Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Well.. an intelligent force didn't guide evolution. Or we'd have some evidence of it. Not the result of randomly combining things in a godawful mess of complexity... which we have now. There's as much stupid design in our bodies as clever design. More. There's so much in our bodies that's just plain dumb.

    Unless you are claiming that God is an idiot. But that rules out the "intelligent" part of intelligent design.....
    Intelligent doesn't have to mean infinitely perfect.... that also fits my "A God without compelling evidence?" theory....

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...lling-evidence

    After all I believe most of the Bible isn't true and it involves immoral stories, etc. So that is consistent with problematic "design".

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,228
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,974
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Well.. an intelligent force didn't guide evolution. Or we'd have some evidence of it. Not the result of randomly combining things in a godawful mess of complexity... which we have now. There's as much stupid design in our bodies as clever design. More. There's so much in our bodies that's just plain dumb.

    Unless you are claiming that God is an idiot. But that rules out the "intelligent" part of intelligent design.....
    Intelligent doesn't have to mean infinitely perfect.... that also fits my "A God without compelling evidence?" theory....

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...lling-evidence

    After all I believe most of the Bible isn't true and it involves immoral stories, etc. So that is consistent with problematic "design".
    But why would you posit a designer at all? If we hypothetically would invent a blind mechanic that just randomly combines things in a nature where the life viability acts as a selector of what variation is maintained then this is what we would get. Today we have powerful enough computers to simulate it. We can verify the theory. Our bodies really look like they're jury rigged, stuff made up on the fly, that stays around on the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" principle. No designer in their right mind would design anything as complicated and sensitive to change as any life we have on Earth. We have even used the blind evolutionary mechanic as a tool for industrial design. It's an excellent tool to create viable great designs. Introducing a designer (intelligent or otherwise) is an unncessary extra step. So why bother?

    Add to that all the evidence. Aka the "bush of life" rather than "tree of life". ToE dictates that it should be a horrendous mess. And that's what we've got.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Intelligent doesn't have to mean infinitely perfect.... that also fits my "A God without compelling evidence?" theory....

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...lling-evidence

    After all I believe most of the Bible isn't true and it involves immoral stories, etc. So that is consistent with problematic "design".
    But why would you posit a designer at all?
    I think we're in a simulation that didn't involve billions of years of real history. Part of the reason is that I am a fan of Elon Musk's "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes" and so they need to cut corners in order to simulate universes. So there could be many vague designs that are put into a virtual evolutionary history of the world rather than evolution being blind.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,228
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,974
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Intelligent doesn't have to mean infinitely perfect.... that also fits my "A God without compelling evidence?" theory....

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...lling-evidence

    After all I believe most of the Bible isn't true and it involves immoral stories, etc. So that is consistent with problematic "design".
    But why would you posit a designer at all?
    I think we're in a simulation that didn't involve billions of years of real history. Part of the reason is that I am a fan of Elon Musk's "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes" and so they need to cut corners in order to simulate universes. So there could be many vague designs that are put into a virtual evolutionary history of the world rather than evolution being blind.
    That doesn't solve your problem. A simulation of this world would still have the same mechanics of this world, ie evolution without the need of a designer. Your theory doesn't fix your argument.

    It's the age old, who created the creator argument.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    That doesn't solve your problem. A simulation of this world would still have the same mechanics of this world, ie evolution without the need of a designer.
    Though in simulations it is possible for the intelligent forces behind the simulation to nudge things...

    Or communicate with people while seeming to not exist:
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post867388

    Your theory doesn't fix your argument.

    It's the age old, who created the creator argument.
    I suspect the outer universe (or the one outside of that) has an evolutionary tree that is more boring....

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,228
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,974
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    That doesn't solve your problem. A simulation of this world would still have the same mechanics of this world, ie evolution without the need of a designer.
    Though in simulations it is possible for the intelligent forces behind the simulation to nudge things...

    Or communicate with people while seeming to not exist:
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post867388
    Sure. But God isn't nudging things and isn't talking to people. The available science seems pretty clear on this.

    I maintain that your problem with ToE is simply a lack of understanding of the theory. We have more evidence for evolution than we have for gravity being real. It's an extremely well supported theory. There's no need to insert God anywhere.

    The only still existing major mystery is how prokaryotic and archea cells fused to create eukaryotic cells. But creationists never use this as an evidence for God's involvement. The reason is pretty obvious. It requires a firm understanding of ToE to know why this is still a mystery for science.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    ....Sure. But God isn't nudging things and isn't talking to people. The available science seems pretty clear on this.....
    Just wondering, do you think that it would one day be possible to make a computer simulation that seems "real"?

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    ....Sure. But God isn't nudging things and isn't talking to people. The available science seems pretty clear on this.....
    Just wondering, do you think that it would one day be possible to make a computer simulation that seems "real"?
    That already exists. It is impossible to tell that some of the things we see in movies is CGI or images of something real. The same for images in photographs that have been photoshopped.

    Are you asking if a CGI character in a movie will ever think or even believe it is alive? This is moving into the area of fantasy.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    .....Are you asking if a CGI character in a movie will ever think or even believe it is alive? This is moving into the area of fantasy.
    I'm asking about having consciousnesses that are hooked up to computer simulations involving things like machine learning and "level of detail". (I don't think every atom needs to be constantly simulated)

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    .....Are you asking if a CGI character in a movie will ever think or even believe it is alive? This is moving into the area of fantasy.
    I'm asking about having consciousnesses that are hooked up to computer simulations involving things like machine learning and "level of detail". (I don't think every atom needs to be constantly simulated)
    Ahh, so you mean the "brain in a jar" problem where a real functional brain is artificially fed sensory information, not that the "consciousness" is only a computer algorithm that "thinks" it is alive. I suppose that could be a possibility but the 'brain' would (or should) still remember that it has been hooked up to the data input and that there is a real world.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •