Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
I know, but I can't find an appropriate article.
Just grab one at random and post it under the title "God Sucks" or "Evolutionists Eat Babies", that should take care of it.
kudzu = beastly fields
He might at that, Alamo-Girl! Sir Isaac Newton termed it the sensorium Dei.... I find that particularly apt at the level of a quasi-physical description, for it is directly analogous to the idea of the universal Vacuum field. Plato's metaxy, on the other hand, seems to have more of a psychological than a physical resonance. For it refers to a psychic field "in-between" dimensions, in between matter and spirit; and the phenomena that take place "there" seem to result from the coupling of cosmic fields....
The collective consciousness is, i think, just as you describe it, A-G: "...not a person but an overarching 'force' or 'field' in the universe which causes it to become more than the sum of its parts." Perhaps a more detailed picture would show it as the collective of individual consciousnesses, interacting in some way with that "overarching field." It has been suggested e.g., by Sheldrake and Bohm too, as I recall, that this sort of thing is a two-way street. The evolving universe is evolving intelligence also as it goes along, and humans may have some kind of role in this process.
Then again, you can debase the whole idea of the collective consciousness by pointing to its more unsavory kin -- ideologies are a form of collective consciousness, too.
Been working pretty hard the past several days, so am just "coming up for air" here. Am calling it a day, but thought I'd look in here first. I am amazed that such a light-weight piece as Dawkin's has "inspired" a thread of this length....
Dawkins seems to have studied rhetoric with Saul Alinsky. I mean really, just try to analyze one single paragraph of this screed for its logical form. It virtually has none, it's all proselytization and abuse of his "enemies"... and kissy-kissy for his friends, e.g., Lewontin. Arrgghhhhh!!!!!!!
Anyhoot Alamo-Girl, your posts here have been wonderful and informative, as usual. Thank you oh so very much!!!
Ok. Hat, jockstrap, bra, dog, chocolate, ruler and a microwave.
Keeping up Uncle Fester?
No, and that isn't what I said. I said I had to at least see a representation of the manufacturing process in general. BTW, we actually have plenty of verification of this phenomenon because we know how people that are ignorant of the manufacturing process react to said objects (i.e., from historical accounts and from psychological studies). They think that many of the objects are alive or are magical.
What I said was that I recognize technology when I see it and so long as I am able to classify an object as technology I can deduce its origins as manufactured.
This is the only evidence that would convince you of intelligent design? I don't think so. I would like to know what properties of an object lead you to conclude intelligent design was involved with it's existence.
It evidences the attributes of being manufactured - i.e., the application of manual implements.
Are they in the same kind as meercats?
I'm not sure that meercats are mere cats, though.
My problem at the time was that I couldn't figure out exactly what you were addressing. Yes, I left out a kingdom or a million.
Now my only problem is mortality. Can you fix it?
Or power-wedgies
Should I take your word for it, or study the details before responding?
Not me. The first sentence drew me in: "Science feeds on mystery." To the extent Dawkins is willing to posit this, I am willing to grant him a say in science.
LOL! More or less, but don't let Gumlegs come after me with a camera or science will believe not only in fairies, but in fat, balding ones.
If that's their objection, than the "ID" folks, and the "growing number" (read "miniscule handful") of "non-ID investigators" are scientific illiterates when it comes to evolutionary biology, and deserve no respect on the subject.
Needless to say, evolution proceeds by many more stochastic changes than just "a single random mutation". In any given population it does not take long for literally millions of mutations to occur, and furthermore natural selection (and other types of selection) are the "more" in the (overly simplistic) description of the rise of complexity "requiring more than" mutation alone.
And no, the observation that this often occurs by "fits and starts" doesn't invalidate traditional mechanisms either. I often see "fits and starts" in the increase in fitness (and the pace of novel functional innovations) when I'm doing problem-solving by genetic algorithms (which are just another instance of evolution). Evolution will "stumble upon" a quantum improvement every once in a while, followed by a short period of rapid "capitalization" upon the breakthrough, followed by longer periods of relative stasis until the next breakthrough. In short, using nothing but random variation and selection, "punctuated equilibrium" occurs automatically as a result of the interplay of chance processes.
I really wish people would bother to learn more about the evolutionary *basics* -- and what's already known about them -- before they go leaping about insisting that there "must" be additional forces at work because they "know" that Darwinian evolution "can't" account for [fill in the blank], and then go flying off in a unicorn hunt.
Can these folks hope to discover new paradigms if they can't even grasp the old one at a basic level of competency?
Behe, Dembski, Spetner, et al -- and almost all of their ID disciples -- may be conversant in their own fields (although frankly I haven't been too impressed with the level of their work even there), but in all honesty they really don't know squat about evolution, despite their self-appointed roles as the leaders of a "new movement" in evolutionary biology. They keep making elementary mistakes that reveal that they don't even have as good a grasp of basic evolutionary fundamentals as the average grad student in some evolution-related discipline.
Okay. Boil it down a little further. What are the attributes of "being manufactured?"
Evidence of the application of manual implements.
Release the army of killer finches...
Has science observed and documented time vs. number of mutations? If so, what is the size of the sample and the duration of time that the sampling took place? Just say it simply in your own words, please. Just set forth the figures, and I will attempt to do my own research to verify them.
Thank you, and remember, there are only two facts I am asking you to submit for verification:
1.) size of sample WRT the population.
2.) period of time for observation.
And I'm curious. Can all these mutations take place in the amount of time it takes me to chug a brew? I know the answer, but I want to see if yours comes close to mine.
Yes. What constitutes evidence of the application of manual implements? For that matter, what consitutes evidence of the application of intelligent design?
BWHAAHAAHA! Thats priceless.
2) Whether "collective consciousness" is a version of "intelligent design"..
me: That’s a tall order for a reply post and has been addressed already on myriad threads. In a general category, I would call it geometric physics (dimensionality, forms, etc.). More specific to life v. non-life/death in nature: information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence. If you care to specify which area interests you the most, I’ll be glad to gather up information and post it later this evening. I have to be gone this afternoon again.
It can be a wide-ranging conversation and most likely will result in a lot of links and excerpts posted to the thread, so if you do want to discuss it we can move things along better if you narrow in on the subjects of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.