[Graybeard]

Can Evolution, as a totally random process, using Natural Selection, be responsible for all we see around us?

I believe it can.

What do you think?


greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Excellent thread starter Greg,and a really great topic,one of which we are all very much
involved in!

Is evolution totally random?Part of me would say prehaps it is,the other would say no,
how could it?

Natural selection,the survival ofthe fittest,well yes,there seems to be little doubt on this one,our own experience,my experiences in observing nature over 50 years or more,lead
me to conclude that unless you are really fit and agile,or really adapt at camouflage,you
will most certainly be eaten.


If though evolution is part of the universal natural laws,then it is prehaps difficult to see
that something operating under law,can be random?


regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Notwithstanding that the possibility (or probability for many) that intervention into the development of life here on Earth might well have been instrumental in its persistence to this day, there can be no rational argument against the compelling evidence that randomness in the process favored selection of the fittest if we accept the fact that brilliant minds have contributed to the knowledge base concerning the subject of evolution.

According to the information we find surfacing from the mountains of research and investigation, the evolution of single-celled life forms with a few nucleotide sequences in them into single-celled life with a nucleus containing early DNA, or eukaryotes, was a process occurring over a period of about two billion years. That fact alone points to a random factor in the selection process.

What this fact also points to is the stubborn determination that life will manifest as a matter of course, for in that time frame any number of random cataclysmic events may have affected the process to sabotage and delay the inevitable. This is just one justification for the presumption of the idea that this Universe is anthropocentric in nature.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Notwithstanding that the possibility (or probability for many) that intervention into the development of life here on Earth might well have been instrumental in its persistence to this day, there can be no rational argument against the compelling evidence that randomness in the process favored selection of the fittest

Baudrunner ... well said .. randomness within the process favoured natural selection ... but .. if I read you right this does not rule out Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design allows for randomness within its parameters ?

Baudrunner....What this fact also points to is the stubborn determination that life will manifest as a matter of course, for in that time frame any number of random cataclysmic events may have affected the process to sabotage and delay the inevitable. This is just one justification for the presumption of the idea that this Universe is anthropocentric in nature.

But does the randomness of Natural Selection need intelligent Design to explain the current reality ... if not .. then Occam's razor would apply and intelligent Design would be ruled out by its complexity.

On the other hand does intelligent Design need Natural Selection. It appears that it would ... else why is there so much evidence for it. Therefore I consider Natural Selection to be a complete process within itself without the need of other operatives.

What I can't explain is 'why are we conscious of this'. There does not seem to be a need. What is Altruism ... how do we explain that by Natural Selection .. we can't deny that many species display altruisitic behaviour. The only explanation I have is that altruistic behaviour favors all selections and thereby our own species.

But as we ourselves don't reason altruistically, but do perform altruistic behaviour, could it be that a 'conscious' of the whole, underlies our actions despite our most reasoned decisions?

Could there be a consciousness that we don't see with individual reason, but operates in tune with life? the fact that we are discussing this points to something over and above natural Selection.

greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Greg for kicking of this great topic for discussion,and thanks Baud,for your most
excellent post.

A couple of things you mentioned Greg set me thinking,you said "why are we then conscious" and then later posed the question "could there be a consciousness that we dont
see with individual reason,but operates in tune with life"What a great question Greg!Wish
I thought of that mate!

Could this unknown level of consciousness,actually be our sub-conscious mind?
Part of me also sees that the randomness of evolution is random on the surface,but
at depth is hallmarked with intelligent design.

Also I see a previous aspect to this vast outworking of the evolutionary cycle,that of
involution,which seldom if ever gets a mention.


regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Mike, I don't actually understand what you mean by involution. I would like you to elaborate.

Baudrunner ... well said .. randomness within the process favoured natural selection ... but .. if I read you right this does not rule out Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design allows for randomness within its parameters ?

That depends on whether you mean that there is an intelligent being behind the creation of the Universe? Of course not. Intelligent design is a broad term that I personaly would interpret to mean evolution itself, survival of the fittest, natural selection based on random mutations becoming more adaptable to the environment by co-incidence and so on. I have often said that the anthropic principal should be restated to say the following: ..that things are the way they are because if they were any different then that is the way that they would be, and there would still be life to observe this. You see, I believe strongly in the anthropocentric nature of this Universe. Life will happen no matter what, simply because it is a necessary predisposition to the premonition that is responsible for the "big bang", ie.- the idea that anything would exist being so staggeringly awesome and profound that it simply issues into a manifestation of reality as we now know it. The creation of the Universe was a startling revelation in and of itself, before which nothing existed, not even time, and in order for that premonition to occur, there must be the consciousness which is responsible for it. An idea cannot exist without its creator, and we are the manifestation which represents that creator. Intelligence arises out of the evolution of life because a certain level of intelligence must exist to appreciate it, and to have premonition. The design is natural order. It would be a whole lot easier to understand this if we could time-lapse the entire history of the Universe from beginning to end into an instant. Then you would see that this all is just a shocking awakening.

[mkirkpatrick]

Baud Steven,I will try and answer your question to me,"what is involution"The answer to that question can sometimes prove to be a tad controversial,and prehaps I should not have mentioned it! But here is a brief synopsis of it.

Involution is seen in esoteric science,and ancient occult teachings,as the first principle
in the "bringing about form"at the inception of the creative will to motion from stillness
the process of involution "involves the wrapping up of principle within principle and roll
outwards from the primal atom,until there reaches a point where this flow comes to a
momentary pause,like the phenomena of "slack water" where the tidal flow is stopped
but for a while,Then the cycle that we are all more familiar with begins,and all the
principles that were "wrapped up" now start to unfold and open out into the natural
laws that we are all aquainted with.Hope that helps Baud.

regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Baudrunner...What this fact also points to is the stubborn determination that life will manifest as a matter of course, for in that time frame any number of random cataclysmic events may have affected the process to sabotage and delay the inevitable. This is just one justification for the presumption of the idea that this Universe is anthropocentric in nature.

Baudrunner ... I don't quite understand your last sentence above. Are you pointing this out as the justification used by those who favour Intelligent Design ... or do you promote this justification.

For me, the meaning of 'Random' and the meaning of 'anthropocentic, are opposed. I take random to mean without outside influence, in which the end cannot be predicted until the outcome is reached. Anthro to mean an outside influence by some intelligent god or process which affects the ultimate outcome prior to the process beginning

Originally Posted by baudrunner I have often said that the anthropic principal should be restated to say the following: ..that things are the way they are because if they were any different then that is the way that they would be, and there would still be life to observe this. You see, I believe strongly in the anthropocentric nature of this Universe. Life will happen no matter what, simply because it is a necessary predisposition to the premonition that is responsible for the "big bang", ie.- the idea that anything would exist being so staggeringly awesome and profound that it simply issues into a manifestation of reality as we now know it. The creation of the Universe was a startling revelation in and of itself, before which nothing existed, not even time, and in order for that premonition to occur, there must be the consciousness which is responsible for it. An idea cannot exist without its creator, and we are the manifestation which represents that creator. Intelligence arises out of the evolution of life because a certain level of intelligence must exist to appreciate it, and to have premonition. The design is natural order. It would be a whole lot easier to understand this if we could time-lapse the entire history of the Universe from beginning to end into an instant. Then you would see that this all is just a shocking awakening.

I find parts of your text contradictory, but it is possible i am reading it incorrectly. If creation was a random event then no idea, premonition, or creator could exist 'a priori'

But if it is random, as I believe, then how do we account for our consciousness understanding this... as you say .. a level of intelligence must exist to formulate and have premonition.

I suppose I am stuck with the insoluable.

greg.

Michael .. I am not sure I understand involution. I fsomething had already 'folded' and was now 'unfolding' wouldn't it be doomed to play in reverse .. therby no random action or result could ever be contemplated ?

cool bananas .. greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Greg as I mentioned to Baud,prehaps I should not have interjected this aspect into the
thread,If it causes problems Greg,or if you feel that it is not in line with your idea of
evolution,then I will remove it.Just say the word.

The problem for me Greg is that involution and evolution go hand in hand,and I have been used to this understanding forwell nigh 30 years now,so for some,prehaps like
your goodself,this is a new and prehaps odd or strange idea,I sometimes forget that.

The infolding process of involution is about the natural laws of the just-born universe
being folded up and placed within the primal principle,there to be unfolded and bring
about the universe we "know today".Expansion is the way of evolution,but like all
manifestation it is cyclitic in nature,so that which is seen,(the universe) will gradually
fade back into obscuration.


regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Michael, I believe that involution as you interpret it then is 'self direction' using nature's evolution as the only available tool to facilitate the process.

Graybeard, I understand your conundrum.

I don't have difficulty with the absence of a 'director' of creation. To me, intelligent design is represented solely by the order which ultimately brings forth the fruit of life, but there is no 'designer', per se. That random evolutionary traits determine survival cannot be argued, and I have stated that since the time frames are so immense for a progression to a higher lifeform from a simpler one that random coincidental mutation is the only plausible means to have effected this. The anthropic principle seems to determine that life will happen, and I am merely making an effort to justify that fact, so I have come up with this 'premonition' idea, for lack of a better word. We find manifestations of the same in the impressario-like characteristics of human nature, that we are awed by greatness, wowed by wonder, stirred by grandiose importance. We almost crave these reactions, these emotions, and they are an inescapable component of our egos. Anthropocentrism is the literal personification of creation, and the way that life has unfolded, and is obviously determined to unfold, is the expression of that literal device. It is an awesome event, creation. It is the realization that anything would exist being so staggeringly awesome and profound. It is a very heavy idea.