| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins' "evolution" is a design... |
|
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chazwin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:04 pm, "Sla#s" <p... at (no spam) slatts.net> wrote:
[quote]"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
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 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]
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).
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. 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yap... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 4:01 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
Evolution itself is based on law of physics, with a process to survive[/quote]
for the fittest.
There is no any god to design, otherwise there will be no need for
evolution.
It means here that since there is no god, evolution has to occur.
[quote]
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
Isn't this statement contradicting you earlier sentence? It shows how[/quote]
confused you are.
If you wish to sell your god, provide something tangible.
To us, a god is untenable since every event in this world negates the
presence of a supernatural being. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:01 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
[/quote]
There has been a "random evolution event" really? what happened? This
will be interesting, anyway so how was church last Sunday? idiot
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chazwin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:01 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]
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.
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.
Whilst this cannot actively select successful traits, buy eliminating
negative traits, it selects advantageous traits whilst selecting a
myriad of other neutral traits.
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tapestry... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 2:01 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]
First off, you cannot separate the power of GOD from creation.
They are inseparable.
Secondly, evolution doesn't happen. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Tapestry <estry.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
I agree. They are both intertwined.
They are also both fictional elements.
[quote]
Secondly, evolution doesn't happen.
[/quote]
It happens everytime an organism reproducts an offspring that is
genetically different than itself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:59 am, Hatunen <hatu... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:01:42 +0000, 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.
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?
[/quote]
You have hit the nail on the had.
A billion or more christians have read their book (current version),
so , using your logic, they will all know. Of course, each person's,
as well as each groups interpretation evolves.
As soon as something is written down, it becomes obsolete.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:03 am, Hatunen <hatu... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:58:22 +0000, John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
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 -
No it's not.
life rephrased as a sequence
of events.
Explicate that please. It odwn't make sense to me.
But both evolution and life fall back on a picture or design.
"Picture"? What picture? What design?
That design is the same design for Dawkins as it is for the God he
argued against.
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?
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?
You keep saying that. Get it straight: it is the mutations that
are random. Natural selection is NOT random.
--
[/quote]
This is equivalent of classic v quantum science argument.
When you are in the water, you are wet, but what is wetness?
Such communications are just convenient ways of sharing common useful
views in day to day life.When the meanings go deeper, different
premises are required.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sla#s... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
[/quote]
You just refuse to understand it don't you.
What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
carried on?
Slatts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian E. Clark... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hcsmjr$jnn$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com says...
[quote]Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
[/quote]
Stop misreprsenting Dawkins. Mutation is random. Selection
is not.
[quote]But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose.
[/quote]
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."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 12:01 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]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Drafterman 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?
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).
[/quote]
Evolution is a physical synonym for life - life rephrased as a sequence
of events. But both evolution and life fall back on a picture or design.
That design is the same design for Dawkins as it is for the God he
argued against.
[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.
[/quote]
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.
[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.
[/quote]
My point is that there are NO RESULTS in a random set of events. Where
does Dawkins get his Result from? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:08 pm
|
|