The Black Vault

fortwynt wrote:well i dont intend on debating evolutionary theory with you, as I have expended MUCH time on another board recently doing same.....except to say that I believe it is a little more complex than mutations producing beneficial effects.....people speak of nature as if "she" possesses a type of foreknowledge in many cases as to what should be evolved....especially in the case of species begining (it is suggested) to develop certain mutations many generations, even hundreds or thousands, before there is ever any real use for them "just because"....

In short.. Do you think that mutations are designed?

Now that is a good question.

If I were to say I believed in the popularist concept of macro-evolution (as opposed to limited scale of adaptation and variation within a species, which i can accept) then I would say that the mutations almost scream out that some type of intelligence seems to be at work rather than mere adaptation and natural selection....i would say that it would be hard for me to imagine that it could be otherwise.

However, that being said, there are plenty of things I disagree with in this scenario, namely that mutations do anything, usually, but bring negative consequence to the creature/species....in that specific scenario.

I'm just saying that evolutionists (from my experience anyway) tend to ascribe a certain "intelligence" to nature that religionists do to "God", even when they do not realize they are doing so.

Fort, emotions themselves do not cause changes in the body. The brain creates the emotions AND the directs body changes. The emotions themselves are conscious experiences, and conscious experiences are a by-product of the brain's processing.

I doubt the placebo effect would work on someone sufficiently brain dead, or mentally retarded to the extent that they do not understand what medicine is.

The kind of illness that react best to placebos are "mind illnesses" that did not need treatment to be healed anyway.

The reason that they look intelligent is because they have survived better then others, others who evolved differently that weren't suited to survive in the environment they lived in. So the life that we see looks very cleverly designed in some instances, but as far as we can tell it's still random.

fortwynt wrote:I'm just saying that evolutionists (from my experience anyway) tend to ascribe a certain "intelligence" to nature that religionists do to "God", even when they do not realize they are doing so.

This POV seems to be contradictory. First you say that most mutations are harmful, then you say that there seems to be intelligence to them.

How does that make sense? An intelligence that messes up the majority of the time?

Also, I think you are wrong that evolutionists ascribe intelligence to nature. Dawkins, for example, has written a book called "The Blind Watchmaker", which sums up the common evolutionist viewpoint very well. Blind being the keyword.

Well, perhaps i was confused....I don't think, after thinking on it, that God is some sort of master puppeteer who controls the genetics and development of every single creature in the universe...I think much of life is simple cause and effect, not that God does not observe and perhaps intervene here and there, well, personally i think the reality of God is much more profound, wide-reaching, and complex than believers give God credit for...I think there is no true distinction between God, and God's creation...except to say that there IS a difference between quality and quantity...it is popular for people to say these days "we are our own Gods" or some other such tripe....the truth is, we are equal with God in quality, not quantity...obviously......but anyway mutations are usually destructive not beneficial....could it be that God intends the mutations to be destructive? Not sure it is a matter of "intent", it simply is as it must be....cause and effect.

And again, i disagree, i think emotions exist independently, just as light, waiting for our "prism" (brain) to intercept them and filter them appropriately based on our experiences.

You think that an intelligence that plans a mutation that is destructive, for whatever purpose it intends, is a screw up?

humans do this on a regular basis for a variety of reasons.

fortwynt wrote:You think that an intelligence that plans a mutation that is destructive, for whatever purpose it intends, is a screw up?

humans do this on a regular basis for a variety of reasons.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... #abstract0

read

fortwynt wrote:You think that an intelligence that plans a mutation that is destructive, for whatever purpose it intends, is a screw up?

humans do this on a regular basis for a variety of reasons.

Obviously, what we be the point of creating a retarded creature that dies within moments of birth?

Humans do destructive things as well as good things, but there is, for the most part, a clear method to their madness. Also, humans are not one being, or intelligence, we all have different personalities etc.

If God is controlling mutations he is a nutcase, as they're indistinguishable from randomness.

As for your "brain is just a receiver for outside thoughts" idea, it's one I've heard many times before, and while quite a clever idea, it's clearly false when we take into account the research we have done into the brain.

For the most part, different parts of the brain can be mapped to very specific functions, and interacting with them in certain ways can cause very consistent results. This is consistent with the brain being the cause of thoughts, rather than a receiver of them.

For example, we can actually CAUSE the brain to have certain thoughts. If you compare that to your receiver analogy, a receiver can distort thoughts if we damage it, but it cannot consistently create certain thoughts by manipulation alone.

If we think of your example as a TV, with the brain being the antenna for outside television broadcasts. What you are suggesting, is by tweaking the antenna, we can cause a completely different program to be displayed on the TV out of thin air. This is obviously impossible, the TV would have to have the ability to create that program by itself, without any outside help, and that is what the brain is able to do. That's why it cannot just be a receiver.