Dark Jaguar
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,666
I have in the past debated an odd person who seems on the surface to reject all religious establishments. However, it seems this person also is obsessed with odd ideas without basis in reality.
For example, he has no reason to believe in god (or more accurately, thinks there is one but that it doesn't care about us at all and had no real part in our creation). He does however find it impossible to believe in evolution without invoking intelligence. His version is a little different than what you may have heard though. He believes that it is the cells themselves which intelligently evolve. That is, they actually recombine and alter DNA themselves as a concious decision when they feel threatened. Further, they actually know what sort of end goal would be able to solve the problem. So, blind cells will purposefully evolve to see if they are dying because of the lack of sight.
It is odd, because he actually believes this is what current scientific understanding says. I find this is a bit of a common occurance. Many "woo" types actually think their view is supported by the scientific community at large.
Well, this started as a debate on whether or not cells at that level actually had conciousness. I basically took the position that "well, there is no reason to assign them conciousness when chemical reaction seems to explain their behavior more than well enough". From there his argument was "how do you think we evolve?" and I, not knowing what that had to do with anything, asked "what does that have to do with anything?".
And that's how it all started. As it stands now, this person is arguing that cells have to WANT to survive to survive. I point out that's a bit of a stretch. It's enough to say they survive simply because they are capable of it. It is somewhat a chance thing. Those with DNA that can survive do just that. He asks why it is then that so many creatures are survivors and not otherwise. I point out that many don't survive, but those that die, die, and aren't around to pass on their detrimental genes any more. The reason all you see is things that can live is because those are the only things that can live.
He goes on to a very typical ID argument. How can a mutation ever be beneficial? I point out that most don't really have any benefit or detriment. Some are beneficial and some are detrimental, and that usually depends on the circumstances. He goes on about birth defects and cancer showing that mutations are only harmful. He says if beneficial ones could happen, we should have a million different kinds of people. That strikes me as off. There are a million different kinds of species, and from there they have gone on various branches. There ya go. But, he says humans themselves need to have branched so it looks like, I dunno, a scene from Star Trek? Why? That's not what evolution says. How would that be beneficial? We'd be too different to mate if it splintered like that at that rate of speed.
Any ideas from here? Feel free to tear me a new one or ask more questions if I haven't been specific enough. Or, ignore it if you've seen this stuff far too often before, whatever.
For example, he has no reason to believe in god (or more accurately, thinks there is one but that it doesn't care about us at all and had no real part in our creation). He does however find it impossible to believe in evolution without invoking intelligence. His version is a little different than what you may have heard though. He believes that it is the cells themselves which intelligently evolve. That is, they actually recombine and alter DNA themselves as a concious decision when they feel threatened. Further, they actually know what sort of end goal would be able to solve the problem. So, blind cells will purposefully evolve to see if they are dying because of the lack of sight.
It is odd, because he actually believes this is what current scientific understanding says. I find this is a bit of a common occurance. Many "woo" types actually think their view is supported by the scientific community at large.
Well, this started as a debate on whether or not cells at that level actually had conciousness. I basically took the position that "well, there is no reason to assign them conciousness when chemical reaction seems to explain their behavior more than well enough". From there his argument was "how do you think we evolve?" and I, not knowing what that had to do with anything, asked "what does that have to do with anything?".
And that's how it all started. As it stands now, this person is arguing that cells have to WANT to survive to survive. I point out that's a bit of a stretch. It's enough to say they survive simply because they are capable of it. It is somewhat a chance thing. Those with DNA that can survive do just that. He asks why it is then that so many creatures are survivors and not otherwise. I point out that many don't survive, but those that die, die, and aren't around to pass on their detrimental genes any more. The reason all you see is things that can live is because those are the only things that can live.
He goes on to a very typical ID argument. How can a mutation ever be beneficial? I point out that most don't really have any benefit or detriment. Some are beneficial and some are detrimental, and that usually depends on the circumstances. He goes on about birth defects and cancer showing that mutations are only harmful. He says if beneficial ones could happen, we should have a million different kinds of people. That strikes me as off. There are a million different kinds of species, and from there they have gone on various branches. There ya go. But, he says humans themselves need to have branched so it looks like, I dunno, a scene from Star Trek? Why? That's not what evolution says. How would that be beneficial? We'd be too different to mate if it splintered like that at that rate of speed.
Any ideas from here? Feel free to tear me a new one or ask more questions if I haven't been specific enough. Or, ignore it if you've seen this stuff far too often before, whatever.
