 PM, Atheist Mormon said: Yesterday I was watching "Westworld" on HBO, it ihas an intriguing plot..(going back to Yul Brynner, what a guy he was). Anyway, the story is about an amusement park filled with robots where the visitors can live any adventure they want to...As the story goes the Boss Anthony Hopkins replies to a concerned employee; "Evolution thrives on mistakes" . I never heard a better explanation for Evolution's mechanism, if one cares to look how many proto human experiments Evolution had until we ended with Homo Sapiens. Imagine if you will if we ended with Neanderthal punctuation. It was like the whole time went by perpetuating one mistake after another.....All those mistakes ended with Homo Sapiens (Which I'm very happy about it...It's been a great ride!) And yet I heard all these perfection stories in the Church.......It just made little sense as time went by.... 29 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: mutations cannot be mistakes What are you going to claim next; mutations have brains? Mutations are random choices, no intelligence behind them. You could just look in the mirror and have this argument with yourself- why involve us? 3
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: "one of the best arguments for why there is no need for a god figure in human development in light of the reality of evolution that I've ever read" This was one of the responses I read, reflected my sentiments... .But....I liked MFBukovski's answer much more amusing ....He is calling your response "poor argument" and my OP "totally absurd"....I'm in good company, I'm honored. I don't think cinepro would agree.
Nofear Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 As to the objection by cinepro about evolution be inefficient... that may so but it is a mechanism that has created a bewildering varieties/expressions of life on countless worlds. And each form uniquely adapted to the individual world on which that life thrives. These ''mistake'' lead to variation that I suggest as to be so chaotic that the end is unknowable in details perhaps even to the omniscient. And that is a good thing as it allows for creations that eyes, even perfect eyes, hath not seen. The machinery put into place has given rise to great and successful organisms. Perhaps, even likely, that some of successes were first successful on another world and specisfically brought here. Perhaps some of our evolved forms, having their first appearence here will be brought again to other, future worlds (like cats, dogs will remain a unique artfact of this planet of course). Anyway, while other's see inefficiency I see a strategy to get life successfully thriving on as many planets as possible, intermingled with an occasional flare for for beauty. Evolution was and is still one of the grandish inventions of our exalted species 1
Calm Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You could just look in the mirror and have this argument with yourself- why involve us? I feel like there are two different discussions going on. Very strange. 1
Recommended Posts