| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins' "evolution" is a design... |
|
Page 2 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
chazwin wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 8:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
There is some truth in your words but rather than it being based on
sound philosphy , it is instead based on your own mental confusion.
Yes, Dawkins applies the language of teleology to that which is
supposedly not purposeful, he does this from philosophical naivety.
[/quote]
Precisely. And he's not getting with this naivety. Because this naivety
obscures the fact that Dawkins design for life is the same as the design
for life that a God would employ - non-physical and teleological. But
Dawkins disguises that fact by assuming design to be a physical
tampering of some sort. Such a design is a straw man against theist
intervention.
[quote]Your problem is a different species of confusion: you falsely link the
idea of purpose with the possibility of distinguishing events. This
has no necessary problem.
... And Dawkins answers this problem by saying that evolution is
"anything but random". Adaptations are selected by the avoidance of
failure to survive.
[/quote]
That "selection" assumes mind over matter, if it isn't random.
[quote]Whilst this cannot actively select successful traits, buy eliminating
negative traits, it selects advantageous traits whilst selecting a
myriad of other neutral traits.
[/quote]
Now we just shift the problem of finding a design for our ability to
distinguish life from non-life. The problem remains if we talk about
life in terms of "evolution" but the problem still remains when we
switch to talking about "traits" and "survival". I still need a design
or template for recognizing, for example, what is alive from what is dead.
[quote]
The problem with current evolutionary thought is that it is obsessed
with trying to identify positive traits whilst ignoring the wealth of
the infinite variety necessary for the survival of all species. ANd in
doing so resorts to teleology which gives ammunition and
encouragement to the loons of ID and creationism.
[/quote]
It doesn't help if we recognise the variety of "traits" as infinite. I
still need a design to distinguish traits from the infinite random dross
that is all natural material things. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sla#s wrote:
[quote]"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
You just refuse to understand it don't you.
What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
carried on?
Slatts
[/quote]
It's not the particular traits that concern me. It's how we come to
distinguish a trait AT ALL. How do we distinguish a rabbit ear from a
branch that the rabbit sits under? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
chazwin wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 9:04 pm, "Sla#s" <p... at (no spam) slatts.net> wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
You just refuse to understand it don't you.
What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
carried on?
Slatts
It's not that simple. The rabbit might breed too, that way evolution
does not give a hoot about the length of ears. For the long ears to
prosper those with short ears would have to die before breeding.
None of this is "design" but it is luck and flaw.
[/quote]
No.... look you need a design to be able to pick out an ear or a rabbit
or a living thing in the first place. You assume that these objects are
inherently recognizable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
[quote]In article <hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com says...
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
Stop misreprsenting Dawkins. Mutation is random. Selection
is not.
[/quote]
Selection is random as it is configured by random events. But that's not
the point. The point is that we can't pick out ANY selection unless we
have a design or template to do so. It doesn't matter whether the
objects that fall under it are random or not.
[quote]But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose.
Does he? Then you should have no trouble proving your
claim: Using Dawkins' own words, *taken in context*,
demonstrate that Dawkins holds evolution to mean "design
with a purpose."
[/quote]
Dawkins holds that life is a design with a purpose when he argues for
the absence of design in life. Why? Because life is picked out by a
design. How else can Dawkins distinguish a life-form? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Stafford wrote:
[quote]It appears that many persons assert that purpose is not necessary to
design. Further, if true, then would that mean that survival itself is
merely something accidental.
IOW, existence in itself is not a purpose, nor is it an intention of
design. Evolution points to no purpose.
[/quote]
You've already picked out a design and a purpose simply by mentioning
evolution. YOu need purposes and designs to distinguish evolutionary
objects from any other random object.
[quote]It's all an accident.
[/quote]
It makes no difference whether life is an accident. You still need a
design to single out an evolutionary/life object. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Drafterman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Tapestry <estry.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
First off, you cannot separate the power of GOD from creation.
They are inseparable.
I agree. They are both intertwined.
They are also both fictional elements.
Secondly, evolution doesn't happen.
It happens everytime an organism reproducts an offspring that is
genetically different than itself.
[/quote]
How did you come to distinguish this "it"? You made a creative act. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hatunen... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:01:42 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose.
[/quote]
No he doesn't. And he explicitly says so in "The Greatest Show on
Earth" and follows up with the "why not". Why don't you actually
read that book before you start making up things? It is one of
hte best explnaations of evolution I've evr seen, and the
language is mostly simple enough for even a creationist or an
IDer to follow.
[quote]Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
[/quote]
Please explain why he has to.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen at (no spam) cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hatunen... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:58:22 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
Random evolution events would be those events involved in the
evolution of life (for example: mutations).
Other random events would be those not involved in the evolution of
life (for example: the decay of of a carbon 14 atom on Neptune).
Evolution is a physical synonym for life -
[/quote]
No it's not.
[quote]life rephrased as a sequence
of events.
[/quote]
Explicate that please. It odwn't make sense to me.
[quote]But both evolution and life fall back on a picture or design.
[/quote]
"Picture"? What picture? What design?
[quote]That design is the same design for Dawkins as it is for the God he
argued against.
[/quote]
No it's not. You know very little of Dawkins writings but you
sure seem to have a lot of opinions about his writings.
Tell the truth, now, have you EVER actually read one of Dawkin's
books all the way through? Which one?
[quote]This simples like a trivial issue, yet you've made two posts about it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
As a tangent, there are issues with the reference to evolution as
"random":
Evolution is guided, ultimately, by the laws of physics.
That's not saying anything. All random events are physical. It takes
something more than the physical description to single out an
evolutionary event from all other events.
Yes, there
are elements of unpredictability, but the word randomn is used,
oftentimes, to imply that any result is as likely as any other. While
not purely deterministic, the laws of physics act to reign things in
and act as a filter to produce the universe we observe today.
My point is that there are NO RESULTS in a random set of events. Where
does Dawkins get his Result from?
[/quote]
You keep saying that. Get it straight: it is the mutations that
are random. Natural selection is NOT random.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen at (no spam) cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian E. Clark... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <2321bfe3-d63d-4a9f-b780-c4f2e9ea6c18
at (no spam) d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, chazwyman at (no spam) yahoo.com says...
[quote]What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
carried on?
Slatts
It's not that simple.
[/quote]
Yes and no. Selection isn't the only factor in evolution.
But in terms of his comments, he's correct and you're not.
[quote]The rabbit might breed too, that way evolution
does not give a hoot about the length of ears.
[/quote]
Exactly, precisely wrong.
[quote]For the long ears to prosper those with short ears
would have to die before breeding.
[/quote]
No no no.
The key idea here is "differential reproductive success,"
not "reproducing before dying."
Here's an example, just for the purpose of explanation.
Longer ears might give Rabbit X a few more tenths of second
warning that a cat is approaching, allowing her to hide
before the cat pounces. Rabbit Y, with shorter ears,
detects the cat, but not before the cat has leapt. Thus
Rabbit Y is obliged to run and hop and dodge to escape the
predator. Both Rabbit X and Rabbit Y survive, and both
produce offspring. But Rabbit Y is spending a lot more or
her resources on flight and escape, while Rabbit X can
devote equivalent resources to making more milk, or keeping
her babies warm, or raising another litter in a given year,
to a degree which more than offsets the economic penalty of
producing longer ears in the first place. That's difference
enough to ensure that over the generations, the genes that
give Rabbit X her longer ears will become widespread, and
the genes that give Rabbit Y her shorter ears will become
scarce.
[quote]None of this is "design" but it is luck and flaw.
[/quote]
What's the flaw? The speedster cars of the 1920s worked
very well, and they all were capable of finishing the race,
but their designs cannot compete successfully with today's
models.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
[/quote]
"In philosophy, systems theory and science, emergence is the way
complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively
simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of
integrative levels and of complex systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:19 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]John Stafford wrote:
It appears that many persons assert that purpose is not necessary to
design. Further, if true, then would that mean that survival itself is
merely something accidental.
IOW, existence in itself is not a purpose, nor is it an intention of
design. Evolution points to no purpose.
You've already picked out a design and a purpose simply by mentioning
evolution. YOu need purposes and designs to distinguish evolutionary
objects from any other random object.
It's all an accident.
It makes no difference whether life is an accident. You still need a
design to single out an evolutionary/life object.
[/quote]
Maybe evolution is not as random as popular belief would have it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/is-evolution-truly-random.html
__________________________________________________________________________
A few scientists have begun finding ingenious ways to test the
repeatability of evolution. And they are finding that what they
thought were the random vagaries of evolution are not so random at
all.
''There's a lot of phenomenal data coming out,'' said Dr. Loren H.
Rieseberg, an evolutionary biologist at Indiana University. ''There's
clearly more to repeatability than we'd suspected a decade ago.''
Dr. Richard E. Lenski, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State,
said, ''A lot of studies are finding quite a lot of surprising
replicability of evolutionary outcomes.''
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the late Harvard paleontologist, crystallized
the question in his book ''Wonderful Life.'' What would happen, he
asked, if the tape of the history of life were rewound and replayed?
For many, including Dr. Gould, the answer was clear. He wrote that
''any replay of the tape would lead evolution down a pathway radically
different from the road actually taken.''
In fact, to many scientists, it would seem impossible to re-evolve
anything like life on earth today, given how life has been shaped by
accidents large and small.
But 12 flasks of bacteria in East Lansing, Mich., are beginning to
challenge such notions. In 1988, Dr. Lenski and his colleagues set up
a dozen genetically identical populations of E. coli bacteria in
bottles of broth and have followed their evolutionary fates.
Now, more than 30,000 bacterial generations later, Dr. Lenski and
colleagues have what is becoming one of the most striking examples of
repeatability yet. All 12 populations show the same patterns of
improvement in their ability to compete in a bottle and increases in
cell size. All 12 have also lost their ability to break down and use a
sugar, called ribose.
More surprising, many genetic changes underlying these adaptations are
very similar. Every population, for example, lost its ability to break
down ribose by losing a long stretch of DNA from the same gene.
Other scientists studying cichlid fish have observed how the same
varieties of cichlids evolve anew every time they invade a new lake.
And Dr. Rieseberg and colleagues have found evidence that evolution
can repeatedly produce the same species.
These scientists found that one sunflower species on sand dunes has
evolved independently three separate times. And each time one of the
species newly evolves, genetically it appears to turn out much the
same. ''With these species, there seems to be only one way to do it,''
Dr. Rieseberg said.
Some scientists, like Dr. Simon Conway Morris, a paleobiologist at the
University of Cambridge and ardent critic of Dr. Gould's view, say the
evidence for repeatability is rampant. He argues in his new book,
''Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe,'' that some
features are so adaptive that they are essentially inevitable -- like
the ability to see and, as his title suggests, the intelligence and
self-awareness that are the hallmarks of humanity.
__________________________________________________________________________
Maybe the blueprint for the evolution of humans and all life was
imbedded in the physics of our universe in the same way as the six
numerical relationships that shape the universe
See
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, by Martin
Rees |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:01 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Maybe evolution is not as random as popular belief would have it.
[/quote]
Other than perhaps in the minds of ewe silly church going mystics,
where is "random evolution" a popular belief?
Perhaps ewe are really talking about those same silly Kantian
scientists who demand / insist on a non-existent being a requirement
of fact & truth?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 10:42 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 5:01 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe evolution is not as random as popular belief would have it.
Other than perhaps in the minds of ewe silly church going mystics,
where is "random evolution" a popular belief?
[/quote]
Evolution myths: Evolution is random
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random.html
OK! Happy? You've had your chirp, now piss off and study Ayn until you
spot something about either evolution or randomness, then try again |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:01 am, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]__________________________________________________________________________
Maybe the blueprint for the evolution of humans and all life was
imbedded in the physics of our universe in the same way as the six
numerical relationships that shape the universe
See
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, by Martin
Rees- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
A model relevant to randomicity/repeatability of evolution!
Place a black ball and a white ball in a bag. Without looking pick one
ball out of the bag. Replace it in the bag along with a second similar
ball (black or white). Keep repeating this selection and addition of
balls.
Does the ratio of black and white balls in the bag after n
repetitions converge towards 1:1 ? If not why not? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:17 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:01 am, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________________________________
Maybe the blueprint for the evolution of humans and all life was
imbedded in the physics of our universe in the same way as the six
numerical relationships that shape the universe
See
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, by Martin
Rees- Hide quoted text -
A model relevant to randomicity/repeatability of evolution!
Place a black ball and a white ball in a bag. Without looking pick one
ball out of the bag. Replace it in the bag along with a second similar
ball (black or white). Keep repeating this selection and addition of
balls.
Does the ratio of black and white balls in the bag after n
repetitions converge towards 1:1 ? If not why not?
[/quote]
If the number of replacement balls are equally black and white, then
yes, they will converge towards 1:1
What interests me, is the remark from Dr Morris that some features are
so adaptive that they are essentially inevitable -- like the ability
to see and, as his title suggests, the intelligence and self-awareness
that are the hallmarks of humanity.
So if he is correct, then we are humans in a universe that seems to
inevitably churn out humans.
I can understand that the relationship between the gravity and nuclear
forces will decide whether or not asteroids and planets and
ultimately, stars can form or not. I am wondering whether or not there
is some other finely tuned number or numerical relationship we are
currently unaware of, that might assist in the development of life,
sight, intelligence and self-awareness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:37 am
|
|