The chicken comes before the egg.

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3043
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Burning ghost » February 21st, 2019, 6:19 am

Arjen wrote:
February 21st, 2019, 5:46 am
How come you are not interested in talking about intelligent design Burning Ghost?
In what respect? By all means post a thread in the Theology forum and see what happens. If you’re interested in my perspective on “religion” in general then browse my post about “Origin of Religion” (it’s called something like that).
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 466
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Arjen » February 21st, 2019, 7:26 am

It is about the chicken and the egg, I thought. But if you think it is offtopic, I will stop asking. Personally, I think dna engeneering is science. I do know that some people suggest that this would be done by some godlike demiurg, but I would call that demiurg a scientist.

A yway, it is your topic, so I will give it a rest. Apologies for going offtopic.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3043
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Burning ghost » February 21st, 2019, 11:05 am

It’s not my topic. I don’t understand what you’re saying/asking? I don’t general discuss “god’s design” because I don’t believe im a “deity” - it is something like asking what I think about the thoughts of unicorns or goblins ... I don’t bother.

If by “intelligent design” you apply it to some “god” concept (rather than an actual deity) then you’d first have to define what you mean by “god” before I could even begin to move toward any discussion on said “god-thing”.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
meaningful_products
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: January 25th, 2019, 4:17 am

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by meaningful_products » February 21st, 2019, 11:13 pm

If the universe acts in such a way as to repeat itself infinitely, as some people believe, then neither came first.

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 466
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Arjen » February 23rd, 2019, 4:18 am

I agree with you @meaningful_products. Although I do not think that everything repeats itself literally, but more that similar situations occur time and time again. And that Time has a completely different meaning for everything that exists than it has for living beings.

@Burning ghost: I know that some people apply I.D. to a God. Another way to see that is to apply it to a Godlike Demiurgh (like Plato in the sense of polytheism). Plato's idea of course leads to humans that are trying to manipulate DNA and some have suggested that ancient aliens might have. Anyway, my remark was not as specific as that. My remark was just that, somehow, it appears that complete organs and limbs seem to be coded into DNA; being switched on and off by the genes. It is like buying a new car and then selecting the option of a radio, a great paint job and spoilers. Take out the v8 motor for something cheaper and presto, a whole new species of cars has emerged. :)

So, without addressing who or what would be responsible for the designing, I am questioning if it is even possible to have some mechanism like that appear by means of evolution? Given that no half finished designs have ever been found in fossils, nor in living beings; only handicaps where something went wrong. In my opinion, it is a hard to refute argument for design. If you think differently, without speculating and black boxes, can you refute that? I would be happy if you do actually, because it is one of those unsettling facts that seem to point to my understanding of this being wrong.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3043
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Burning ghost » February 23rd, 2019, 9:11 am

Arjen -

Change “some” to “practically all” (to add, all those who know how the term is coined in general discussions that question the theory of natural selection) then it’s fine.

The “mechanism” is natural selection? See? You’ve gone full circle here where you’ve turned the view of Intelligent Design on its head and framed as some possible “mechanism” (which there is; called “Natural Selection”).

If you don’t understand the theory of Natural Selection (note: “theory” as in “scientific theory” not random guesswork) or how it relates to molecular biology and genetics then that is something you can choose to address as you see fit. I’ve given suggestions about where to fill in some of the gaps.

I would HIGHLY recommend you go into Youtube and search Sapolsky. There are series of lectures there that are superb - easily the most watchable lecturer I’ve seen on youtube; he jumps straight in no messing around and will take you on an interesting journey regarding how ideas have chopped and changed due to scientific discoveries and more precise measurements.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 466
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Arjen » February 23rd, 2019, 4:02 pm

I know what natural selection is. I am just saying that that can't possibly be responsible for the designs already present in DNA. But I have said this multiple times now. It's not clicking on your side. Maybe in the future. :)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

User avatar
popsicle
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 25th, 2019, 8:08 am

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by popsicle » February 25th, 2019, 8:18 am

As per me, the egg came first, as we are all evolved. And that we are made up of cells and it is believed that the first organisms on this planet were single-celled. How can you explain the chicken being born without the egg? Did it just pop out from the earth? Or dropped from the sky above? So the egg came first. But the theories differ from person to person as the view-point of the people vary.

User avatar
Intellectual_Savnot
Posts: 97
Joined: November 26th, 2018, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Wokeville, California
Contact:

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Intellectual_Savnot » February 26th, 2019, 2:26 pm

Arjen: My sister and I differ in genetics. I got the dominant genetics of my father, my sister got less of them. Since we are genetically a little different, if I were to have a child with someone and my sister were to do the same with their twin (this never happened that would be very weird) the children would have differing genetics. However, say that due to my very curly hair caused some bug to get stuck in my hair (it has before) and that bug didn't get washed out in the shower, and killed me. My sister got the same bug in her hair but due to her less curly hair she doesn't die to the bug, which is washed out. Now her child would be born and mine would not. Thus, her genes have been naturally selected and the child with my genetics never existed. Sorry for lack of better example, I don't focus well when I listen to Russian Hardbass. Have a good day!

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 466
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The chicken comes before the egg.

Post by Arjen » April 5th, 2019, 7:40 am

Intellectual_Savnot wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 2:26 pm
Arjen: My sister and I differ in genetics. I got the dominant genetics of my father, my sister got less of them. Since we are genetically a little different, if I were to have a child with someone and my sister were to do the same with their twin (this never happened that would be very weird) the children would have differing genetics. However, say that due to my very curly hair caused some bug to get stuck in my hair (it has before) and that bug didn't get washed out in the shower, and killed me. My sister got the same bug in her hair but due to her less curly hair she doesn't die to the bug, which is washed out. Now her child would be born and mine would not. Thus, her genes have been naturally selected and the child with my genetics never existed. Sorry for lack of better example, I don't focus well when I listen to Russian Hardbass. Have a good day!
I understand what evolution is. I am just saying that Darwin himself said that evolution only exists in an existing model: AFTER CREATION. Darwin was, is and always will be a creationist. In no way can evolution theory explain the sudden emergence of life itself. On top of that, the genetic model can't explain for the 'blueprints' of the organs and limbs and such, to develop. Only for switching those on and off. There is also no fossil evidence (nor any living specimens) to show not fully developed organs or limbs.

So, this part I question further. It refutes Darwinism and empirical observations. Since the practice and theory differ, the theory must be wrong.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

Post Reply