Creation vs. Evolution

[Dotini]

My own hunch on the issue of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe is that yes there probably has been, and yes there probably will be but the chances are there are none right now other than ourselves.

Yes the Universe is vast with near countless galaxies, solar systems and planets. It is also long lived - VERY. The human race will likely only exist for a mere blip on Universe timescales and our period as scientific species a mere fraction of that. A thousand different intelligent species could come and go and yet never exist at the same time.

When we bring size back into the equation then we add in the unlikelihood that any of these rare species will ever exist in our time frame AND be discoverable.

Perhaps it is not a rigorous requirement that intelligent species or phenomena exist at the same time for interaction to occur?

Artificial intelligence, manipulation of space-time, and precognitive sentient phenomena (PSP) have been under study for quite some time.

https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/183-Milburn-study-final.pdf
https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2012/04/precognitive-sentient-phenomena.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

EDIT: I think this is my 20,000th post. Thank you GTP

Perhaps it is not a rigorous requirement that intelligent species or phenomena exist at the same time for interaction to occur?

Artificial intelligence

Has to be classified as a species, hugely problematic from a human perspective, perhaps less so for more advanced life elsewhere in the universe. However, for the purposes of interaction they must be performing positive actions with us (and vice versa) in real time, not in any archaeological or passive one-sided sense. So AI isn't the answer to your opening sentence.

manipulation of space-time

Which makes the interacting agents exist in the same time, so not an answer to your opening sentence.

precognitive sentient phenomena (PSP)

That took me through a real internet cesspit but as far as I can tell the theory is that there are alien manipulations or action ongoing on Earth, or that there are psychic/psychokinetic actions afoot. I don't see any suggestion that these are dislocated in time from the time where we "see" them occurring, and given the nature of the theory I'm not sure there's much evidence either.

 

[Dotini]

Has to be classified as a species, hugely problematic from a human perspective, perhaps less so for more advanced life elsewhere in the universe. However, for the purposes of interaction they must be performing positive actions with us (and vice versa) in real time, not in any archaeological or passive one-sided sense. So AI isn't the answer to your opening sentence.



Which makes the interacting agents exist in the same time, so not an answer to your opening sentence.



That took me through a real internet cesspit but as far as I can tell the theory is that there are alien manipulations or action ongoing on Earth, or that there are psychic/psychokinetic actions afoot. I don't see any suggestion that these are dislocated in time from the time where we "see" them occurring, and given the nature of the theory I'm not sure there's much evidence either.

How did the tic-tac know Fravor's cap point?

 

[TenEightyOne]

How did the tic-tac know Fravor's cap point?

Do you have evidence that it a) was capable of knowledge or b) that it had such specific knowledge? That's also presuming this isn't an artefact of the viewing systems.

How is your question an answer to my post?

 

[Dotini]

Do you have evidence that it a) was capable of knowledge or b) that it had such specific knowledge? That's also presuming this isn't an artefact of the viewing systems.

How is your question an answer to my post?

That the tic-tac arrived at Fravor's cap point before Fravor even got started is part of the evidentiary record as reported by the New York Times, officials aboard the USS Princeton and Commander Fravor himself in numerous interviews. You were supposed to have familiarized yourself with the evidence, but I guess you didn't. Additionally, the tic-tac was observed by the Princeton to transit from stationary at 80,000 feet to stationary just above the water in under 2 seconds. Fravor himself visually observed the tic-tac accelerating from close visual range to beyond the horizon in a similar manner. This is strongly suggestive of AI operating the tic-tac, manipulation of space-time, or both.

The question is whether or not we can interact with intelligences from distant places and times. Technologically, the answer could be that it is quite possible.

Over historical time, humans are occasionally confronted with phenomena beyond current understanding. How we deal with it will differ between cultures and individuals.

 

[wfooshee]

Skewing a bit, aren't we? How is the existence or non- of other intelligent life related to creation vs. evolution?

 

[PeterJB]

Skewing a bit, aren't we? How is the existence or non- of other intelligent life related to creation vs. evolution?

Not really. If you believe God created/designed all life on Earth Himself, that would probably apply to aliens as well.

 

[Dotini]

Skewing a bit, aren't we? How is the existence or non- of other intelligent life related to creation vs. evolution?

In a recent post it was stated in an Oxford University science paper that evolution of life on Earth was statistically very unlikely, but yet obviously it has happened anyway.

Intelligent Life Really Can't Exist Anywhere Else
NOVEMBER 24, 2020

• Cosmic statisticians say the likelihood of life evolving on Earth is even less than we thought.
  
• Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
• The scientists say this research is designed give future researchers a foundation.

In newly published research from Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, scientists study the likelihood of key times for evolution of life on Earth and conclude that it would be virtually impossible for that life to evolve the same way somewhere else.

Life has come a very long way in a very short time on Earth, relatively speaking—and scientists say that represents even more improbable luck for intelligent life that is rare to begin with.

For decades, scientists and even philosophers have chased many explanations for the Fermi paradox. How, in an infinitely big universe, can we be the only intelligent life we’ve ever encountered? Even on Earth itself, they wonder, how are we the only species that ever has evolved advanced intelligence?

AstrobiologyAhead of Print
Research ArticleOpen AccessOpen Access license
The Timing of Evolutionary Transitions Suggests Intelligent Life Is Rare
Published Online:19 Nov 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2019.2149

Abstract
It is unknown how abundant extraterrestrial life is, or whether such life might be complex or intelligent. On Earth, the emergence of complex intelligent life required a preceding series of evolutionary transitions such as abiogenesis, eukaryogenesis, and the evolution of sexual reproduction, multicellularity, and intelligence itself. Some of these transitions could have been extraordinarily improbable, even in conducive environments. The emergence of intelligent life late in Earth's lifetime is thought to be evidence for a handful of rare evolutionary transitions, but the timing of other evolutionary transitions in the fossil record is yet to be analyzed in a similar framework. Using a simplified Bayesian model that combines uninformative priors and the timing of evolutionary transitions, we demonstrate that expected evolutionary transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth, perhaps by many orders of magnitude. Our results corroborate the original argument suggested by Brandon Carter that intelligent life in the Universe is exceptionally rare, assuming that intelligent life elsewhere requires analogous evolutionary transitions. Arriving at the opposite conclusion would require exceptionally conservative priors, evidence for much earlier transitions, multiple instances of transitions, or an alternative model that can explain why evolutionary transitions took hundreds of millions of years without appealing to rare chance events. Although the model is simple, it provides an initial basis for evaluating how varying biological assumptions and fossil record data impact the probability of evolving intelligent life, and also provides a number of testable predictions, such as that some biological paradoxes will remain unresolved and that planets orbiting M dwarf stars are uninhabitable.


https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149

We can reasonably suggest that the Oxford science is flat wrong. Or we could hedge and say that life had an evolutionary head start elsewhere and was transported to Earth, perhaps according to the panspermia hypothesis. Cutting edge theoretical physics is considering the possibility of warping space-time, perhaps opening the possibility of contact/interactions with other planetary systems. The US Navy has patents for such devices, but no working example is known of. Life beyond Earth has never been demonstrated, though many believe that it does exist in the vastness of the universe, or once could have done. I personally do not believe intelligent life exists beyond Earth, and I do not accept the Biblical story of creation. Yet my worldview is not strictly materialist. Some cultures and some individuals have a place for religious, spiritual and other unexplained phenomena of consciousness. Most of us in the West are content with scientific materialism, and deny the existence of unexplained phenomena on the grounds that it simply cannot exist. Unfortunately, some who have actually experienced unexplained phenomena do not have the luxury of denying its existence. This would include the US Navy which has been forced to encounter, confront, deal with, and recently admit and study such phenomena. I have no answers. But I think questions about creation, evolution and other intelligences somewhere (or even everywhere, i.e., universal consciousness) are worth asking and discussing.

 

[Famine]

In a recent post it was stated in an Oxford University science paper that evolution of life on Earth was statistically very unlikely, but yet obviously it has happened anyway.

That being the nature of large numbers, yes.

We can reasonably suggest that the Oxford science is flat wrong.

Why?

 

[Dotini]

Why?

After my initial posting of the Oxford paper, it was greeted with skepticism in the responding posts of several forum members. In turn, those skeptical posts received a number of likes, indicating that several other forum members were also skeptical of the paper. There seemed to be little to no acceptance of the paper as correct by any member that I can recall. In light of this general response of skepticism, and that the paper still seems to be under review, my post that it seems reasonable to think the paper is incorrect was intended as a gesture of acceptance of the prevailing opinion of the forum as reasonable. My own personal view of the paper is that although it seems somewhat astonishing, counterintuitive and potentially controversial, it indeed may be correct, pending review, acceptance and publication.

 

[Famine]

After my initial posting of the Oxford paper, it was greeted with skepticism in the responding posts of several forum members. In turn, those skeptical posts received a number of likes, indicating that several other forum members were also skeptical of the paper. There seemed to be little to no acceptance of the paper as correct by any member that I can recall. In light of this general response of skepticism, and that the paper still seems to be under review, my post that it seems reasonable to think the paper is incorrect was intended as a gesture of acceptance of the prevailing opinion of the forum as reasonable. My own personal view of the paper is that although it seems somewhat astonishing, counterintuitive and potentially controversial, it indeed may be correct, pending review, acceptance and publication.

This dodges the question.

Why can you "reasonably suggest that the Oxford science is flat wrong"? What is the reasoning you are using to do this?

Some people don't like it and some people like that some people don't like it isn't reasoning, it's popularity.

 

[Dotini]

Why can you We "reasonably suggest that the Oxford science is flat wrong"?

Fixed that for you.

Please note that I said "We", meaning we the forum. It was intended as a conciliatory gesture. It was not intended to convey that I personally thought the paper was wrong. I would not have posted the paper if I thought it was flat wrong. If that is the message you got, then I apologize for my ham-fisted use of the English language. Frankly, I like the paper as far as I can understand it, which is not very far past the abstract. So I am in no position to insist it is correct or to defend the paper in any way. I continue to think it is worth consideration and discussion.

The very fact that life evolved anyway despite the suggestion it is extremely unlikely itself indicates there is something incomplete with the paper.

We can reasonably suggest that the Oxford science is flat wrong.

 

[Famine]

Please note that I said "We", meaning we the forum.

The forum is not a gestalt entity, nor a single, Borg-like collective consciousness, and you do not get to speak on its behalf, only your own.

Which takes us right back to the initial question...

 

[Dotini]

The forum is not a gestalt entity, nor a single, Borg-like collective consciousness, and you do not get to speak on its behalf, only your own.

Which takes us right back to the initial question...

Quite honestly, I have plumbed the depths of my thinking on this matter, and can find nothing further. Deep down inside, I am actually quite shallow.

 

[wfooshee]

In a recent post it was stated in an Oxford University science paper that evolution of life on Earth was statistically very unlikely, but yet obviously it has happened anyway.

That wasn't what I asked. I didn't ask what it had to do with Evolution, I asked what the entire discussion following it, i.e. other intelligent life elsewhere, has to do with Creation vs. Evolution. Nothing about it defends the science in Evolution against the belief in Creationism, or vice-versa, it simply states, irrelevantly (as you yourself pointed out,) that evolution is remarkably unlikely.

My take on that: So what?

 

[TenEightyOne]

That the tic-tac arrived at Fravor's cap point before Fravor even got started is part of the evidentiary record as reported by the New York Times, officials aboard the USS Princeton and Commander Fravor himself in numerous interviews. You were supposed to have familiarized yourself with the evidence, but I guess you didn't.

Yesterday I walked to a nearby wood where I saw a deer, and the deer saw me. The deer darted from the centre of a clearing into low trees where it continued to watch me. It was there before I arrived. How did it know? HOW DID IT KNOW?

If I told the same story about a stone rolling past me on scree then the analogy would have the added benefit of not involving anything sentient (apart from me, on good days).

If you look at the proof you have evidence of an artefact on a digital imaging system. No evidence of origin, sentience, intent, or even physicality.

 

[Dotini]

That wasn't what I asked. I didn't ask what it had to do with Evolution, I asked what the entire discussion following it, i.e. other intelligent life elsewhere, has to do with Creation vs. Evolution. Nothing about it defends the science in Evolution against the belief in Creationism, or vice-versa, it simply states, irrelevantly (as you yourself pointed out,) that evolution is remarkably unlikely.

My take on that: So what?

In the West, the question of Creation vs Evolution was long ago resolved in favor of the latter. But if we want to have a literate discussion anyway, the challenge is to thread a path between the whirlpool of a reductionist materialism as well as the stumbling block of biblical literalism. Occasionally a problematic or anomalous question arises from an unlikely source, Oxford or the US. Navy. But if this forum does not want to sustain the question, I can certainly understand why. What you hear is the sound of one hand clapping.

 

[wfooshee]

In the West, the question of Creation vs Evolution was long ago resolved in favor of the latter. But if we want to have a literate discussion anyway, the challenge is to thread a path between the whirlpool of a reductionist materialism as well as the stumbling block of biblical literalism. Occasionally a problematic or anomalous question arises from an unlikely source, Oxford or the US. Navy. But if this forum does not want to sustain the question, I can certainly understand why. What you hear is the sound of one hand clapping.

But this thread isn't about Evolution specifically, and different aspects of Evolution. The science behind Evolution enters as to how it compares to the faith of Creationism. It's hopefully a place to see and refute the arguments of "the faithful" who believe the Creation story to be literal fact just because it's in Genesis, and even more hopefully, teach them something about how science works. They need to understand that Evolution is not "just a theory, it's a Theory, the highest development of an idea that science has, and the data is observable and falsifiable, not base on speculation, guesswork, and belief.

I submit that a sensationalist article speculating about the probability of Evolution even occurring at all is a bit more than off-topic here, but I'm certainly not one that makes rulings on that.

 

[Dotini]

But this thread isn't about Evolution specifically, and different aspects of Evolution. The science behind Evolution enters as to how it compares to the faith of Creationism. It's hopefully a place to see and refute the arguments of "the faithful" who believe the Creation story to be literal fact just because it's in Genesis, and even more hopefully, teach them something about how science works. They need to understand that Evolution is not "just a theory, it's a Theory, the highest development of an idea that science has, and the data is observable and falsifiable, not base on speculation, guesswork, and belief.

I submit that a sensationalist article speculating about the probability of Evolution even occurring at all is a bit more than off-topic here, but I'm certainly not one that makes rulings on that.

If I understand you correctly, the Oxford science paper on evolution is off topic in this, the Creation vs Evolution thread, that this thread has nothing to do with evolution or specific aspects of evolution, and rather it should be specifically and only a place to see, demolish and convert the opinions of believers into acceptance with evolutionary science. Hmmm. Well, you certainly appear to be right, judging by the popularity of the posts I've seen here over the past ten years or so. My own path has been to reconcile the two concepts, thinking that the world has room enough for both. But it has met with no success. Foolish me. I should know when to quit.

Just for reference, I quote the OP of this thread.

Its a big deal now for the folks who are upset about the seperation of church and state , to now try to introduce creation into schools by saying that a " benevolent force ' created the universe . What do you think about creation ? Is it a valid enough premise to be taught in school ?

 

[wfooshee]

I'm not sure how the concepts could even be reconciled. (And BTW, that absolutely is on-topic in here! )

Addressing that particular question you quoted, Creation should absolutely not be taught in schools as a valid mechanism of the origins of the Universe. I have no problem with teaching it as a religious belief, making it clear the entire time that it's from religion: "This is what some people have believed for a very long time, before we understood the science well enough to know what's actually happening." It could even be thought of as an allegorical reference to what we understand of Creation and Evolution, i.e. Let there be light = the Big Bang. It breaks down in sequence pretty quickly after that, though, doesn't it? After all, separating the day from the night can't happen until the world exists, which was the third day, and then stars on the fourth, so even allegorically, the Genesis account fails pretty badly.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure how the concepts could even be reconciled. (And BTW, that absolutely is on-topic in here! )

Now you've got me really confused. If the purpose of the thread is to destroy religious belief and convert believers into scientists, it seems reconciliation is at cross-purposes.

 

[wfooshee]

I don't think the purpose of the thread is to destroy anything, other than the belief that belief=science.

As for reconciliation is at cross-purposes, well, it has to be, doesn't it? The difference is Creationists are "This is how it is because Genesis SAYS so, and it is heresy to say otherwise," while the physical, observable, falsifiable evidence says otherwise. Belief without evidence, just because you were brought up with that belief, vs knowledge based on the facts that everyone can see and understand.

Reconciliation? No way... Creationism has no basis in observable reality.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure how the concepts could even be reconciled. (And BTW, that absolutely is on-topic in here! )

I have found a couple of early posts, one from the OP and one from a staff emeritus, which address the issue of reconciliation. Both of these sources appear to bypass the biblical story of Genesis, which is fine by me.

I dont know why the creationist just dont put forth the theory that EVOLUTION was created by God along with everything else and be done with the argument ! like god threw a bomb it made a big bang and things went on and developed out of the mix just like ' O'l God dude planed it ..except for France of course that was a boo boo but hey no Gods perfect .

I believe I have stated this theory, or idea, several times before. Like I said, I believe that evolution is evidence of God's creation. :-)

Happy late Easter, btw.

 

[wfooshee]

But going without Genesis is not fine by Creationists. That's where I was going with the Creation story of Genesis as allegorical rather than literal, but even there, it breaks down about Day 2.

It seems to be difficult for fanatics, I mean, strong believers, to accept that the Creation story was written by folks with little more comprehension of the Universe than your basic cave man. "NO! It was written by GOD, and is infallible!!!" There is no reconciliation with those people, only the remote possibility of education.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have found a couple of early posts, one from the OP and one from a staff emeritus, which address the issue of reconciliation. Both of these sources appear to bypass the biblical story of Genesis, which is fine by me.

There isn't a one-size-fits-all creationism, there are shades of allegory in between. It's hard to pick out the sense in some of those shades but they're there nonetheless.

 

[Dotini]

Agreed.

 

[Joey D]

I still sort of follow news about human evolution finds and research. I saw this today come through my Google News feed:

Just 7% of our DNA is unique to modern humans, study shows

A study published Friday in the journal Science Advances shows that just a sliver of our genome is uniquely shared with other humans, and not shared by other extinct groups like Neanderthals and Denisovans.

apnews.com

And it links out to this study:

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

I think it certainly helps strengthen the idea of human evolution, especially since we share so much DNA with our extinct ancestors.

 

[TexRex]

Herschel Walker Skeptical Of Evolution: 'Why Are There Still Apes? Think About It'

The former NFL player, who is now running for Senate in Georgia, gets some basic facts wrong.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Joey D]

Stop trying to elect former NFL players. Also, doesn't Walker have multiple personality disorder, and didn't he attempt to kill his ex-wife several times? I'd say all three of those things should disqualify him for running for office in the first place.

But with regards to evolution, I don't understand why (ok I mean I suppose I do) people talk about evolution without understanding the high-level basics. Humans didn't evolve from apes, they evolved from a come ancestor that modern-day apes share. That's like biology 101 stuff.

 

[Danoff]

Stop trying to elect former NFL players. Also, doesn't Walker have multiple personality disorder, and didn't he attempt to kill his ex-wife several times? I'd say all three of those things should disqualify him for running for office in the first place.

But with regards to evolution, I don't understand why (ok I mean I suppose I do) people talk about evolution without understanding the high-level basics. Humans didn't evolve from apes, they evolved from a come ancestor that modern-day apes share. That's like biology 101 stuff.

Evolution is still just a theory. [/s]