Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism

[BADecker]

The more I think about it, the more I see that God created everything tame and domesticated, under the complete control of mankind. Then sin came, and many (most?) things turned wild. As usual, science has it backward.

[1715627427]

1715627427

[1715627427]

1715627427

[1715627427]

1715627427

[1715627427]

1715627427

[ObscureBean]

There is ample evidence for it.

Doesn't 'ample evidence' equate to 'fact'? I'm not sure how you can say something is a fact when the only support for your claim is somebody else's research/understanding. It's like saying this is a fact because they said so. Surely you can recognize that interpretation of ancient texts is guesswork at best. Check out the video below for a different interpretation of some of the texts about the Annunaki.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBvYxx1ODc

[CoinCube]

The more I think about it, the more I see that God created everything tame and domesticated, under the complete control of mankind. Then sin came, and many (most?) things turned wild. As usual, science has it backward.

Not sure I would agree in with the underlined part. We are told God's first instructions to man are "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

Subdue implies a process dominion yes but not necessarily without effort.

Rather then the entire world changing when sin came it seems more likely that only man changed only man went wild. The sin (obtaining knowledge of good and evil) had so altered mans nature that he could no longer live in harmony in the garden. His very essence now made that impossible.

[qwik2learn]

Doesn't 'ample evidence' equate to 'fact'?

Well, if you think that the Sumerian records are mainly a matter of interpretation and cannot be regarded as evidence then there is still other evidence for you to look at, so you can simply come back around to studying the meaning of the ancient records later...

[BADecker]

The more I think about it, the more I see that God created everything tame and domesticated, under the complete control of mankind. Then sin came, and many (most?) things turned wild. As usual, science has it backward.

Not sure I would agree in with the underlined part. We are told God's first instructions to man are "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

Subdue implies a process dominion yes but not necessarily without effort.

I would agree. Too strong of a statement. We can't even kill all the plants and animals off.

[BADecker]

Doesn't 'ample evidence' equate to 'fact'?

Well, if you think that the Sumerian records are mainly a matter of interpretation and cannot be regarded as evidence then there is still other evidence for you to look at, so you can simply come back around to studying the meaning of the ancient records later...

I went and watched the video ObscureBean linked. In the Youtube sidebar, there were all kinds of additional videos that talked about the same thing. Sumerian evidence is evidence of what their record states. ObscureBean seems to be accurate in his conclusion that Sumerian evidence doesn't really have anything to do with this topic/thread, even though he doesn't say so directly... or does he?

[designerusa]

Fun stuff. And fun stuff is, well, just that... fun stuff. But this fun stuff seeks to avoid the questions of where it all came from.

Probability math shows us that evolution is impossible beyond any hint of a possibility. So, where did everything come from? especially life, which is extremely complex?

Whomever or Whatever made all this universe is still the question. And with that question, no answers are really found in this "alternative" thread. Only more questions.

Cause and effect, complexity and entropy still prove God. But even if they didn't, nature shows God. So, we are right back at the same point as before. Darwinism is a failure, and God is the Ruler of the universe.

i completely disagree with you.. nobody can know who is the ruler of the whole universe. none of the scientist or any religious books can prove whether there is a god or not. i hope somebody will prove the existence of god scientifically .After that, we can believe in god.

[BADecker]

Fun stuff. And fun stuff is, well, just that... fun stuff. But this fun stuff seeks to avoid the questions of where it all came from.

Probability math shows us that evolution is impossible beyond any hint of a possibility. So, where did everything come from? especially life, which is extremely complex?

Whomever or Whatever made all this universe is still the question. And with that question, no answers are really found in this "alternative" thread. Only more questions.

Cause and effect, complexity and entropy still prove God. But even if they didn't, nature shows God. So, we are right back at the same point as before. Darwinism is a failure, and God is the Ruler of the universe.

i completely disagree with you.. nobody can know who is the ruler of the whole universe. none of the scientist or any religious books can prove whether there is a god or not. i hope somebody will prove the existence of god scientifically .After that, we can believe in god.

The proof of the existence of God is right in front of you. It is called nature.

Nature is made up of machines that are inside the gigantic machine of nature. In fact, all our machines come from the example of the greater machines of nature. Machines need builders. The Builder of nature fits our definitions of the word "God."

Science also proves God. Everything operates by cause and effect. We see nothing other than cause and effect in all nature. Who started the causes? What was the Great First Cause? After all, there was a beginning. There had to have been. If there wasn't, entropy would have dissolved all complexity into a "blob" of sameness in all things long ago. So, the high complexity in the universe shows not only that there was a beginning, but that the beginning must have been extremely complex in Itself to have made all the complexity in the universe in the face of entropy.

Cause and effect show that God rules the universe through cause and effect if no other way.

[CoinCube]

The more I think about it, the more I see that God created everything tame and domesticated, under the complete control of mankind. Then sin came, and many (most?) things turned wild. As usual, science has it backward.

Not sure I would agree in with the underlined part. We are told God's first instructions to man are "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

Subdue implies a process dominion yes but not necessarily without effort.

I would agree. Too strong of a statement. We can't even kill all the plants and animals off.

Also relevant is that in the Garden of Eden man was told that he was to eat from every herb bearing seed upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed.

It was only after he had sinned was he told that he would eat the herb of the field.

[BADecker]

The more I think about it, the more I see that God created everything tame and domesticated, under the complete control of mankind. Then sin came, and many (most?) things turned wild. As usual, science has it backward.

Not sure I would agree in with the underlined part. We are told God's first instructions to man are "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

Subdue implies a process dominion yes but not necessarily without effort.

I would agree. Too strong of a statement. We can't even kill all the plants and animals off.

Also relevant is that in the Garden of Eden man was told that he was to eat from every herb bearing seed upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed.

It was only after he had sinned was he told that he would eat the herb of the field.

Fruits became corrupted. Today we see this. Not only do they spoil easily and quickly, but they do not have some of the nutrients that are necessary for life. Vegetables fill the difference. They are hearty, and do not spoil so easily. In addition, even though they often need cooking before people can stomach them, they have nutrients not found in the fruit.

Who or what were the vegetables for in pre-sin times?

[CoinCube]

Who or what were the vegetables for in pre-sin times?

I suspect some logical extrapolation is allowed here.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-do-monkeys-eat.html

Most monkeys are omnivores. They love eating ripe fruits and seeds, but they also eat vegetables. Besides bark and leaves, they eat honey and flowers as well. The howler monkey is known as the loudest land animal. You can hear their loud calls even when you are 3 miles away from them in jungles. They are strictly vegetarians and enjoy eating small, young, tender leaves by hanging upside down from their tails. Their diet consists of fresh fruits like yams, bananas, grapes, and green vegetables. Various plants in the canopy layer of the rainforests act as cups and store water for them. Facts about monkeys inform us that they use their lips and hands skillfully to eat only those parts of vegetation which they want. All monkeys wander in search of food during the day,

[Gimpeline]

Who or what were the vegetables for in pre-sin times?

I suspect some logical extrapolation is expected.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-do-monkeys-eat.html

Most monkeys are omnivores. They love eating ripe fruits and seeds, but they also eat vegetables. Besides bark and leaves, they eat honey and flowers as well. The howler monkey is known as the loudest land animal. You can hear their loud calls even when you are 3 miles away from them in jungles. They are strictly vegetarians and enjoy eating small, young, tender leaves by hanging upside down from their tails. Their diet consists of fresh fruits like yams, bananas, grapes, and green vegetables. Various plants in the canopy layer of the rainforests act as cups and store water for them. Facts about monkeys inform us that they use their lips and hands skillfully to eat only those parts of vegetation which they want. All monkeys wander in search of food during the day,

BADecker and logic never goes together

[CoinCube]

BADecker and logic never goes together

If the interpretation of Genesis above correct then Genesis describes something that science would not grasp for another 3,000+ years.
The overall interpretation is very much a theistic one if perhaps unconventional.

Perhaps it is not such a good idea to immediately dismiss BADeckers positions as illogical without first evaluating and weighing them. 

[botija]

If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.

[BADecker]

If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.

As in "Highlander," there can be only one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg16385964#msg16385964

[botija]

If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.

As in "Highlander," there can be only one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg16385964#msg16385964

That sounds like planet x and pole shift.

[jstern]

Reading some of these reply is like taking Star Wars as a fact.

[qwik2learn]

Intervention Theory in regards to plant domestication is a bold claim. It is a factual claim and one that with time and study we should be able to find increasing and objective evidence for one way or another. As we lack definitive data currently it is not unreasonable for most to support the status quo of modern biology.

However, I also believe it unwise to totally reject the theoretical possibility of intervention theory. Our overall knowledge is limited. Until the history of crop domestication is fully understood one cannot completely rule it out.

I choose not to support the status quo of modern biology and its adherents on this question because "it is unlikely that such variants pre-existed as common, neutral alleles in wild populations". The things they find when examining [domesticated plants] are [very] far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm that.

Especially troubling was the absence of "transitional species" in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that, over vast amounts of time, species did in fact gradually transform into other, "higher" species. Like Pye, I am not "confident their fabled missing link will be found beneath the next overturned rock".

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.” Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, stated: “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.” And these are by no means exceptional disclosures.

Scientists know these limitations of evolutionary theory are true and will be enduring, but shamefully few have the nerve to address them openly.

Darwin and his cohorts were promoting a theory based on three fallacious “gaps” in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawson’s three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.

This results in much confusion:
Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not trust. Geneticists have little use for palaeontologists, who return the favour in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labours to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilise mathematical models that challenge palaeontologists and systematists.

Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention--by God or You Know What--can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.

Most of this post is quoted from Pye's writings on Intervention Theory:
http://whale.to/b/pye1.html
http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases, they can't even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed or reality is denied, the truth is out there.


When all of the above is taken together--the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals and humans--it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Design proponents. None of them can explain it, because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms.

We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own backyard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.

[BADecker]

Intervention Theory is nonsense.

Everything wears out. Even though entropy is detailed, it still exists. Intervention theory is nonsense because the very nature of things shows a gradual breaking down of complexity.

The reverse of Intervention Theory is true. There was far greater complexity and diversity in the past. The fossil record shows this. The closest we might come to intervention is, somebody is slowing down entropy a little.

Until science recognizes the fact of devolution rather than evolution, things like Intervention Theory are only a way for them to increase their popularity so that they can receive recognition and make money.

[CoinCube]

the very nature of things shows a gradual breaking down of complexity.

I would argue that this statement is false.  

We would be wise to consider entropy from the perspective of information theory.
This approach likely takes us closest to what entropy actually is rather then simple physical manifestations of it.  
According to information theory entropy is a measure of unpredictability of information content.  

see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

How does this apply to life and a gradual breaking down of complexity? Here is a nice post from Anonymint where he analyzes this.

If we consider each lifeform in isolation, then a lifeform appears to be dissipative because energy is input and order is increased in the form of aggregating chemical structures (which comprise the body of that lifeform) that comprise higher energy states than their decompositions.

But that doesn't describe life (as distinct from lifeform) at all. These highly ordered lifeforms are interacting to create the much higher information system of evolution. Each lifeform alone is insignificant to anything on any significant scale, yet evolution has given human society the information content to travel across the solar system in outer space. No single lifeform could have attained that entropy/capability (read on...).

Entropy is not some vague concept. It has a precise mathematical definition which is the sum of the logarithmic relation of the number and probability of the possible configurations (a.k.a. states) in the system, i.e. it is measure of the granularity and uniformness of possibilities in the system, i.e. the availability to fitness (to receive work) of the system.  Mankind could not have achieved such amazing feats without a much larger scope of capability states and more distributed probabilities within that scope. In other words, if all lifeforms were capable of doing only one thing, mankind can't accomplish many things. If lifeforms can't interact to form higher information content, then their input to evolution can be lost and the information content decreases.

If you only focus on the biological lifeforms, you miss the entropic force. Biological lifeforms considered only physically and in isolation from the network effects (and memory of evolution) is just a zero sum game if without the entropic relationship. It is akin to focusing only on the actors of the system and treating the interaction of lifeforms (not in the physical but in the informational and evolutionary memory perspective) here on earth as a closed thermodynamic system.Thermodynamics tells us that entropy depends not only on the net flow of energy but also the work dissipated external to the system. The information content of evolution is orthogonal to the physical work done on earth, so all the energy being input is also being dissipated out of the open information system of evolution.

Considering only lifeforms is as silly as saying the entropy of a software program doesn't increase as its Kolmogorov complexity increases. it is irrelevant that the physical manifestation of that knowledge is highly ordered in the physical world where it is stored or represented. The information content has increased. Any one claims there isn't an interaction between that information content and the real physical world is loony and denies the obvious.

Edit: what is interesting to me is how information content increases as the physical thermodynamics becomes more and more indirectly coupled to the system of the information content. One typically thinks of entropy as decay or decomposition but this process is coincident with an increase in information capacity as the potential number of independent states is greater the less mass/inertia is involved. Again if Professor Stolfi only wants to count atoms, then there is nothing for us to talk about. To argue that the information content of software or evolution doesn't interact with the physical realm doesn't make any sense to me. To argue that information content is bounded by atoms of the lifeforms doesn't make any sense as well, and probably if I take some time to formalize it I will be able to. Heading this direction will likely lead to some unifying discoveries in Physics such as the recent discovery that gravity can be shown mathematically to emerge from the entropic force.

Imagine if life was perfect and without chance. Life would be deterministic and could be modeled with an algorithm, then failure couldn't exist, everything would be known in advance, and thus there could be no change that wasn't predictable, i.e. real change wouldn't exist and the universe would be static. Life requires imperfection and unbounded diversity, else life doesn't exist and isn't alive. Equality and perfection are the ambition of the insane who probably don't realize they must destroy life to reach their goal.

Thus the theory that it would be impossible to predict what computers would contemplate is nonsense because the input entropy of the models of the brain will always be finite and deterministic from the time the input entropy is varied.

Pseudo-random number generators are deterministic from the time the seed is changed. Even dynamically capturing entropy from the changing content of the internet would be deterministic from each moment of capture to the next, and the model of capture would be lacking diversity and static (only modified by a human).

The 160 IQ genius Microsoft founder Paul Allen refers to this as “specialized knowledge” in The Complexity Brake, yet he thinks the brain is finite because he apparently didn't consider that every finite human brain is unique; thus systemic creative thought possesses dynamic unbounded entropy.

Ray Kurzweil responded that the human genome (DNA) has a finite information content, and claimed that humans possess a canonical brain which is differentiated by what is learned from the environment during each human lifetime.

Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique. Notwithstanding that uniqueness, if human evolution was entirely encoded in a finite genome, then it would be mathematically possible for a plurality of humans to have identical brains at some point in time as the brain forms before differentiation from non-identical learning environments. However, the brain is learning and exposed to the environment as it is forming in the womb, thus there is never a point in time where the brain was entirely structured from only the information in the DNA.

Thus evolution is not just an encoding from the environment to the genome, rather a continuous interaction between the ongoing environment and the genome. Thus for computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population.

The implication is that the creativity of humankind is enhanced as the human population grows. And culling the population to increase average IQ would reduce human creativity. Resilient systems don't have low entropy.

Claude Shannon showed us that the capacity for information content is equivalent to the entropy of a system. As elucidated above, the entropy of our universe is inseparable from life, thus information is alive.