Bohm exactly!
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC 371 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
QC
Cap, sharing this is to encourage you to rethink your position.
That would be the lesson if there were any new information available. Instead we have the same old crap from creationists.
Atheist Professor Thomas Nagel has regrets from embracing a Darwinian worldview because of the latest (NEW) fresh reexamination of the Neo-Darwinian theory, which exposes it as an inept explanation for life on earth. It’s not unusual for MANY with an indoctrination (like Darwinism) to later realize it’s false. History shows this can happen often, like I said before, e.g. JWism, Nazism and Marxist Leninist Communism.
The S.C. Meyer's Darwin’s Doubt influence undoubtedly contributed to Professor Nagel’s awakening.
Also note some of the main stream reviews sympathetic to Nagel's dissatisfaction with a strictly materialistic Darwinian worldview.
New Book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
Professor Thomas Nagel
BA in philosophy ( Cornell University ,
BPhil ( University of Oxford)
PhD in philosophy ( Harvard University)Barnes & Nobel Overview
The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.
Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.
Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.
In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.
Reviews
"[This] troublemaking book has sparked the most exciting disputation in many years... I like Nagel's mind and I like Nagel's cosmos. He thinks strictly but not imperiously, and in grateful view of the full tremendousness of existence." -- Leon Wieseltier, The New Republic
"A sharp, lucidly argued challenge to today's scientific worldview." -- Jim Holt, The Wall Street Journal
"Nagel's arguments against reductionism should give those who are in search of a reductionist physical 'theory of everything' pause for thought... The book serves as a challenging invitation to ponder the limits of science and as a reminder of the astonishing puzzle of consciousness." -- Science
" Mind and Cosmos , weighing in at 128 closely argued pages, is hardly a barn-burning polemic. But in his cool style Mr. Nagel extends his ideas about consciousness into a sweeping critique of the modern scientific worldview." -- The New York Times
"His important new book is a brief but powerful assault on materialist naturalism... [Nagel has] performed an important service with his withering critical examination of some of the most common and oppressive dogmas of our age." -- The New Republic
"[This] short, tightly argued, exacting new book is a work of considerable courage and importance." -- National Review
" Provocative... Reflects the efforts of a fiercely independent mind." -- H. Allen Orr, The New York Review of Books
"Challenging and intentionally disruptive... Unless one is a scientific Whig, one must strongly suspect that something someday will indeed succeed [contemporary science]. Nagel's Mind and Cosmos does not build a road to that destination, but it is much to have gestured toward a gap in the hills through which a road might someday run." -- The Los Angeles Review of Books
"A model of carefulness, sobriety and reason... Reading Nagel feels like opening the door on to a tidy, sunny room that you didn't know existed." -- The Guardian
"Fascinating... [A] call for revolution." -- Alva Noe, NPR's 13.7
"The book's wider questions - its awe-inspiring questions - turn outward to address the uncanny cognizability of the universe around us. ... He's simply doing the old-fashioned Socratic work of gadfly, probing for gaps in what science thinks it knows." -- Louis B. Jones, The Threepenny Review
"[Attacks] the hidden hypocrisies of many reductionists, secularists, and those who wish to have it both ways on religious modes of thinking ... Fully recognizes the absurdities (my word, not his) of dualism, and thinks them through carefully and honestly."--Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution
-
jgnat
My first red flag was the misspelling of Barnes and Noble. You are letting a philosopher go at evolutionary theory? Philosophers live in their head; they don't dig anything up.
-
QC
@ Capt O,
I curious about your thoughts on the Cambrian explosion before this book came out
This thread is a focus on current evidence updates in regard to evolution, which I find amazing when one considers the way Evolution is presented as an infallible "fact." This dogmatism is so reminiscent of JWism (“we’re the true religion”) I’m NOT going give it a “wait of Jehovah” pass.
Yes, Evolution dogma is shockingly false just like JW dogma is. A theists cannot be allowed to highjack this thread by using personal ad hominem to silence those simply shining light on another house of cards ready to collapse (like the bully JW leadership).
Hi jg,
Thanks for the spellcheck. You're an unpretentious person with lots of friends. We can tell.
-
cofty
This thread is a focus on current evidence updates in regard to evolution,
The fact that you think Meyer's ill-informed ramblings are "current" demonstrates your total ignorance of the topic.
-
QC
We know definitively there is NO “common ancestry” fossil tree coming out of the Precambrian strata. Fossils supporting this fictitious idea do not exist. That’s what's “current.”
-
cognisonance
We know definitively there is NO “common ancestry” fossil tree coming out of the Precambrian strata. Fossils supporting this fictitious idea do not exist.
Do you expect all evolution to happen at a constant slow and gradual rate? Have you considered that the speed of evolutionary change can be different depending on the environment? (i.e. punctuated equilibrium is one such hypothesis regarding the rate of evolution by natural selection). Also consider that fossilization is a rare event (and finding them even rarer), so if evolution happened quickly during that time period, we shouldn't expect to find fossils capturing the intermidate forms.
That said, I did a quick look at some recent research in this field. Here is a "common ancestry tree" that includes the periods before and after the Cambrian. It uses molecular clock dating and data from 62 genes from 122 taxa to infer the phylogenetic relationships and approximate time of divergence. Below is the tree from this paper. I'll admit I haven't read all of that paper, but wanted to bring it up as it seems somewhat related to this subject. -
QC
Cog,
Thanks for your views. It helps with clarity.
Appreciate how serious this fossil record problem is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUKGHPpAVE
Do you expect all evolution to happen at a constant slow and gradual rate? Have you considered that the speed of evolutionary change can be different depending on the environment?... Also consider that fossilization is a rare event (and finding them even rarer), so if evolution happened quickly during that time period, we shouldn't expect to find fossils capturing the intermidate forms.
Yes, I expect you to show what Neo-Darwinian Evolution theory predicts, gradualism, transmutations (punctuated equilibrium) and how life began (after help from discredited mud puddle magic, abiogenesis). SCIENCE and me expects you to prove full blown Darwinian Evolution, early life is your best (clear easy to see) shot at proving it. You can't punt. Missing fossil means theory is wrong (not fossils are missing).
The PreCambrian period last ~1,000,000,000 (BILLION) years, that's PLENTY of FOSSIL TIME (the Cambrian period above has voluminous fossils in only a 5-6 MILLION year window). Also, many invertebrate soft-tissue fossils are found in PreCambrian strata. Problem is, they don't support a "common ancestry" fossil tree (with vast of smooth transitional life models).
We can't underestimate what the stark contrast between the Cambrian and Precambrian strata mean. It's a demarcation thunder clap announcing a special transcendent event.
This video touches on where you live, Trilobites at Burgess Shale (fascinating).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=SyEHNg1O3QM&feature=endscreen
It uses molecular clock dating and data from 62 genes from 122 taxa to infer the phylogenetic relationships and approximate time of divergence.
This is numerology 2520/1914-style gimmick. Fossils don't support a "divergence." That's the bottom line. If the fossils don't fit...Evolution is done.
What do the latest finds at Maotianshan Shale (Chengjiang, China) show?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8USBI0GSSOA&feature=fvwp
Conclusion: The fossil records show life arrives on earth in various columns (with species diversity within limits). These columns stay in their lanes and NEVER cross. DNA and Epigenetic software instructive INFORMATION explains the various life assimilations, not Darwinian Evolution.
Darwinian fossil record shows bursts of life erupt in the various Earth strata. There is no smooth gradualism life forms. (to prove Evolution)
Conjecture that a "universal common descent tree" (grey circles) exist in the PreCambrian strata is a MYTH.PreCambrian Soft-Tissue Fossils: Bacteria, Sponges, Embryos, Bizarre Plants
Transition fossils don't exist because the Evolution theory is simply false.
-
cofty
The fossil records show life arrives on earth in various columns (with species diversity within limits). These columns stay in their lanes and NEVER cross.
Please read The Common Ancestry thread for abundant evidence to the contrary...
-
bohm
QC: I expect you to show what Neo-Darwinian Evolution theory predicts, gradualism, transmutations (punctuated equilibrium) and how life began (after help from discredited mud puddle magic, abiogenesis).
If i expected gravity to show me how black holes did not form and how the universe began, that would not disprove gravity now would it?
QC: The PreCambrian period last ~1,000,000,000 (BILLION) years, that's PLENTY of FOSSIL TIME (the Cambrian period above has voluminous fossils in only a 5-6 MILLION year window). Also, many invertebrate soft-tissue fossils are found in PreCambrian strata. Problem is, they don't support a "common ancestry" fossil tree (with vast of smooth transitional life models).
except they do. you are just either unable or unwilling to read about it.
QC: We can't underestimate what the stark contrast between the Cambrian and Precambrian strata mean. It's a demarcation thunder clap announcing a special transcendent event.
How would you know? because you picked it up by reading what some guy said about some guys book? How would you know you were wrong when you wont do any research?
QC: This is numerology 2520/1914-style gimmick. Fossils don't support a "divergence." That's the bottom line. If the fossils don't fit...Evolution is done.
Like DNA evidence in a court is numerology? meb.
echo chamber...
