 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins' "evolution" is a design... |
|
Page 3 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Errol... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:02 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:17 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
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?
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.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
A relationship other than the obvious facility of the lower elements
in the periodic table to combine and form organic compounds from the
basic molecules such as of hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2), ammonia
(NH3), methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O).
Add Methane to Ammonia with a dash of water vapour and you have amino
acids.
Mix these amino acids up a bit and you get proteins. Thereafter it
becomes too complicated for a layman such as myself to identify a
common relationship that can be simplified down to a single driving
factor that would inevitably produce complex life forms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:41 pm, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
[quote]Fall back position which does not help at all: "Laws of Physics" or "Laws
of Nature" both assigning the power of law making to human abstraction,
not unlike a god.
[/quote]
But if humans are to understand this then it seems to me that the only
alternatives are understanding the objective environment in which
these apparent "laws" operate, or through internal techniques such as
meditation.
I would opt for the objective understanding but using whatever
internal techniques that may assist in understanding. maybe a zen
scientist is something to be. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:02 am, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:17 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
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?
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.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
In practice the numbers of black and white balls balls converge at
several different ratios. It has to do with the early random
selections of black and white balls. If white balls predominate in
the first picks then the convergence ratio will differ significantly
from when back balls predominate in the early picks.
IMO, this indicates that randomicity is a factor in speciation! The
incidence of convergence in evolution results from selectivity of the
survival advantages (eg sight, intelligence and self-awareness)
conferred by random changes in the organism and its environment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, John Jones <jonescard... 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 - life rephrased as a sequence
of events.
[/quote]
Not true. Evolution is how life changes. That is, life is affected by
evolution. They are not synonyms.
[quote]But both evolution and life fall back on a picture or design.
[/quote]
In what way do evolution and life fall back on a picture or design?
[quote]That design is the same design for Dawkins as it is for the God he
argued against.
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.
[/quote]
It's saying a lot.
[quote]All random events are physical.
[/quote]
But not all physical events are random.
[quote]It takes
something more than the physical description to single out an
evolutionary event from all other events.
[/quote]
No it doesn't.
[quote]
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]
The fact that, contrary to what you say, it isn't random. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 7:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
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.
How did you come to distinguish this "it"?
[/quote]
By taking an ancestor, comparing the ancestor with a descendent, and
noticing genetic differences. That is evolution. "It" was just a
pronoun used in place fo spelling out "evolution".
[quote]You made a creative act.
[/quote]
No I didn't. I just simply described evolution.
- Hide quoted text -
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 4:30 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]In article
5e577d6b-85b2-4037-a2f1-8afb97a45... at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
But that does not mean that the universe will churn out humans.
Intelligence and awareness exist in most forms of life, to some degree,
and we do not know what other forms might be intelligent (other than
possibly the universe itself), such as complex gas formations. Who knows
- they might be evolving and communicating among themselves.
[/quote]
Agreed. I was using humanity as a synonym for intelligent and self-
aware. Possibly not a good idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 4:42 pm, 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]
I didnt know mystics when to church.....they generally take their
'church' with them.
Perhaps they do in Kiwiland (a lot of evolution needed there if that
is the general view).
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:01:42 +0000, John Jones 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]
Yet again the cause/effect binary trap.
If 'design' then a designer. If a 'purpose' then intention and some thing
or one that intends.
Fall back position which does not help at all: "Laws of Physics" or "Laws
of Nature" both assigning the power of law making to human abstraction,
not unlike a god.
'Random event' and 'accident' makes no sense other than by "no sense has
yet been made of the event but it will make sense sooner or later". How
can any process restricted by a given environment be random or an
accident?
If on the other hand, the Grand 'purpose' is exactly what is taking place
and so always self-evident and self-defining. It is left for the human to
decide their own purpose as individuals and as species. Whatever this may
be however it is contained and restricted as well as liberated and
expanded by this self-defining condition.
In evolution, being is becoming. To understand this fully is humanly
impossible, I think, but to make no attempt to do so is certain human
doom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:43:02 -0600, 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.
It's all an accident.
If existence an accident, then everything is an accident and if
everything is an accident, then NOTHING is an accident because the word
Accident has no rational justification whatsoever. It is _unnecessary_.
The Blind Watchmaker has motive. More on that later. It's beer-thirty
here; time to go.
[/quote]
Since "It's beer-thirty" at "Here" therefore "time to go", and since this
does exist (unfortunately not at this 'here' yet but it almost certainly
will, or at least usually has up to now) it can be concluded that purpose
also exists.
Beer-thirty holds the purpose of going to a much higher purpose of beer.
Is this an accident or random? Obviously not since it is a 'time'. Is it
a design? Obviously yes because this has all happened in a 'here'. Is it
part of human evolution? A search for 'beer-thirty" indicates a concept,
not practice, quite new to the human race so yes it is.
So the answer to everything is: "When it's beer-thirty; it is also time
to go." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<3867e9d6-2752-43c6-8499-3af752c5c6c8 at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.errol at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote][... please see the excellent article ...]
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
[/quote]
Good stuff. Thanks for that.
The more I learn of, for example, cell biology, the more it is clear
that what we have here on earth today is perfectly bound to a few
physical constraints and successful biological mechanisms have
limitations that follow a vector. That would imply that the laws of
physics direct development and evolution. Physics is the definition of
purpose by its outcomes.
Later, if I have time, I will post a link showing some stunning cell
'protein motor' information, perhaps some virus behaviors, things that
work at simple, elemental, but profound physical limits to specific
outcomes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<5e577d6b-85b2-4037-a2f1-8afb97a45074 at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.errol at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
But that does not mean that the universe will churn out humans.
Intelligence and awareness exist in most forms of life, to some degree,
and we do not know what other forms might be intelligent (other than
possibly the universe itself), such as complex gas formations. Who knows
- they might be evolving and communicating among themselves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<755a9c80-f31b-4a35-9fd3-57a88bb0af52 at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
turtoni <turtoni at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]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?
"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
[/quote]
Emergence is a weasel-word. It just has a cooler buzz than 'aura' or
'magic'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, Hatunen <hatu... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:18:35 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:01 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?
Some things that are designed appear to have some purpose or goal. If
evolution designed things which include purpose and goals apparent by
their behavior this doesn't necessarily mean that the designer has to
have a purpose.
Dawkins probably just thinks that there is no designer with goals.
Why attack only Dawkins? Anyone who understands the theory of
evolution knows that there is no design and no goals. A lot of
posters are arging against what Dawkinknows or beleives or says
and ignoring the fact that he is just the messenger.
[/quote]
The explanatory text of my first paragraph is sufficient to meet your
desire to be universal and abstract, but the line space break led to
narrowing the thesis down to Dawkins as one example.
[quote]--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu... at (no spam) cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sla#s... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hct56u$ntf$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Sla#s wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$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
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?
[/quote]
You've lost me there totally - what has that to do with the OP?
Slatts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hatunen... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:18:35 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 12:01 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?
Some things that are designed appear to have some purpose or goal. If
evolution designed things which include purpose and goals apparent by
their behavior this doesn't necessarily mean that the designer has to
have a purpose.
Dawkins probably just thinks that there is no designer with goals.
[/quote]
Why attack only Dawkins? Anyone who understands the theory of
evolution knows that there is no design and no goals. A lot of
posters are arging against what Dawkinknows or beleives or says
and ignoring the fact that he is just the messenger.
--
************* 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:30 am
|
|