The Creation of Man

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

The ID theory is fun to imagine and could be true. But it doesn't solve the real problem of the diversity of life. It only increases the diversity (by at least one species).

Assuming intelligent design on Earth and other places in the universe explains a lot of the diversity but what explains the designer? Who designed him and who designed the designer's designer? etc. etc.

This kind of feedback is something to be avoided. Possibly we may know one day that we are designed. Possibly we may know how the designer was created. But there must be an end to the logic or it is not logic. All the problems of Darwinism might disappear given enough time for genetic variation to produce enough good mutations. Maybe not, I'm not Hoyle and while I understand a lot of math I'm not interested enough to figure that one out in my spare time. I guess my point is that if we go far enough back into the hall of mirrors we are still going to be stuck with something that looks like evolution to explain the creation of the designers of the designers of the designers...[/b]

Harte,

About the time needed to create a small single gene say 300 base pairs long by random search on the organic basis we know, I trust there is not enough time in the Universe all mass included, from its Big Bang to the Big Rip of 2x10to 10 years from now for this to happen. Spetner?s ?Not by chance? maybe more fun to read than Hoyle. Spetner is a biophysicist and specialist in information theory. I do not know what happed in the Universe if it is steady state, we cannot embrace infinity, but it is not a good solution, through such immensely improbable events, anyway. This is why some propose conditions where life originated were very different. I like the idea of time loops, physical existence of the Universe at all its times, and the creator of life being its own creator and then modifier at later times, although the upstream source may not be exactly a single source ancestry. This way we do not need the origination factor. I?ll drop below a couple of lines from my previous blog.

About time loops: this is not only permitted by modern physics, it is actively debated, more on the ways and details rather than on the general principle. Also laws of thermodynamics may well be local, even if our whole universe is local. Anyway, they do not contradict time loops very much.

If we consider directed panspermia, viruses and bacteria is just the simplest way, and look sufficient to direct evolution. They are ubiquitous, can survive hundreds of millions of years in spore/ crystal forms so can travel through cosmic space, maybe wormholes. And we do not need more complicated scenarios with UFOs landing and delivering everything still hot.

If life exists on time loops, and the Universe has multiple connection points, even if we consider only one trajectory, then we do not need origination factors, RNA primordial worlds and associated nonsense. Life and intelligence are inmost parts of the matter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>

Dimitri, Harte,

Has anyone heard speculation regarding parts of the DNA genome that no one can figure out what it does and or why it's there? As in it seems to be something 'extra' that has no definite reason for being there? I submit that these portions of our DNA are the ones which have been added by ET to facilitate two primary functions. First, would be the acquisition of a higher awareness to speed up the evolutionary process of the human brain thereby leading us to the ability to experience a higher consciousness then our early ancestors had acess to or could fathom / appreciate.

Second, would be the ability to change our own DNA via conscious thought and visualization. We have tests now that can be performed to indicate a body's predisposition to certain diseases. We also have case histories of people that have chosen to fight a illness and disease via a holistic approach rather than have the body ravaged by Kemo-therapy or Radiation therapy and have had spontaneous remission with a 100% kill rate of the specific disease. If the beginning 'code' or original set of that particular part of the DNA provided the fostering cause of the disease and suddenly it was 'turned off' to the point of that message no longer created the reissue of those instructions, thus a total remission and cessation, then is it possible to assume that the original DNA code has been changed or has the body only been alerted to a specific problem and it was dealt with?[/b]

StarLord,

We should be able to distill some of the possibilities/ intentions, I guess; this is always a pleasure to think of. They should also have been taking care of all other millions of species on earth for them to continue and make for the diversity in concert with each other.

I do not know if we can modify our DNA by will. I tend to think we can rearrange it to some extent, if only by switching genes on and off. We can certainly make genes work by will, like we can secrete saliva by will, adrenaline, etc. We may be able to make more long lasting changes in a Lamarckian way, I think. We do not know mechanisms yet. As to disease, we can certainly mobilize our body and help it by will, certainly better than by chemo. New type of chemo will be based on genetic engineering, it is emerging already, still very primitive though, but it resembles future ways of lab based DNA modification and creation of (better) life.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

To reconcile with theological side (they are kicking ID from their side quite a bit too):
If ET and universal intelligence exist and are involved, it does not mean this is not a direct manifestation of God. There is nothing indirect in the Absolute, not a single bit or atom, etc. Since some managed to reconcile Darwinism with the Bible, it should not be tough to do it with the ID. If some tell me what God thinks about it and what he does not like about it, I will ask how they know.

P.S. By this note I am not addressing anybody personally on this forum. I am just using Z-'s point addressing fundamentalists if they were listening.

 

[StarLord]

Re: The Creation of Man

The only way to know for certain is to find a Inner Master, start traveling the higher planes of consciousness and learn that answer for our selves. Nothing is kept secret for those that wish to learn. All it takes is a concerted effort in a specific direction.

Very much the same as studies in a university and actual work in your specific field. When viewed from the point *before* you started school, it appears to be a mystery, yes?

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

Great point. Sure spiritual ways are very powerful. I feel they build foundation for one's materialistic looking further progress in many respects. Then a lot of nice surprises and mysteries follow if you are up to snuff, and they are on the slow side if you are not progressing spiritually, right? And school, yeh, I find things almost exactly what I was looking for and much more to the lines, and books as well; feels like you said.

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

I like the idea of time loops, physical existence of the Universe at all its times, and the creator of life being its own creator and then modifier at later times, although the upstream source may not be exactly a single source ancestry. This way we do not need the origination factor. I?ll drop below a couple of lines from my previous blog.

About time loops: this is not only permitted by modern physics, it is actively debated, more on the ways and details rather than on the general principle. Also laws of thermodynamics may well be local, even if our whole universe is local. Anyway, they do not contradict time loops very much...


...If life exists on time loops, and the Universe has multiple connection points, even if we consider only one trajectory, then we do not need origination factors, RNA primordial worlds and associated nonsense. Life and intelligence are inmost parts of the matter.

[/b]

Physicists already know that the universe has physical existence at all it's times. Time and space cannot be untangled from each other. The two things are just two of the ways we view the same construct scientists call spacetime.

It amuses me that so many are so quick to throw away evolution due to the lack of evidence only to embrace any other theory about which there exists absolutely no evidence.

Dmitri, I submit to you that these time loops you postulate are not accepted at all in science. In fact, there is no information on the true nature of causality existant. What is accepted is the possibility of travel into the past and future. What effect this might have on causality is an unknown. That means that the "looping" part you refer to is pure speculation. I would like to see where this active debate is taking place given that no knowledge on causality actually exists.

I am no champion of Darwin. As I said before I prefer to go with theories that have some evidence behind them. No one has witnessed the creation of new families in biology. The natural evolution of variants of species has been witnessed however. So at least some genetic change has taken place before our very eyes unaffected by any designer. Of course this does not explain the evolution of life and It's great diversity, but at least it shows some hope of possibly doing so in the future. I don't see how panspermia or ID provide any answers anyway. The life must have originated somewhere and please leave off with the time travellers did it hypothesis.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

Dmitri, I submit to you that these time loops you postulate are not accepted at all in science.

The life must have originated somewhere and please leave off with the time travellers did it hypothesis.[/b]

We talk time travel here.

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

We talk time travel here.[/b]

I realize this is a time travel forum and I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion. But whipping out the time traveler explanation is not good enough considering the previous discussion in this thread.

No one is forced to believe in evolution. But evolution is a sound argument for the creation of man. That is the title of this thread. The specter of evolution was raised in this thread previously to explain the origin of man.

If we assume the parallel worlds theory, there could be an argument made that the life on this planet came from time travelers from a future not on this timeline. This gets rid of the looping that was discussed. I just have a real problem dealing with a loop outside of causality. I say there has to be causation for any event.

 

[StarLord]

Re: The Creation of Man

Does it really matter wether we started as primordial slime on some asteroid that eventually slamed into the Earth Billions and Billions of years ago? OR wether some all powerfull deity felt that commercials and sitcoms needed spicing up and created 'humans' from a earlier existing bipedal form on this planet?

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>

Does it really matter wether we started as primordial slime on some asteroid that eventually slamed into the Earth Billions and Billions of years ago? OR wether some all powerfull deity felt that commercials and sitcoms needed spicing up and created 'humans' from a earlier existing bipedal form on this planet?[/b]

For the sake of understanding what?s what and a lot more it sure does. We kind of depend on deciphering reality because it has helped our technological progress a lot (in physics mostly, not in biology yet). A lot of people, I agree, can do without it and prefer ways where it should not matter much. However respectful, these ways are not new. Now our mind gets more analytical. To me, materialistic truth matters, however relative it may be. Among most immediate applications there should be much better and more natural medicine. By natural I mean both using herbs knowingly and modifying our genes knowingly. While most people in science think evolution exists as pictured, slime to rabbits, through distracting us both from the Absolute and the materialistic truth, this situation causes a very deep negative impact on all our development, morality and lives. We cannot develop medicine much, and we loose on the spiritual side too, as we are being mentally ill, as F. Hoyle puts it. It is changing but very slowly. Hoyle wrote to sum up his calculations: ?And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either soup or potatoes. Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.? I am trying to speculate on the origins. F. Crick says that whatever means there is for spreading life out there, sending bacteria (I would add viruses) comes as a first simplest step in history. He means it as coming from more advanced (billions of years more advanced than us) civilizations. I propose a possibility of future turning back on past, and ET know how to use it, to get rid of the origination factor. Origination of life mechanistically is a problem anyway. Then to get rid of the egg-to-chicken problem, I would say a spore comes first, then the chicken, and so on. BTW, I do not mean grand time travels, esp. to start with, -just sending simplest smallest living forms through accelerated wormholes. Or we may go on thinking rabbits come from slime somewhere, not on earth though, by laws we do not know of; it looks less reasonable to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

I realize this is a time travel forum and I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion. But whipping out the time traveler explanation is not good enough considering the previous discussion in this thread.
No one is forced to believe in evolution. But evolution is a sound argument for the creation of man. That is the title of this thread. The specter of evolution was raised in this thread previously to explain the origin of man.
If we assume the parallel worlds theory, there could be an argument made that the life on this planet came from time travelers from a future not on this timeline. This gets rid of the looping that was discussed. I just have a real problem dealing with a loop outside of causality. I say there has to be causation for any event.[/b]

I do not know much of the parallel worlds theory. The time loops I meant was just a way to get rid of the origination factor and say the intelligence and life are part of the Universe, so that they do not have to be born from molecules gradually as new chemicals are born from chemical reactions. If the parallel worlds theory can do this, I am all for it.
BTW, there is Astrobiology comparatively new journal. Also interesting are the sites at http://www.panspermia.org/balloon2.htm and http://dwij.org/pathfinders/linda_moulton_...e/linda_mh5.htm They are serious about panspermia, there are growing data; the bacteria are still difficult to differentiate fom earth bacterai though. Pansperimia does not explain everything, yet it shows that the primordial soup and RNA world does not win the (first clause of the) case for the mechanistic kind of evolution. Still it is mostly about the statistics of it that does not work; and people after Darwin did not care much to look into it.

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

I do not know much of the parallel worlds theory. The time loops I meant was just a way to get rid of the origination factor and say the intelligence and life are part of the Universe, so that they do not have to be born from molecules gradually as new chemicals are born from chemical reactions. If the parallel worlds theory can do this, I am all for it.
[/b]

Dmitri,

That to me is a problem. I don't think there is any getting away from the origination factor. That doesn't mean that I think life must have originated gradually from molecules though. I have an open mind and I am aware that evolution has problems. But I believe that there must be a cause for every effect. In this case that means that I believe that there was a cause for the origination of life. What that cause is is open to question as far as I'm concerned. After all, the Big Bang bears an eerie resemblance to "Let there be light."

As far as parallel worlds, there is a sizeable number of physicists that at least entertain the idea that multiple universes can explain many of the extremely weird things that have been discovered in quantum physics. A parallel universe is said to exist for every quantum possibility, meaning for every possible quantum state of every particle in existance at any particular point in time.

I think that any time traveling into the past would result in the traveler arriving in a different universe than he left, for various reasons including the following:

1. The traveler has entered the past but he left a future in which he had not entered the past.

2. If the traveler entered the past in his own universe, he is subject to the grandfather paradox. The parallel worlds theory takes care of this.

3.Some quantum physicists believe that there exist multiple universes, likely an infinite number, that differ only very slightly from our own. If the idea is not too outlandish for those guys, who am I to snub it when it so easily rids us of the paradox in #2?

What I am calling parallel worlds is actually called the "Many Universes" theory by the quantum guys. Use Google to find out more about this theory.