The Dodo Problem (Evolution)
Tony (B_M), presumably in support of David's anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, has again rightly pointed out that humans depend on all other life, which depends on the earth, which depends on the galaxy, which depends on the universe etc. This applied to the dodo just as much as to you and me, and certainly does not mean that humans were the final goal. If you can explain why dodos were a necessary part of God's plan to create humans, I might be able to understand why a specific, perfectly planned project takes precedence over 1) an improvised experiment with no ultimate goal, or 2) a targeted experiment without prior knowledge of how to achieve the goal. -As for a baker planning to make a loaf and waiting 45 minutes for the dough to rise, it's a nice analogy, but it doesn't explain why someone who wants to bake a loaf should produce a dozen jam tarts as well, and then throw them away. (My analogy relates to the dodo, not to the obviously essential microbes or plants.)
The Dodo Problem
Here on the island of Mauritius Are many fruits, all quite delicious, And every fruit, it's plain to see, Was made specifically for me. God set things up with loving care: The earth, the sun, the sea, the air. One-celled first, then binary fission ... Just the beginnings of his mission, Because the whole point of creation, Evolution's culmination, Preordained right from the start, The darling of the good Lord's heart, Was me, King Dodo. There can be No finer form of life than me. The evidence, of course, is clear: The simple fact that I am here. But if you think you should downgrade me, Ask yourself just why God made me.
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell 
, Friday, November 26, 2010, 04:09 (5110 days ago) @ dhw
Here on the island of Mauritius > Are many fruits, all quite delicious, > And every fruit, it's plain to see, > Was made specifically for me. > God set things up with loving care: > The earth, the sun, the sea, the air. > One-celled first, then binary fission ... > Just the beginnings of his mission, > Because the whole point of creation, > Evolution's culmination, > Preordained right from the start, > The darling of the good Lord's heart, > Was me, King Dodo. There can be > No finer form of life than me. > The evidence, of course, is clear: > The simple fact that I am here. > But if you think you should downgrade me, > Ask yourself just why God made me.-Great observation in this great poem. I don't think it is a sonnet. Those who catagorize all of creation decide who is top dog. Genesis says we have dominion over all. Can't argue with Genesis or should we?
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Friday, November 26, 2010, 04:00 (5110 days ago) @ dhw
If you can explain why dodos were a necessary part of God's plan to create humans, I might be able to understand why a specific, perfectly planned project takes precedence over 1) an improvised experiment with no ultimate goal, or 2) a targeted experiment without prior knowledge of how to achieve the goal. - Don't buy your description of evolution at all. God planned DNA to eventually guide evolution to humans. It is not improvised and it is targeted. Tony describes well the things created along the way to help support the eventual human arrival.
The Dodo Problem
dhw: This is precisely why I find your scenario so unconvincing. Reason and experience tell me that anything planned from the start should not branch off in all directions, and should not rely on luck. (I repeat, if extinction is a matter of bad luck, then survival is a matter of good luck.) Any Texan cowboy will tell you that a scattergun is not the weapon best guaranteed to hit the target.-DAVID: A shotgun hits the dove easier than a rifle. All cowboys know that.-Why are you Texan cowboys shooting innocent doves? Here is the definition I was going by: "A scattergun, or more commonly referred to as a shotgun, fires many pellets into the air hoping that one or two might hit the target. Most however miss and fall harmlessly to the ground." This seems to sum up your view of a UI's evolutionary mechanism.-dhw: If you can explain why dodos were a necessary part of God's plan to create humans, I might be able to understand why a specific, perfectly planned project takes precedence over 1) an improvised experiment with no ultimate goal, or 2) a targeted experiment without prior knowledge of how to achieve the goal. -DAVID: Don't buy your description of evolution at all. God planned DNA to eventually guide evolution to humans. It is not improvised and it is targeted. Tony describes well the things created along the way to help support the eventual human arrival.-Then what was the point of the dodo?
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Friday, November 26, 2010, 15:51 (5109 days ago) @ dhw
Why are you Texan cowboys shooting innocent doves?-Some folks eat them, which is the point of the animals we husband and harvest. thank you, Tony > > Here is the definition I was going by: "A scattergun, or more commonly referred to as a shotgun, fires many pellets into the air hoping that one or two might hit the target. Most however miss and fall harmlessly to the ground." This seems to sum up your view of a UI's evolutionary mechanism. > > dhw: If you can explain why dodos were a necessary part of God's plan to create humans, I might be able to understand why a specific, perfectly planned project takes precedence over 1) an improvised experiment with no ultimate goal, or 2) a targeted experiment without prior knowledge of how to achieve the goal. > > DAVID: Don't buy your description of evolution at all. God planned DNA to eventually guide evolution to humans. It is not improvised and it is targeted. Tony describes well the things created along the way to help support the eventual human arrival. > > Then what was the point of the dodo?-Based on extremeophiles, life was created to be tenacious, pop up everywhere, to be sure evolution of life survived to create us. You persist in questioning the UI's reasons for this approach. I agree, there are easier methods by our brains' reasonings, but there may be a reason we don't understand as yet. More reasearch is needed and such research continues to go on. It is like discussing the backward human retina. New explanations have appeared recently. The UI explanation of guided evolution fits what we know now.
The Dodo Problem
dhw: Then what was the point of the dodo?-DAVID: Based on extremeophiles, life was created to be tenacious, pop up everywhere, to be sure evolution of life survived to create us. You persist in questioning the UI's reasons for this approach. I agree, there are easier methods by our brains' reasonings, but there may be a reason we don't understand as yet. More research is needed and such research continues to go on. It is like discussing the backward human retina. New explanations have appeared recently. The UI explanation of guided evolution fits what we know now.-It's worth repeating that your interpretation of the evolutionary process ... a single mechanism automatically developing into all its branches ... fits in perfectly with the atheist scenario minus a UI. Your original mechanism is designed, theirs comes about by chance. It has to be a possibility. But there is a huge gap between life "popping up everywhere", and being SURE life would survive specifically in order to CREATE US (= the UI's scattergun approach). If our brains tell us there are easier methods, but there may be a reason we don't understand as yet, why dismiss alternative theories to your own that require no such reason? Evolution proceeded by shooting out branches in all directions. This may be because God was trying different things to see what would happen (= experimenting and improvising), or because he had a particular aim in mind but wasn't sure how best to achieve it (= experimenting). Both alternatives "fit what we know now". There is no gap in either of them, they explain precisely how God might have arrived at us humans through "branching", and therefore they require no unknown reason. They merely require an adjustment to your insistence that God had everything worked out from the very beginning. My apologies for being as stubborn as you!
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Saturday, November 27, 2010, 17:48 (5108 days ago) @ dhw
> It's worth repeating that your interpretation of the evolutionary process ... a single mechanism automatically developing into all its branches ... fits in perfectly with the atheist scenario minus a UI. Your original mechanism is designed, theirs comes about by chance. It has to be a possibility. But there is a huge gap between life "popping up everywhere", and being SURE life would survive specifically in order to CREATE US (= the UI's scattergun approach). If our brains tell us there are easier methods, but there may be a reason we don't understand as yet, why dismiss alternative theories to your own that require no such reason? Evolution proceeded by shooting out branches in all directions. This may be because God was trying different things to see what would happen (= experimenting and improvising), or because he had a particular aim in mind but wasn't sure how best to achieve it (= experimenting). -You miss my point. I believe that the genome is marvelously designed to take life into any region, to respond to any environmental change, geologic alteration, temperature change, atmospheric change, etc. Once set up there is no direct evidence of experimentation. The genome in the amoeba shows the same basic steps as human genomes. Branches in the evolutionary tree would show some tampering in the genomes, some odd directionality, if your proposal of experimentation existed. The genomes are built to experiment on their own from the beginning, to adapt as necessary. Chance is involved only in the chance appearance of challenges. God sits and watches.-> Both alternatives "fit what we know now". There is no gap in either of them, they explain precisely how God might have arrived at us humans through "branching", and therefore they require no unknown reason. They merely require an adjustment to your insistence that God had everything worked out from the very beginning. My apologies for being as stubborn as you!-Just as stubborn: No they don't both fit. Chance cannot arrive at the complexity of life we now see. The molecular machines of life, I presented one recently here, are beyond chance, IMHO, and I am not humble about it. And Behe is touring England at the moment conquering all in his ddbates. I've listened to one so far. The Humanists are losing; George and the others just don't know it yet. If goerge is watching, some of the UK humanist blogs won't come up on my computer. I wish they would. It is always mind expanding to listen in on the opposition reasoning.
The Dodo Problem
DAVID: You miss my point. I believe that the genome is marvelously designed to take life into any region, to respond to any environmental change, geologic alteration, temperature change, atmospheric change, etc. Once set up there is no direct evidence of experimentation. The genome in the amoeba shows the same basic steps as human genomes. Branches in the evolutionary tree would show some tampering in the genomes, some odd directionality, if your proposal of experimentation existed. The genomes are built to experiment on their own from the beginning, to adapt as necessary. Chance is involved only in the chance appearance of challenges. God sits and watches.-But if change depends on the chance appearance of challenges, that is not "only", that is a huge factor. What guarantee could there be that chance environmental changes would lead to adaptations and above all INNOVATIONS, which would in turn lead to humans? (If you wish to argue that God built into the original molecules a separate programme for innovations such as sexual organs, eyes, legs, livers etc. purely in order to make humans, did he know they would lead to my friend the dodo? If so, what was the point of the dodo? If he didn't know, then why should he know they would lead to humans?) dhw: Both alternatives "fit what we know now". There is no gap in either of them, they explain precisely how God might have arrived at us humans through "branching", and therefore they require no unknown reason. They merely require an adjustment to your insistence that God had everything worked out from the very beginning. My apologies for being as stubborn as you!-DAVID: Just as stubborn: No they don't both fit. Chance cannot arrive at the complexity of life we now see. The molecular machines of life, I presented one recently here, are beyond chance, IMHO, and I am not humble about it.-For the sake of our discussion, I'm accepting the UI premise and am arguing AGAINST chance. Here are two human scenarios parallel to my two divine evolutionary scenarios: 1) Man invents the wheel. He has no idea what it will lead to, but as time goes by, he works out more and more sophisticated ways of using it. (God invents life, and as time goes by, he works out... etc.). Lots of branches, no chance. 2) Man sets out to find a way to fly. He tries all sorts of experiments, and comes up with the biplane, which he then works on until it becomes the jet. (God sets out to create an intelligent being, tries all sorts of experiments, and comes up with hominids, which he then works on until they become us.) Lots of branches, no chance. I can imagine him intervening only when he felt it necessary, but what I can't imagine is your scenario that he knew from the very outset that the first molecules would evolve into humans without his doing a damn thing. You've admitted that this process would depend on the chance appearance of Nature's challenges, you've agreed that our brains tell us there are easier methods, and you're relying on finding "a reason we don't understand as yet". The above is my gallant attempt to show you that we do not need to find an as yet unknown reason for your scenario, because both my scenarios fit the evolutionary facts as we know them, and ELIMINATE chance. Over to you, dear brother mule.
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Sunday, November 28, 2010, 21:39 (5107 days ago) @ dhw
For the sake of our discussion, I'm accepting the UI premise and am arguing AGAINST chance. I can imagine him intervening only when he felt it necessary, but what I can't imagine is your scenario that he knew from the very outset that the first molecules would evolve into humans without his doing a damn thing. -Why not: The whole mechanism is there from the beginning with a drive toward complexity in the little old amoeba. And what is the most complex thing in the universe, the UI itself?!. So why shouldn't big-brained primates appear?-> You've admitted that this process would depend on the chance appearance of Nature's challenges, you've agreed that our brains tell us there are easier methods, and you're relying on finding "a reason we don't understand as yet". -Sure there are easier ways to go from dirt to us. A creating God snaps his fingers, if He has any in His brain, and presto, we are here. What I don't understand is why He didn't just do that, unless under the rules governing the UI, if there are such rules, He couldn't just snap fingers, and had to let organisms evolve. That fits what we do know also. -> The above is my gallant attempt to show you that we do not need to find an as yet unknown reason for your scenario, because both my scenarios fit the evolutionary facts as we know them, and ELIMINATE chance. Over to you, dear brother mule.- But you keep bringing up the Dodo. Dodo's and trilobites are chance end points of branching, branching which is a chance occurrence dictated by the genome of life, looking for the best roads to follow. I introduced the chance challenges. There is always chance, but the genome knows how to conquer them, one branch at a time. What I don't like is chance mutation as the guiding force. How ridiculous! To make bio-engines like I have been posting. HAHA.
The Dodo Problem
David and I are enjoying a ding-dong-dodo. This time, I will start with the end of your post
AVID: What I don't like is chance mutation as the guiding force. -I agree, and it's a crucial point against atheism. However, at the beginning of your post, you also make a crucial point against theism:-"And what is the most complex thing in the universe, the UI itself?!. So why shouldn't big-brained primates appear?"-If the most complex thing in the universe can simply "appear", then so can the less complex mechanism that brought about life and evolution. George could hardly have put it better.-You don't understand why God didn't just "snap his fingers" in order to create us, unless "under rules governing the UI", in which case he "had to let organisms evolve". If God created the universe, who created the rules that govern the UI? But if God exists, I see him as a scientist, not as a finger-snapping magician. And so I don't have a problem with his being hamstrung by the laws of Nature, or by the possible lack of a plan, or by the need to experiment in order to execute a plan, and I certainly have no problem with the need for evolution, as I believe like you that evolution happened. Nor do I even have a problem with the mechanism being there from the very beginning ... which is also the atheist scenario. I only have a problem with the mechanism being precisely geared to the ultimate, deliberate, automatic, absolutely guaranteed production of human beings without any further interference, whereas everything that is NOT geared to the production of humans ... like my poor friend the dodo ... simply happens by chance. If your version of a UI was running our local planning department, I hate to think what our town would look like now.-However, we are never going to agree, and so before we both join the dodo, I'm willing to call a truce if you are.
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 17:07 (5105 days ago) @ dhw
David and I are enjoying a ding-dong-dodo. This time, I will start with the end of your post: > > DAVID: What I don't like is chance mutation as the guiding force. > > I agree, and it's a crucial point against atheism. However, at the beginning of your post, you also make a crucial point against theism: > > "And what is the most complex thing in the universe, the UI itself?!. So why shouldn't big-brained primates appear?" > > If the most complex thing in the universe can simply "appear", then so can the less complex mechanism that brought about life and evolution. George could hardly have put it better. > > However, we are never going to agree, and so before we both join the dodo, I'm willing to call a truce if you are.-I can't quit at this point. The big brained primate didn't 'appear'. That is you taking my shorthand description for all its worth. Six million years ago a branch appeared that began to enlarge its brain. It wasn't particularly threatened. Preditors weren't overwhelming. The equatorial climate was ok. The other primates didn't develop further, brains the same. What drove Australopithicus to Homo habilis to Homo sapiens? Nothing we absolutely know of. Dumb luck? Road apples!!! We can see no such need for such a driven branch of evolution. Re-read my chapter of my book,"Our Hat Size is Too Big for Darwin". Recent research, I have quoted here, tells us the chimps and bonobos did not advance at all. They had just as many 'threats' as our branch. They have been in stasis. But not the road to H. sapiens. Please explain it, if you can!
The Dodo Problem
by BBella , Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 20:02 (5105 days ago) @ David Turell
What drove Australopithicus to Homo habilis to Homo sapiens? Nothing we absolutely know of. Dumb luck? Road apples!!! We can see no such need for such a driven branch of evolution. Re-read my chapter of my book,"Our Hat Size is Too Big for Darwin". Recent research, I have quoted here, tells us the chimps and bonobos did not advance at all. They had just as many 'threats' as our branch. They have been in stasis. But not the road to H. sapiens. Please explain it, if you can!-I still say we can't ignore the possibility of outside interference when it comes to H-sapiens appearance. Whether it be from gods,aliens or races from another planet or dimension, I still think it's the answer that fits best and makes the most sense for me.-bb
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 21:09 (5105 days ago) @ BBella
What drove Australopithicus to Homo habilis to Homo sapiens? Nothing we absolutely know of. Dumb luck? Road apples!!! We can see no such need for such a driven branch of evolution. Re-read my chapter of my book,"Our Hat Size is Too Big for Darwin". Recent research, I have quoted here, tells us the chimps and bonobos did not advance at all. They had just as many 'threats' as our branch. They have been in stasis. But not the road to H. sapiens. Please explain it, if you can! > > I still say we can't ignore the possibility of outside interference when it comes to H-sapiens appearance. Whether it be from gods,aliens or races from another planet or dimension, I still think it's the answer that fits best and makes the most sense for me. What can 'outside interference' do to living primates to make their brains grow? That mechanism is already built into their genomes. Whatever is 'outside' has to get into the genome and push it, if that kind of interference is at all allowed by the safeguards in the genome at present.-And by the way, I agree with you fully about the information we have gotten on Hinduism. I may be more Hindu than I thought.
The Dodo Problem
by satyansh , Wednesday, December 01, 2010, 12:51 (5105 days ago) @ David Turell
well all i know is there isnt really a definitive answer as to whether it is IE or NS. But david what i wanna know is how are you so positive that it has to be IE (Intelligent Design)
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 01, 2010, 17:39 (5104 days ago) @ satyansh
well all i know is there isnt really a definitive answer as to whether it is IE or NS. But david what i wanna know is how are you so positive that it has to be IE > (Intelligent Design)-The answer is so long I wrote a book, but the following entry here is a brief summary, under the title 'A challenge to David' from Matt.-Monday, November 15, 2010, 16:02 . Look up this entry. I've done 30cyears of study on these subjects, read 150 books and am still reading.
The Dodo Problem
DAVID: What drove Australopithicus to Homo habilis to Homo sapiens? Nothing we absolutely know of. Dumb luck? Road apples!!! We can see no such need for such a driven branch of evolution. Re-read my chapter of my book,"Our Hat Size is Too Big for Darwin". Recent research, I have quoted here, tells us the chimps and bonobos did not advance at all. They had just as many 'threats' as our branch. They have been in stasis. But not the road to H. sapiens. Please explain it, if you can!-I find your argument against "dumb luck" totally convincing, here as in your book, and as I keep trying to emphasize, it is one reason why I cannot accept the atheist argument that attributes life, consciousness etc. to chance. In my last post I have tried to make that clear, and have also tried to make it clear that I can't believe in a UI that either came about by chance or has always been around. That is why I'm an agnostic. I can only repeat that my objection to your scenario is that you focus the UI's original mechanism precisely on the deliberate and automatic production of humans, while at the same time it produces by chance a vast array of species that have nothing to do with the production of humans. This does not seem to me a logical piece of planning. -You have asked me to explain why chimps and bonobos have been in stasis, whereas hominids developed into homo sapiens. Let me set my imaginary scene first: God invents his evolutionary mechanism. He says either 1) let's see what it comes up with (= no plan), or 2) I'd like to make a sort of me (= a plan), but am not sure how to do it. In 1) he gets to the chimpobos (or whatever we should call the immediate ancestor), and says: I can improve on these. I can increase the mental capacity by enlarging the brain, and by changing other parts of the anatomy in order to accommodate it. In 2) he says: I'm getting much closer now to what I want, but I think I need to enlarge the brain....etc. In both cases, there is a new species, which itself is then gradually refined (pelvis, thumb, larynx etc., as you point out) to become the huge-brained you ... and maybe the lesser-brained me! Whether the refinement is just monitored or is manipulated, of course, we have no way of knowing, which applies to all stages of evolution. I'd be inclined to think that any major innovation would be as a result of a UI's intervention rather than through existing species adapting to random changes in the environment. In your automatic scenario, why would the original mechanism have changed from chimpobo to hominid, since the chimpobos were doing OK (and are still around to prove it, although the bonobo is in trouble now)? -My two scenarios allow for all the other branches and extinctions and irrelevancies between first molecule and first homo sapiens, and do not rely on random changes to the environment. Please tell me how they contradict the evolutionary facts as we know them.-In your response to BBella, you ask: "What can 'outside interference' do to living primates to make their brains grow?" If there is such a thing as a UI that created the original physical mechanism, it could also interfere (experiment) with it as above, just as our puny human scientists interfere (experiment) even now with existing mechanisms.
The Dodo Problem
by satyansh , Wednesday, December 01, 2010, 13:15 (5105 days ago) @ dhw
I can tell you one thing with some certainty. This problem isn't gonna be solved here. there are just not enough facts to prove the atheist argument or any other argument. -I think it all stems from the fact that some set of ideas make more sense to x people and some set of ideas make more sense to y people.-the funny thing is atheists keep insisting that they believe in reason but a lot of arguments from their side also stem from some basic assumptions that they make which sounds more like faith to me than anything else.-But while we are on the subject. I still have this question if we say that god created us why did he bother to create us in steps. was god playing a game. was he just having fun seeing us in different forms. or he was experimenting in seeing which forms suit well on this planet. why would this whole process happen. i am asking questions from you guys because i wanna increase my knowledge. Now it is your turn to teach me all these concepts in detail like i told you guys about Hinduism.
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 01, 2010, 17:59 (5104 days ago) @ dhw
> I find your argument against "dumb luck" totally convincing, here as in your book, and as I keep trying to emphasize, it is one reason why I cannot accept the atheist argument that attributes life, consciousness etc. to chance. In my last post I have tried to make that clear, and have also tried to make it clear that I can't believe in a UI that either came about by chance or has always been around. That is why I'm an agnostic. I can only repeat that my objection to your scenario is that you focus the UI's original mechanism precisely on the deliberate and automatic production of humans, while at the same time it produces by chance a vast array of species that have nothing to do with the production of humans. This does not seem to me a logical piece of planning.-No one has said that the UI is logical at our level of thought. > > In your automatic scenario, why would the original mechanism have changed from chimpobo to hominid, since the chimpobos were doing OK (and are still around to prove it, although the bonobo is in trouble now)?-Because the automatic scheme branched off a line, australopithicus, to grow big brains. It was pr-planned to happen > > My two scenarios allow for all the other branches and extinctions and irrelevancies between first molecule and first homo sapiens, and do not rely on random changes to the environment. Please tell me how they contradict the evolutionary facts as we know them.-You have the UI dabbling and dithering too much IMHO. There should be (I don't know this) some degree of preciseness if one can easily create a universe as starters > > In your response to BBella, you ask: "What can 'outside interference' do to living primates to make their brains grow?" If there is such a thing as a UI that created the original physical mechanism, it could also interfere (experiment) with it as above, just as our puny human scientists interfere (experiment) even now with existing mechanisms. -The UI doesn't have to. The mechanisms are built in and there are self-correcting safeguards against tampering, the complex feed back loops of epigenetics.
The Dodo Problem
In response to satyansh and David.-Satyansh: well all i know is there isnt really a definitive answer as to whether it is IE or NS. But david what i wanna know is how are you so positive that it has to be IE (Intelligent Design)-David has already responded, and I do hope you will read the post he has referred to, as I think it's an excellent summary of the case for ID. You're certainly right that there is no definitive answer, but from my agnostic standpoint I'd like to correct a common misunderstanding ... which I've pointed out before. Intelligent Design (ID) and Natural Selection (NS) are not alternatives. You can believe in both. NS is only part of the theory of evolution. It explains why some species survive and others don't. It tells us nothing about the origin of life, or even the origin of new organs and new species, which may depend on chance mutations and adaptation to changes in the environment. Those theists who accept the theory of evolution believe God created the whole mechanism. Atheists believe the mechanism initially came into being by sheer chance. Darwin himself was an agnostic, and said quite explicitly that his theory was perfectly compatible with belief in a Creator.-You have asked why God (if he exists) bothered to "create us in steps", and that question lies at the heart of this "dodo" thread. The fact that conditions had to be made suitable for us to live in has been clearly demonstrated by both Tony (balance_maintained) and David, and so early, primitive forms of microbial and plant life were necessary. But once conditions were right, why go through all those generations of, for example, dinosaurs if the intention right from the start was to produce humans? This is the point of disagreement between David and myself, and if there really was a Universal Intelligence at work, I'm suggesting as you do that it continued to experiment. Sitting back and watching countless species branching off, living and dying while the initial mechanism works its way towards humanity does not seem like logical planning to me.-DAVID: No one has said that the UI is logical at our level of thought. Your own approach to the question of ID versus chance has always been scientific and humanly logical. I don't know why, on this one issue of pre-planning, you feel you need to jettison human logic.-DAVID: It was pre-planned to happen. (Later: The mechanisms are built in.) I can't say it was NOT pre-planned, any more than you can say it WAS pre-planned. We are as evenly matched in our speculative ignorance as we are in our stubbornness! - DAVID: You have the UI dabbling and dithering too much IMHO. There should be (I don't know this) some degree of preciseness if one can easily create a universe as starters. Instead of the UI dabbling and dithering, you have him inventing a mechanism that is anything but precise with its branching here, there and everywhere, plus its dependence on random changes in the environment. In any case, what you call dabbling and dithering, others may call scientific experimentation. -DAVID: There are self-correcting safeguards against tampering, the complex feed back loops of epigenetics. So a power that can easily create a universe as starters is incapable of "tampering" with its own invention? -I fear that we two mules will never agree on this. The offer of a truce remains open!
The Dodo Problem
by satyansh , Thursday, December 02, 2010, 13:38 (5104 days ago) @ dhw
Thanks for the reply. I have gone through the explanations in detail of both David and yourself. What I find separating David and the atheists is basically what uve already mentioned that did the species evolve first through a creator or they are here just by chance.-Both the sides have one version backed by some theories which are based on certain facts and assumptions where David is assuming that it just cannot be created by chance if you look at the complexities of the human genome and that too much is being attributed to chance and the atheists simply believe in the concept of seeing and understanding through purely material methods and hence for them the probability of a creator starting all this is very improbable. As far as I am concerned I know one thing for sure. I am probably gonna end up dying without knowing the definitive answer to all of this. I said probably like the true agnostic that I am.(LOL)
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Thursday, December 02, 2010, 14:42 (5104 days ago) @ satyansh
What I find separating David and the atheists is basically what uve already mentioned that did the species evolve first through a creator or they are here just by chance. > > I am probably gonna end up dying without knowing the definitive answer to all of this. I said probably like the true agnostic that I am.(LOL)-Both of your comments have 'time' as part of the equation.Chance for progress in complexity is working against known 'time' intervals. So probabilities are part of the issue. Matt wants concrete math with knowledge of everything in the universe to calculate odds. I say it is obvious that 540 million years from the Cambrian Explosion is not enough time for chance mutation to create the current human brain. The other odds are how to put together a life form from inorganic matter. That only took 250 million years!!!
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Friday, December 03, 2010, 01:54 (5103 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Friday, December 03, 2010, 02:08
> Based on extremeophiles, life was created to be tenacious, pop up everywhere, to be sure evolution of life survived to create us. -A tough extremophile bacteria has been found in Mono Lake, living with high concentrations of arsenic. Once started, living matter is extremely tough, and ery adaptable.:-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57851/-A more theologic discussion of the arsenic bug and what it means in a duscussion of purpose in evolution;-http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/12/02/alien_life.thtml
The Dodo Problem
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 03, 2010, 05:02 (5103 days ago) @ dhw
Tony (B_M), presumably in support of David's anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, has again rightly pointed out that humans depend on all other life, which depends on the earth, which depends on the galaxy, which depends on the universe etc. This applied to the dodo just as much as to you and me, and certainly does not mean that humans were the final goal. If you can explain why dodos were a necessary part of God's plan to create humans, I might be able to understand why a specific, perfectly planned project takes precedence over 1) an improvised experiment with no ultimate goal, or 2) a targeted experiment without prior knowledge of how to achieve the goal. > > As for a baker planning to make a loaf and waiting 45 minutes for the dough to rise, it's a nice analogy, but it doesn't explain why someone who wants to bake a loaf should produce a dozen jam tarts as well, and then throw them away. (My analogy relates to the dodo, not to the obviously essential microbes or plants.)-The baker analogy is more fitting. Does the baker have to plan precisely how much sugar the yeast will consume, or how much they will ferment, or how much gas they will release? No. He simply knows that in 45 min, the yeast will feed on the sugars in the dough and make the bread rise before it is ready to put in the oven. -As for the Dodo, what ate the dodo? What ate the dodo's remains, or droppings, or eggs? What mites festered beneath the dodo's feathers? What did the Dodo eat? Was it something that no other animal at the time ate? Did the Dodo have or develop any unique immunities that it passed on to the creatures that ate it? What about and unique genetic mutations that were passed on to the creatures who ate it? Unless you know absolutely every detail about the Dodo, you can not say that the Dodo was irrelevant to the process of preparing the earth or sustaining the growing life on it.
The Dodo Problem
David and Tony believe that humans were pre-programmed in the very first self-replicating molecule. I have argued that the many branches of evolution suggest that at best this would have been a very wasteful, roundabout process, and I have taken the dodo as a symbol of the illogicality of this belief.-TONY: As for the Dodo, what ate the dodo? What ate the dodo's remains, or droppings, or eggs? What mites festered beneath the dodo's feathers? What did the Dodo eat? Was it something that no other animal at the time ate? Did the Dodo have or develop any unique immunities that it passed on to the creatures that ate it? What about and unique genetic mutations that were passed on to the creatures who ate it? Unless you know absolutely every detail about the Dodo, you can not say that the Dodo was irrelevant to the process of preparing the earth or sustaining the growing life on it.-In that case, you presumably believe that every living and extinct plant and creature on earth was pre-programmed in the first self-replicating molecule, since no matter what example I give, you can say it may have been essential for the ultimate goal of evolution: the human being. Of course I can't prove otherwise, because unless we know absolutely every detail about every plant and every creature (which we will never do), we can't say they were irrelevant. Nor, of course, can we say they were relevant. Nor can we say they were or were not pre-programmed. We can only say what seems to us to be logical, and what fits in with the facts as we know them. (I don't think anyone has ever established an evolutionary link between the dodo and man, apart from the fact that man may well have been responsible for its extinction.) Even David has to admit that with this interpretation, we are forced to rely on God having a different form of logic from our own. No problem for you or for him, but a problem for me because I can only think as a human being, and I can only believe what actually makes sense to me. If I allow for a God, and leave aside the atheist view that humans are just one of the branches that grew out of the original chance-created mechanism, I find that the branching process fits in more logically with God allowing life to go its own way and occasionally intervening with innovations, possibly improvising as he went (without plan), or possibly experimenting in order to get to a creature that might reflect himself (with plan). I will therefore ask you, as I asked David, how do these two possibilities, both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment, contradict the facts as we know them?-TONY: The baker analogy is more fitting. Does the baker have to plan precisely how much sugar the yeast will consume, or how much they will ferment, or how much gas they will release? No. He simply knows that in 45 min, the yeast will feed on the sugars in the dough and make the bread rise before it is ready to put in the oven.-More fitting than what? My objection to your analogy was the fact that your baker wanted to make a loaf of bread but accidentally baked a dozen jam tarts as well, and then threw them away. However, your dodo argument suggests that God the baker can't make a loaf without also making jam tarts.
The Dodo Problem
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 03, 2010, 19:42 (5102 days ago) @ dhw
The dodo may not have been any more necessary to human life than the carpet and furniture in your home. But you still have carpet and furniture don't you? Even if you KNOW that you are going to have to throw that carpet out in a few years when its time is past. When a carpenter builds a house, he will often create supports for walls and rafters that he KNOWS he is going to have to tear down later. But for that particular moment, they serve a purpose. When you build larger buildings, boats, or pretty much anything off the ground, you build scaffolding that you KNOW you are going to have to tear down later. Is it wasteful for the carpenter, or the architect, or the shipwright to do these things? Were they less important to the final product because they were temporary? - In my humble opinion, we are as ultimately ignorant of things as the UI would have to be ultimately knowledgeable. Every year we find things that we *thought* were irrelevant, pointless, useless, replaceable or otherwise unnecessary to be vital to our existence. Normally, we only figure this out once we have nearly destroyed them, but..better late than never. Bird shit is vital to our existence as a human race. So the nightingale sings a beautiful tune. It also spreads seeds around the world. Whale corpses are vital to our existence as a race. These graceful and majestic creatures with their mysterious language provide food for nearly every layer of the ocean(which in turn sustains our atmosphere and feeds us). Our own dead and decomposing bodies and our own fecal matter is vital to our existence as a human race as it returns to the soil and nourishes it so that new life can emerge(I find it an appalling shame that we try and stop this process via embalming and caskets and all that). And right now your computer is ultimately being powered by the rotted remains of an animal that lived millions of years ago. -I can not tell you what the purpose of the Dodo was. I am sure that there was a purpose though, even if it was only as a crunchy snack for something more important.
The Dodo Problem
TONY: The dodo may not have been any more necessary to human life than the carpet and furniture in your home. But you still have carpet and furniture don't you? [...] I can not tell you what the purpose of the Dodo was. I am sure that there was a purpose, though, even if it was only as a crunchy snack for something more important.-This is a delightful post, because you have done a wonderful job illustrating the interconnectedness of all things, as well as their value and beauty in the moment of their existence. It therefore seems almost churlish if I point out that there is absolutely nothing here that even remotely supports the argument for the first molecule being pre-programmed to create humans. At the risk of being a bore, I'd like to summarize the argument in order to encompass the beautiful observations you have made, but also including the atheist scenario.-You have stressed "purpose". If there is a God, it's fair enough to do so, but from an atheist standpoint, there's no need for purpose. Life is an end in itself, is beautiful for its own sake (just as a symphony or a painting is beautiful for its own sake), and we do not need to explain the dodo or any other form of existence. The interconnectedness of all things applied long before humans came on the scene, and it will apply long after we have disappeared. -For the sake of argument, however, I've accepted the UI scenario, but cannot see the logic in the view that evolution with its vast number of branches was geared right from the start to the automatic creation of humans. I have offered two alternative views: 1) God created life without a plan but through experimentation got to humans. 2) God did have a plan ... to create a reflection of himself ... but needed to keep experimenting in order to get closer and closer to what he was looking for. Both scenarios dispense with the need to find a purpose for the dodo, and the need to explain why God should have chosen such a roundabout route to humanity. Of course you can argue, as David does, that we don't understand God's logic, but with my two scenarios there is no such mystery. This brings me to the question which was central to my previous post but which you have ignored, and so I will ask it again: How do these two possibilities, both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment, contradict the facts as we know them?-Again, though, let me say how much I appreciate your post.
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Saturday, December 04, 2010, 14:58 (5102 days ago) @ dhw
> For the sake of argument, however, I've accepted the UI scenario, but cannot see the logic in the view that evolution with its vast number of branches was geared right from the start to the automatic creation of humans.-You keep missing the point that results in accepting the above scenario: the stresses of the environment, climate change, nature, natural enemies, do not require the development of big-brained humans. We are so highly developed, we are now tending to threaten the balance of nature on the planet. In fact we can blow the blue dot up!!! Then why are we here?? We are certainly more developed than we need be over the 6 million years of our development, and over the last 2,000 years we are becoming downright dangerous to the health of this planet! The doomsday clock is there for a logical reason! But we are here without any reason suggested by Darwin's logic.- > I have offered two alternative views: 1) God created life without a plan but through experimentation got to humans. 2) God did have a plan ... to create a reflection of himself ... but needed to keep experimenting in order to get closer and closer to what he was looking for. Both scenarios dispense with the need to find a purpose for the dodo, and the need to explain why God should have chosen such a roundabout route to humanity. Of course you can argue, as David does, that we don't understand God's logic, but with my two scenarios there is no such mystery. This brings me to the question which was central to my previous post but which you have ignored, and so I will ask it again: How do these two possibilities, both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment, contradict the facts as we know them?-Your scenarios fit the evolutionary processes we see but ignore my comments above. All of the reasoning has to fit under Ockham's umbrella. Your's doesn't. Why the big brain, unless it was predestined?
The Dodo Problem
dhw: For the sake of argument, however, I've accepted the UI scenario, but cannot see the logic in the view that evolution with its vast number of branches was geared right from the start to the automatic creation of humans.-DAVID: You keep missing the point that results in accepting the above scenario: the stresses of the environment, climate change, nature, natural enemies, do not require the development of big-brained humans. We are so highly developed, we are now tending to threaten the balance of nature on the planet. In fact we can blow the blue dot up!!! Then why are we here?? We are certainly more developed than we need be over the 6 million years of our development, and over the last 2,000 years we are becoming downright dangerous to the health of this planet! The doomsday clock is there for a logical reason! But we are here without any reason suggested by Darwin's logic. DAVID: Your scenarios fit the evolutionary processes we see but ignore my comments above. All of the reasoning has to fit under Ockham's umbrella. Your's doesn't. Why the big brain, unless it was predestined?-I don't think I've missed the point. The fact that the environment does not require the development of humans is as much an argument for intervention as it is for pre-programming. If God exists, then I agree we're here for a logical reason, and in one of my two scenarios I've agreed that God may have started out with the intention of producing us. And I most certainly agree that all of the reasoning has to fit under Ockham's umbrella. That is precisely where you and I part company. So let's try to visualize how it all happened, with God starting from scratch. First, the facts (ever so slightly simplified): on Friday 13th, Mrs Chimpobo gives birth to a weirdo with a large brain. Atheist scenario: What a stroke of luck!-Your scenario: God creates the mechanism for life and evolution, and says to himself: "What I want is a human being, and so after X million years of evolution, a descendant on the end of branch No. 100,000,000 of the life bush will give birth on Friday 13th to a weirdo with a large brain." And he programmes the birth and all the intermediate stages into the very first molecule. Either the other 99,999,999 branches are essential for the production of humans, or many if not most are a waste of time and space. Even for you it's hard to imagine that all 99,999,999 branches should be essential, but you believe God has his own logic, or he is incapable of tampering with his own inventions. My two divine scenarios: God creates the mechanism for life and evolution. He says to himself either 1) "Let's see where this leads," or 2) "I'd like to create something like me, but I'm not sure how to do it." After various interventions (major innovations like sex, for instance), on Friday 13th, God says to himself, "I like the look of this chimpobo on branch No. 100,000,000. I reckon I can develop it into something much more advanced if I just add a few bits and pieces to its brain. Certainly a better bet than the dodo." The other 99,999,999 branches are either part of the quest for the right formula for humans (2), or they're part of the experiment to see what can be made out of life (1). The result: the same in all scenarios. On Friday 13th, Mrs Chimpobo gives birth to the first hominid, leading eventually to the pinnacle of creation: David and dhw squabbling over which of these scenarios is most in line with the demands of our mutual friend William of Ockham. May I just ask you why you are so resolutely opposed to the idea of God not having got it all figured out from the very start?
The Dodo Problem
by David Turell , Sunday, December 05, 2010, 15:28 (5101 days ago) @ dhw
David and dhw squabbling over which of these scenarios is most in line with the demands of our mutual friend William of Ockham. May I just ask you why you are so resolutely opposed to the idea of God not having got it all figured out from the very start?-Like a mathematician, I prefer the elegance of my scenario. Set up the genome to develop complexity, and let life forms develop in every direction, with the ability to adapt to changing ernvironment. Remember the Earth was still is very formative stages when first life began. No afterthought fiddlings. The other evolution, that of our universe, was quite straight forward, and follows the underlying laws very nicely. Sir William also asked for the simplest explanation, as I was taught, for the factors at hand. I guess some of my response is based on my own faith in the UI I have created in my mind. My UI is not a ditherer.-Your scenarios are not wrong. They fit, in their own way. They are too contrived for my taste. But then, I must remember, you need your picket fence, and the reminder that there are so many unsettled points to consider.
The Dodo Problem
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 05, 2010, 03:11 (5101 days ago) @ dhw
For the sake of argument, however, I've accepted the UI scenario, but cannot see the logic in the view that evolution with its vast number of branches was geared right from the start to the automatic creation of humans. I have offered two alternative views: 1) God created life without a plan but through experimentation got to humans. 2) God did have a plan ... to create a reflection of himself ... but needed to keep experimenting in order to get closer and closer to what he was looking for. Both scenarios dispense with the need to find a purpose for the dodo, and the need to explain why God should have chosen such a roundabout route to humanity. Of course you can argue, as David does, that we don't understand God's logic, but with my two scenarios there is no such mystery. This brings me to the question which was central to my previous post but which you have ignored, and so I will ask it again: How do these two possibilities, both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment, contradict the facts as we know them? > - Possibility 1) Contradict the very fact that even though things so random and unrelated they are in fact connected in such a myriad of ways that we humans with all of our technology, intellect, reasoning, creativity, and several thousand years worth of effort have yet to discover even a minuscule fraction of their interconnectedness. Every single species, be it plant or animal, and every single element and molecule functions in beautiful harmony. Does that sound like the work of a shoddy experimenter? Even the ancient creatures, dinosaurs, mastodons, bacteria, plants, all lived in a strange sort of symbiotic harmony together. Just to make sure that is perfectly clear. The VERY FIRST species of life on this planet, and every species that has EVER existed has lived in symbiotic harmony with each other. The only thing even remotely challenging that statement that I am aware of is Humanity itself, who by virtue of our lofty reasoning abilities manage to throw things completely out of balance. And I think that is an important feature in and of itself. Only the work of an intelligent creature has been able to de-harmonize the work of another intelligence. No major cataclysm ever managed to provide more than a momentary bump in this design. No virus, no meteor, earthquake, or volcano, not even the splitting of Pangaea. None of this strikes me as the work of a sloppy, inexperienced workman.- The second scenario doesn't make sense in at least one fashion. Creating a Dinosaur, or a plant, or a platypus, is not even remotely close to creating something akin to human. In fact, there is no other creature in existence on this planet that comes even remotely close to what makes us human. Our reasoning, intellect, emotion, ascetic appreciation, imagination, self-awareness, creativity, and other fundamentally human traits. The closest they can come up with is a chimp or a gorilla which is indeed a poor approximation, no matter how much sign language they can teach it.-I hope that addresses the questions. I have not been intentionally ignoring them, but felt that directly answering them was rather unnecessary if I was able to make the point of harmonic symbiosis of all life clear.
The Dodo Problem
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 05, 2010, 03:27 (5101 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As an after thought:-I propose an experiment. Build a house, from the ground up, including creating all the components necessary to construct the house, without a plan. We can even cheat a little. For this experiment you will be allowed to start off with a selection of seeds of your choosing, and any other natural inanimate resource that you so desire. However, you are not allowed to plan more than one step in advance. The final product must be strong enough that it doesn't collapse under any circumstances, and must be suitable for living under any conditions found in the inhabited part of Earth. Any modern conveniences that you choose to have have to be constructed in the same fashion. -Sound ridiculous? No more so than saying that a UI created the universe, the elements, the laws of nature, the earth, and all life without a plan. In fact, I would argue that what I have proposed is infinitely less complicated and less ridiculous than what was proposed in your first question. Which leaves only the second question which is much more difficult to address.-One thing that came to mind for your second question is this: According to that idea, mankind is not the end goal. Which leads me to a follow up question. If mankind is not the end goal, why have we not seen any major changes in our evolution? No third eye, fourth arm, increase mental capabilities, anything to suggest that we are going to evolve into something greater than ourselves.
The Dodo Problem
TONY: Possibility 1) [WITHOUT A PLAN] Contradict the very fact that even though things so random and unrelated they are in fact connected in such a myriad of ways that we humans with all of our technology, intellect, reasoning, creativity, and several thousand years worth of effort have yet to discover even a minuscule fraction of their interconnectedness.-I'm sorry, but this part of your post and your house analogy are the result of a misunderstanding. This thread is about whether God built a programme into the first molecule to make evolution culminate in humans. That and that alone is the plan I'm referring to. I have already several times acknowledged the interconnectedness of things, and if God created life, then of course he could not have done so without planning. -TONY: The second scenario doesn't make sense in at least one fashion. Creating a Dinosaur, or a plant, or a platypus, is not even remotely close to creating something akin to human.-That is precisely the point that I'm making. If God's intention right from the start was to create humans, why bother with dinosaurs? Your argument so far has been that maybe dinosaurs were essential to the creation of humans. My argument is that if you follow my two scenarios, you don't have to look for such connections. In scenario 1) life is an end in itself, but God eventually gets the great idea of creating something that reflects himself more closely (humans). In scenario 2) he had already had the great idea, but didn't know quite how to go about it and therefore had to keep experimenting. (I should add that I rather like the idea of God learning as he goes along, as it would make life less boring for him!) -TONY: One thing that came to mind for your second question is this: According to that idea, mankind is not the end goal. Which leads me to a follow up question. If mankind is not the end goal, why have we not seen any major changes in our evolution? No third eye, fourth arm, increase mental capabilities, anything to suggest that we are going to evolve into something greater than ourselves.-Both scenarios end up with man, but I have no idea whether God is going to leave it at that. If he exists, I could well imagine him waiting till David's prophecy comes true (doomsday) and then starting on something else. He seemed happy enough watching dinosaurs for 160 million years, so we ain't seen nothin' yet. But that's not the point. I'm arguing against the theory that God put a programme for humans into the first molecule, which I find far less likely than God intervening and experimenting. In this context, you still haven't answered one question which I put to you directly: How do my two "divine" scenarios ... both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment ... contradict the evolutionary facts as we know them?
The Dodo Problem
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 05, 2010, 18:30 (5100 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Possibility 1) [WITHOUT A PLAN] Contradict the very fact that even though things so random and unrelated they are in fact connected in such a myriad of ways that we humans with all of our technology, intellect, reasoning, creativity, and several thousand years worth of effort have yet to discover even a minuscule fraction of their interconnectedness. > > I'm sorry, but this part of your post and your house analogy are the result of a misunderstanding. This thread is about whether God built a programme into the first molecule to make evolution culminate in humans. That and that alone is the plan I'm referring to. I have already several times acknowledged the interconnectedness of things, and if God created life, then of course he could not have done so without planning. -> That is precisely the point that I'm making. If God's intention right from the start was to create humans, why bother with dinosaurs? Your argument so far has been that maybe dinosaurs were essential to the creation of humans. My argument is that if you follow my two scenarios, you don't have to look for such connections. In scenario 1) life is an end in itself, but God eventually gets the great idea of creating something that reflects himself more closely (humans). In scenario 2) he had already had the great idea, but didn't know quite how to go about it and therefore had to keep experimenting. (I should add that I rather like the idea of God learning as he goes along, as it would make life less boring for him!) -You do not build a house without preparing the foundation unless you want it to fall down around your ears. And if you are busy 'experimenting' with your foundation, the final house will fall down around your ears. This is the point I am trying to make, and it directly addresses the flaws in both scenarios(as I perceive them)1) Life IS an end in and of itself, but it was not a purposeless or meaningless experiment. 2) Humanity was not an afterthought, but a part of the design plan from the beginning(though not necessarily imprinted on the first molecule). If you, for example, took a close look at the biblical account (being one of the better known creation stories), humanity was created independent and AFTER all other life. So, your scenario 1, coupled with what I have been trying to say about prior life being preparatory to humanity, the various stages described and their apparent analog to the Cambrian explosion, and the fact that we can not find a genetic match closer than 60% or so to Human's all lends a bit more credence to at least some of that accounting being accurate. (At the very least more accurate than the evolved from amoebas and Chimps scenario) -> > Both scenarios end up with man, but I have no idea whether God is going to leave it at that. If he exists, I could well imagine him waiting till David's prophecy comes true (doomsday) and then starting on something else. He seemed happy enough watching dinosaurs for 160 million years, so we ain't seen nothin' yet. But that's not the point. I'm arguing against the theory that God put a programme for humans into the first molecule, which I find far less likely than God intervening and experimenting. In this context, you still haven't answered one question which I put to you directly: How do my two "divine" scenarios ... both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment ... contradict the evolutionary facts as we know them?-We do not have evolutionary facts, we have evolutionary theories with more holes than OJ Simpson's alibi. Personally, I do not think that your ideas contradict evolutionary theory, other than evolutionist would say that we come from chimps. Which I couldn't disagree with more vehemently.- I think ultimately you and I are disagreeing on a very very specific point that to me is trivial. The phrases 'preprogrammed in the molecule' and 'part of the plan before the first molecule was created'. One implies the instructions were hardwired, the other that there was some active creation happening. My personal view is active creation, though I can see the appeal and possibility of hardwired instructions. In a sense, I kind of think that BOTH are correct, and not mutually exclusive based on my belief about everything being connected.