Intelligent Design or Accident?
Mohammad Gill May 17, 2005
#44 Posted by AlephNull on May 19, 2005 12:38:09 pm
malik99
{{The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.}}
H.G.Wells followed that line of thought more than a century ago. He was outraged by the class inequality he saw around him in late-19th century Britain – a stark divide between a well-heeled class that could afford leisure and a cultivated lifestyle, and a working class slaving in dark satanic mills and factories and living in wretched conditions. The result was a bleak dystopian vision of the future in The Time Machine - the leisured class have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of cultivation and refinement into a species called the Eloi, feckless and incapable of fending for themselves; while the working class have similarly evolved into a brutish species called Morlocks, who live by preying on and devouring the hapless Eloi. A despairing forecast indeed.
{{The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.}}
H.G.Wells followed that line of thought more than a century ago. He was outraged by the class inequality he saw around him in late-19th century Britain – a stark divide between a well-heeled class that could afford leisure and a cultivated lifestyle, and a working class slaving in dark satanic mills and factories and living in wretched conditions. The result was a bleak dystopian vision of the future in The Time Machine - the leisured class have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of cultivation and refinement into a species called the Eloi, feckless and incapable of fending for themselves; while the working class have similarly evolved into a brutish species called Morlocks, who live by preying on and devouring the hapless Eloi. A despairing forecast indeed.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#43 Posted by echoboom on May 19, 2005 12:27:08 pm
and here is some more food-for-thought: From Ilm-i-ma`aquooli of the ISLAMIC Madrassaas:
``Sufis believe that, expressed in one way, humanity is evolving to a certain destiny. We are all taking part in that evolution. Organs come into being as a result of the need for specific organs (Rumi).
The human being`s organism is producing a new complex of organs in response to such a need. In this age of the transcending of time and space, the complex of organs is concerned with the transcending of time and space. What ordinary people regard as sporadic and occasional bursts of telepathic or prophetic power are seen by the Sufi as nothing less than the first stirrings of these same organs. The difference between all evolution up to date and the present need for evolution is that for the past ten thousand years or so we have been given the possibility of a conscious evolution. So essential is this more rarefied evolution that our future depends upon it.``
Idries Shah. The Sufis
``Sufis believe that, expressed in one way, humanity is evolving to a certain destiny. We are all taking part in that evolution. Organs come into being as a result of the need for specific organs (Rumi).
The human being`s organism is producing a new complex of organs in response to such a need. In this age of the transcending of time and space, the complex of organs is concerned with the transcending of time and space. What ordinary people regard as sporadic and occasional bursts of telepathic or prophetic power are seen by the Sufi as nothing less than the first stirrings of these same organs. The difference between all evolution up to date and the present need for evolution is that for the past ten thousand years or so we have been given the possibility of a conscious evolution. So essential is this more rarefied evolution that our future depends upon it.``
Idries Shah. The Sufis
#42 Posted by echoboom on May 19, 2005 12:13:12 pm
malik:99
Rumi has already written about that--700 years BEFORE Darwin. He did not write metaphorically either.
I hope those who have not come across earlier would appreciate it as well.
Rumi`s story of evolution:
I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man,
to soar With angels blest;
but even from angelhood I must pass on:
all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e`er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones,
`To Him we shall return`
Translated by A. J. Arberry
Rumi has already written about that--700 years BEFORE Darwin. He did not write metaphorically either.
I hope those who have not come across earlier would appreciate it as well.
Rumi`s story of evolution:
I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man,
to soar With angels blest;
but even from angelhood I must pass on:
all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e`er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones,
`To Him we shall return`
Translated by A. J. Arberry
#41 Posted by malik99 on May 19, 2005 11:50:13 am
hamidm writes ``by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ``
Very interesting! It brings up a point in relation to evolution. So far, the theory of evolution has mostly concentrated on the past - that is, how we came to be. However, an equally interesting discussion should be: where is this evolution leading to. In other words, the process of evolution has not stopped. Is it possible that some other species, more intelligent than humans, is in the process of getting evolved - and we just dont know it yet? Also, are humans themselves going to get evolved into different branches?
Perhaps the human divide today of ``haves`` and ``have nots`` will become more profound and permanent in future - giving rise to the evolution of two branches of humanity: the sub-humans and the super-humans.
I recently read a book called ``Guns, Germs and Steel`` by Jared Diamond. In that book he argues that the land mass of ``Eurasia`` evolved to dominate this world because that was the place where the domestic-able animals and crops were first originated (by the pure accident of geography and climate). This was also the place where horses originated, thus giving an advantage to its inhabitants in wars. That advantage grew over thousands of years and to this day it is still the ``Eurasians`` who hold advantage in the world in the ``efficiencies`` of battlefields. All that has happened is that the advantage of horse has now evolved into advantage of other weaponries - air planes, battleships, missiles etc. In pure market terms, its called ``first entrant advantage`` - that is, a company is the first one to enter a market with a new product and then capitalizes on it so much so that subsequent competitors spend their life-time simply trying to catch up.
The point of bringing up that book was that perhaps we humans will get evolved too in various directions based on our ``first entrant`` advantages. The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.
The above analysis assumes that the movement of humans from ``have nots`` to ``haves`` or vice versa will slow down to a halt over millions of years.
I know, I could be making an ass out of myself by my above mentioned ramblings. But then, who on chowk doesnt!
Very interesting! It brings up a point in relation to evolution. So far, the theory of evolution has mostly concentrated on the past - that is, how we came to be. However, an equally interesting discussion should be: where is this evolution leading to. In other words, the process of evolution has not stopped. Is it possible that some other species, more intelligent than humans, is in the process of getting evolved - and we just dont know it yet? Also, are humans themselves going to get evolved into different branches?
Perhaps the human divide today of ``haves`` and ``have nots`` will become more profound and permanent in future - giving rise to the evolution of two branches of humanity: the sub-humans and the super-humans.
I recently read a book called ``Guns, Germs and Steel`` by Jared Diamond. In that book he argues that the land mass of ``Eurasia`` evolved to dominate this world because that was the place where the domestic-able animals and crops were first originated (by the pure accident of geography and climate). This was also the place where horses originated, thus giving an advantage to its inhabitants in wars. That advantage grew over thousands of years and to this day it is still the ``Eurasians`` who hold advantage in the world in the ``efficiencies`` of battlefields. All that has happened is that the advantage of horse has now evolved into advantage of other weaponries - air planes, battleships, missiles etc. In pure market terms, its called ``first entrant advantage`` - that is, a company is the first one to enter a market with a new product and then capitalizes on it so much so that subsequent competitors spend their life-time simply trying to catch up.
The point of bringing up that book was that perhaps we humans will get evolved too in various directions based on our ``first entrant`` advantages. The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.
The above analysis assumes that the movement of humans from ``have nots`` to ``haves`` or vice versa will slow down to a halt over millions of years.
I know, I could be making an ass out of myself by my above mentioned ramblings. But then, who on chowk doesnt!
#40 Posted by sattar2 on May 19, 2005 10:03:40 am
… Intelligent design or accident …? I think it is design that makes intelligent use of accidents.
One has to be oblivious of mounting scientific evidence in order to discard the idea of evolution. Doing so on basis of narrow interpretation of scripture revealed to hallucinating men makes it worse. We may as well start believing in men parting ocean by waving their hand.
My own view is closer to “theistic evolution” ... where mechanism of evolution is a part of a greater, intelligent design. More and more ingredients needed for creation and evolution of species may be identified and discovered by scientific methods. Will this provide more answers or pose more questions … remains to be seen. However, what remains a mystery, at least up until now as I have understood, is extremely low likelihood of these ingredients coming together at the right times, in right proportions, in right sequence, for creation and evolution of species … and hence my take on this issue as outlined in the beginning of this post.
#39 Posted by freethinker on May 19, 2005 8:22:06 am
shobig-sifar:
The cosmological constant you`re talking about is different. That constant was used by Einstein as a sort of fudge factor to obtain steady state universe from his theory. that constant is important and the scientists are trying to comprehend its true nature. I appreciate your interest in the article.
Mohammad Gill
The cosmological constant you`re talking about is different. That constant was used by Einstein as a sort of fudge factor to obtain steady state universe from his theory. that constant is important and the scientists are trying to comprehend its true nature. I appreciate your interest in the article.
Mohammad Gill
#38 Posted by tahmed32 on May 19, 2005 7:45:05 am
hamidm #35
sorry my friend, but you make no sense when you say that the definition of species is incorrect. How can a definition of a term be incorrect? It is like saying that the definition of Asia is incorrect and the terms should be used to also include Europe.
You would make more sense if you said that the overall taxonomy scheme itself (of which species is simply one layer) put up by Linnaeus in the 18th century is not valid. However, the fact is that that scheme, despite challenges once in a while, has withstood the test of time albeit with further refinements, new layers of sub-classification and so on. The current revolution in genetics will no doubt in due course provide us with a firmer basis for distinguishing between different life-forms on earth than the knowledge Linnaeus had available to him.
I agree with you when you say we are all family. It is only human arrogance that causes it to emphasize distinctions between humans (racial, religious, caste, ethnic, economic status, worldly power, vip`s vs. masses, whatever) as well as between humans and other creatures. The great-granddaddy of all life on earth was the same single celled microscopic creature that first wiggled around the earth`s oceans 3 billion years ago. Racial distinctions came up a mere 10,000 years ago, and racial distinctions from a scientific perspective are a load of nonsense. There is greater genetic diversity WITHIN the african people, e.g., then any other people on earth.
sorry my friend, but you make no sense when you say that the definition of species is incorrect. How can a definition of a term be incorrect? It is like saying that the definition of Asia is incorrect and the terms should be used to also include Europe.
You would make more sense if you said that the overall taxonomy scheme itself (of which species is simply one layer) put up by Linnaeus in the 18th century is not valid. However, the fact is that that scheme, despite challenges once in a while, has withstood the test of time albeit with further refinements, new layers of sub-classification and so on. The current revolution in genetics will no doubt in due course provide us with a firmer basis for distinguishing between different life-forms on earth than the knowledge Linnaeus had available to him.
I agree with you when you say we are all family. It is only human arrogance that causes it to emphasize distinctions between humans (racial, religious, caste, ethnic, economic status, worldly power, vip`s vs. masses, whatever) as well as between humans and other creatures. The great-granddaddy of all life on earth was the same single celled microscopic creature that first wiggled around the earth`s oceans 3 billion years ago. Racial distinctions came up a mere 10,000 years ago, and racial distinctions from a scientific perspective are a load of nonsense. There is greater genetic diversity WITHIN the african people, e.g., then any other people on earth.
#37 Posted by echoboom on May 19, 2005 7:35:51 am
Does someone who becomes a scientist does so by design or is so by accident?
I think a human-child raised by a monkey in a jungle has a tremendous chance of getting mistaken, by humans, for a monkey.
A monkey`s offspring, raised by humans, can never be mistaken for a human.
Going by the concept of entropy, I think there is a far greater chance of devolution than evolution. We notice this in ``wild`` vs ``cultured`` flora & fauna.
I am firmly convinced that according to the Qur`an the ancestors of present-day monkeys, & their khaloos Phhupaas, were once hamidm2s of their times.
I think a human-child raised by a monkey in a jungle has a tremendous chance of getting mistaken, by humans, for a monkey.
A monkey`s offspring, raised by humans, can never be mistaken for a human.
Going by the concept of entropy, I think there is a far greater chance of devolution than evolution. We notice this in ``wild`` vs ``cultured`` flora & fauna.
I am firmly convinced that according to the Qur`an the ancestors of present-day monkeys, & their khaloos Phhupaas, were once hamidm2s of their times.
#36 Posted by shobig_sifar on May 19, 2005 7:30:47 am
Another nice and precise review Dr Gill. Bravo!
A few points I`d like to add:
Cosmological constant happens to be the greatest issue of contradiction between theoretical and experimental physicists/cosmologists. The observed values of this constant are in sheer disagreement with those predicted by theory. And this is perhaps the reason for the induction of so much effort into research from both sides.
At the Planck scale - the scale of the universe before the big bang - the various forces and constants unify, so we are left with far issue problems to address then at the lower energy scale.
I do not personally think an analogy can be drawn between the Theory of evolution and Evolution of the universe. The universe has evolved on a much more homogeneous and linear pattern, with masses and energies interconverting, and with little or no `innovation`, while that is an important ingridient of Darwinism.
regards
shobig
A few points I`d like to add:
Cosmological constant happens to be the greatest issue of contradiction between theoretical and experimental physicists/cosmologists. The observed values of this constant are in sheer disagreement with those predicted by theory. And this is perhaps the reason for the induction of so much effort into research from both sides.
At the Planck scale - the scale of the universe before the big bang - the various forces and constants unify, so we are left with far issue problems to address then at the lower energy scale.
I do not personally think an analogy can be drawn between the Theory of evolution and Evolution of the universe. The universe has evolved on a much more homogeneous and linear pattern, with masses and energies interconverting, and with little or no `innovation`, while that is an important ingridient of Darwinism.
regards
shobig
#35 Posted by hamidm2 on May 19, 2005 6:48:38 am
Re: # 34
tahmed,
....... i think the definition of ``species`` is incorrect ...... just because man and monkey stopped interbreeding does not mean they are a different species ....... by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ......... the fact is that lions and tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring even though they diverged millions of years ago, and so can jackals and domestic dogs ........... just because you have a few chromosomes that are different does not mean you are a different species ............ just look at echoboom - as much as we hate to admit it, he is family ............
tahmed,
....... i think the definition of ``species`` is incorrect ...... just because man and monkey stopped interbreeding does not mean they are a different species ....... by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ......... the fact is that lions and tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring even though they diverged millions of years ago, and so can jackals and domestic dogs ........... just because you have a few chromosomes that are different does not mean you are a different species ............ just look at echoboom - as much as we hate to admit it, he is family ............
#34 Posted by tahmed32 on May 19, 2005 5:22:11 am
hamidm: echosqueek approves of your post!! ha! ha!
#33 Posted by freethinker on May 19, 2005 5:20:00 am
tahmed32:
I want to make a correction to my post # 27. The Fine Structure Constant is number 14 on the list and not 8 as stated in my post. Sorry for this lapse.
Mohammad Gill
I want to make a correction to my post # 27. The Fine Structure Constant is number 14 on the list and not 8 as stated in my post. Sorry for this lapse.
Mohammad Gill
#32 Posted by majumdar on May 19, 2005 4:29:03 am
Re:24
(Almost by definition you cannot have cross-breeding within species (except in rare cases, as in case of horse and ass which produces a jackass, specimen of which can be found on chowk. and even in this case the offspring - jackass - is infertile.)
The offspring is called a mule, I believe
(Almost by definition you cannot have cross-breeding within species (except in rare cases, as in case of horse and ass which produces a jackass, specimen of which can be found on chowk. and even in this case the offspring - jackass - is infertile.)
The offspring is called a mule, I believe
#31 Posted by echoboom on May 18, 2005 9:01:43 pm
hamidm2: 22
It is such direct street-smarts which I thoroughly admire in a fellow-man. This is what separates humans from scientists. Consider yourself inducted.
The other day someone printed a news item with picture ( BBC) that a women breast-feeds a monkey (now 7 years old & still) in India and insists on calling it her son. Today there was a picture of a little hanumaan sucking at the cow`s udder ( a Budder he`ll be called?).
I too would be waiting for a very unambigous answer--tahmad32, the resident johnny-boy may continue his pansy-antics to amuse us.
It is such direct street-smarts which I thoroughly admire in a fellow-man. This is what separates humans from scientists. Consider yourself inducted.
The other day someone printed a news item with picture ( BBC) that a women breast-feeds a monkey (now 7 years old & still) in India and insists on calling it her son. Today there was a picture of a little hanumaan sucking at the cow`s udder ( a Budder he`ll be called?).
I too would be waiting for a very unambigous answer--tahmad32, the resident johnny-boy may continue his pansy-antics to amuse us.
#30 Posted by tahmed32 on May 18, 2005 8:19:25 pm
delhiwala #28 Gill sahib had mentioned universal constants and i was just wondering why i did not see Planck`s constant in the list. One need not be a scientist to have an interest in science - and I think that is true for Gill sahib and for me and lots of other people on chowk. Nothing wrong with learning about scientific advancements from PBS - or from books and magazines in layman`s language. There are no brahmins in science - only scientists who push the limits of man`s knowledge, and those who appreciate the work they are doing (which is a large segment of the public worldwide), and those who are content merely to enjoy the fruits of their work (which includes everyone, even the naysaying creationists).
On parallel universes, this idea follows from string theory as i understand it. string theory itself is a mathematical construct at this time, but efforts are underway to design ways to test it. one thing is for certain: string theory (with all its incredible implications) is based on solid work. even if it proves to be not completely true, or even completely incorrect, insights provided by this work represent a significant advance in science. The multi-billion dollar particle accelerator being built in europe, as well as the smaller fermi lab (?) facility that has been in existence for some time in indiana, US are I understand expected to check on some implications of string theory.
On parallel universes, this idea follows from string theory as i understand it. string theory itself is a mathematical construct at this time, but efforts are underway to design ways to test it. one thing is for certain: string theory (with all its incredible implications) is based on solid work. even if it proves to be not completely true, or even completely incorrect, insights provided by this work represent a significant advance in science. The multi-billion dollar particle accelerator being built in europe, as well as the smaller fermi lab (?) facility that has been in existence for some time in indiana, US are I understand expected to check on some implications of string theory.
#29 Posted by tahmed32 on May 18, 2005 8:05:22 pm
hamidm #26 you ask for proof of evolution? i got photographic evidence of evolution for you.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Eklavya: OK, other than omprakash... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: Eklavya: please dont split... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: GF #83: while india's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: tahmedji and harish A correction:... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: om prakash #75 agreed.... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
