 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins' "evolution" is a design... |
|
Page 4 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Hatunen... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:01:26 -0800 (PST), Errol
<vs.errol at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:19 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
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.
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
[/quote]
Unfortunately popular belief is frequently wrong.
This is not news. It's old enough that Dawkins has a discussion
of it in his "Greatest Show on Earth".
--
************* 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 |
|
|
|
| Red Celt... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-11-04 20:01:42 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> said:
[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]
If you have so many questions about Dawkins (and you clearly do, you
obsessive nut) how about you actually try *reading* his books rather
than asking dumbass questions of those who have?
By all means, drop on by and ask us to explain the more technical parts.
Just... y'know... at least make the fucking effort.
--
Red Celt
a.a. #883
Humanist, atheist, misanthrope, Bright |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hypatiab7 at (no spam) comcast.net... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 10:18 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... 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]
More like you need to believe that this 'designer' exists, while we
say the hell with the unnecessary middleman. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hypatiab7 at (no spam) comcast.net... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:01 am, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:19 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
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.
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
[/quote]
What a boring god you believe in. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chazwin... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 12:11 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Sla#s wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
You just refuse to understand it don't you.
What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
carried on?
Slatts
It's not the particular traits that concern me. It's how we come to
distinguish a trait AT ALL. How do we distinguish a rabbit ear from a
branch that the rabbit sits under?
[/quote]
Ask Linneaus! His taxonomic methodolgy was so good that is has
survived Darwin and genetics.
I do agree that the identification of traits can be problematic -
mainly because they are subjectivly identified but are presented as
objective. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chazwin... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 12:17 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <hcsmjr$jn... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
jonescard... 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.
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 selection is contingent on survival thus not random.
[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."
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?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christopher A. Lee... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:12:29 -0800 (PST), "hypatiab7 at (no spam) comcast.net"
<hypatiab7 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 10:18 pm, 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.
More like you need to believe that this 'designer' exists, while we
say the hell with the unnecessary middleman.
[/quote]
We don't even give their hypothetical middleman a thought.
Creationists and fundamentalists invent positions for us we don't have
based on presumptions we don't have that project their own POV.
Which are emotionally prejudicial falsehoods.
Somebody once compared this to defining meteorologists as people who
believe the Thunder Gods don't exist, when they don't even give them a
thought.
Trying to discuss things with creationists and fundamentalists is
almost Orwellian. You have to break through the barriers of newspeak,
doublethink and dumbed down logic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:39:40 -0800, Errol wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:41Â pm, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
A middle ground maybe this, it makes sense anyways.
Whenever an attempt to understand something is made, the objective, or
"laws of.." or even god, humans primarily better understand themselves,
knowingly or not. So it isn't a question of a separate alternative, a
separate alternative is not humanly possible for a very good reason of
self-survival, no matter what the objective/subjective approach.
Human reasoning as led to a base principle of the more 'objective' the
process, the more universal the application or product of that process.
This also can be re-translated to, the more a 'self' is removed the more
others can be included.
so..
[quote]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.
[/quote]
The zen is nice but maybe not necessary here. The (objective) scientist
staying true to their disciplines do as much. 'Reason' seems to be at the
base of all of it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:32:31 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
[quote]Emergence is a weasel-word.
[/quote]
!! well one thing for sure, it's trying to say there's a one way street
when in fact it's a two lane. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 5:12 am, "hypati... at (no spam) comcast.net" <hypati... at (no spam) comcast.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 10:18 pm, 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.
More like you need to believe that this 'designer' exists, while we
say the hell with the unnecessary middleman.
[/quote]
What makes you believe in the idea that I need some designer to exist?
Is it the way my subjects and predicates clash or just some
attribution of us vs them stereotyping? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 3:36 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Red Celt wrote:
If you have so many questions about Dawkins (and you clearly do, you
obsessive nut) how about you actually try *reading* his books
Can't you do it for me? I'm going to bed.
> rather
than asking dumbass questions of those who have?
I'd much rather you ask for me. I've no time.
By all means, drop on by and ask us to explain the more technical parts..
If you drop on by that would be better. I can't be asked.
Just... y'know... at least make the fucking effort.
I was banking on you doing it for me. I've got things to do.
[/quote]
I read all of Dawkins books except that God Delusion and most all of
his literature is pure biological talk not political science. If you
did read all his stuff you would wonder why you pointed some miner and
nearly meaningless parts of his philosophy of zoology. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Drafterman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
But both evolution and life fall back on a picture or design.
In what way do evolution and life fall back on a picture or design?
[/quote]
Their properties can only be picked out by a design or template.
Otherwise I cannot distinguish life as being any other than a random
selection of properties.
[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.
It's saying a lot.
All random events are physical.
But not all physical events are random.
It takes
something more than the physical description to single out an
evolutionary event from all other events.
No it doesn't.
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?
The fact that, contrary to what you say, it isn't random.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Drafterman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 7:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
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"?
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]
I meant how did you come to distinguish this ancestor or "it" as being
an example of a type of object?
[quote]
You made a creative act.
No I didn't. I just simply described evolution.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sla#s wrote:
[quote]"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hct56u$ntf$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Sla#s wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
You just refuse to understand it don't you.
What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
carried on?
Slatts
It's not the particular traits that concern me. It's how we come to
distinguish a trait AT ALL. How do we distinguish a rabbit ear from a
branch that the rabbit sits under?
You've lost me there totally - what has that to do with the OP?
Slatts
[/quote]
In order to pick out a random selection of events as being a type of
object I have to impose some sort of design or template onto the events.
Otherwise, all I get are any set of random events. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
chazwin wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 12:11 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Sla#s wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$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 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?
Ask Linneaus! His taxonomic methodolgy was so good that is has
survived Darwin and genetics.
I do agree that the identification of traits can be problematic -
mainly because they are subjectivly identified but are presented as
objective.
[/quote]
No.. my point is that I need a design or template to distinguish a
rabbit from the tree it sits under. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:30 pm
|
|