 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins idea of how Life arose... |
|
Page 1 of 11 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| haiku jones... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, SkyEyes <skyey... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
[quote]You're a rather pompous blow-hard, aren't you?
[/quote]
Naw...as I pointed out, he's just unaware of
the ontological immanence of the ineluctable
modality
(they're kind of...ssshhh. I don't want to say
it to loudly... they're just a bit behind the curve
over there, philosophy-wise).
Haiku
[quote]Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SkyEyes... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
You're a rather pompous blow-hard, aren't you?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Budikka666... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention
[/quote]
When you can actually prove that bullshit, you might be worth paying
some attention, but until then you're an ignorant, laughable, pathetic
joke.
Budikka |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Conan the bacterium... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:30 pm, Brian E. Clark
<brianecl... at (no spam) address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]In article <hd1vqh$s1... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com says...
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
Bee bew BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP
We're sorry, the assertion you have dialed is invalid.
Please check your logic and try again.
[/quote]
You know, I'd pay ten bucks to have written that.
Conan
[quote]
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| haiku jones... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
<sigh>...
The ontological immanence of the ineluctable modality
neatly -- if trivially -- refutes all three of your objections.
I'm still surprised that in this day and age anyone
needs to have this explained to them.
Haiku Jones |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Arturo Magidin... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Arturo Magidin wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
That's why I offered the term "arose" instead of "developed".
[/quote]
Oh, you realized that you were playing word games and misusing the
word "develop", yet you decided to poison the well *anyway*? And you
think that admitting this somehow does something for your case?
And, no you did not. You offered "arose as a consequence of random
events" instead of "developed". The correct meaning of
"developed" (which encompasses non-intentional events) is not
equivalent to "arose as a consequence of random events". So you are
still playing word games. Silly word games, at that, but I guess that
is only to be expected.
[quote]
and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
You didn't argue against my point.
[/quote]
Actually, I did; you just missed it. If you had looked up at *just*
the right time, you would have seen the point sailing well above your
head.
[quote]And quantum physics isn't pertinent
here as Dawkins and I are talking about macroscopic structures.
[/quote]
Sigh; QM is relevant because it affects atoms and molecules; your
claim that there can be no "random events" ignores this. It ignores
the effect of particle decay on changes to established molecules
(another random event). It ignores the result of brownian motion.
And, your final claim is nonsense, since, however it may be that life
began, the first life structures need not be (and as far as we know,
were *not*) "macroscopic". So *you* may be talking about 'macroscopic
structures', but if so, then you are playing word games, yet again.
But even assuming without conceding your continued misuse of language
and logic, your claims *still* don't follow. You did not simply offer
"arose" as a replacement for miused word "develop"; you offered "arose
as a consequence of random events" as a replacement for "developed as
a consequence of a mental intention by an actor." There is still the
notion of development as a consequence of deterministic physical laws,
*without* the mental intention of an actor, just like tropical storms
do every year. You poisoned the well, and you are still playing word
games.
--
Arturo Magidin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Arturo Magidin... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
[/quote]
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
[quote]and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
[/quote]
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
[quote]Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
Can anyone say why anybody should bother (i) trying to explain
something to someone who is not interested in listening, but only on
pontificating (basing such pontification on logical fallacies,
ignorance, and misstatements; or (ii) trying to unbeg the question you
are begging? Or for that matter, why would *anyone* want to live in
whatever narrow, twisted little world you live in, where your
prejudices dictate reality?
--
Arturo Magidin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Syd M.... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
[/quote]
Because neither he nor you actually know.
And 'goddit' is not an answer.
PDW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Syd M.... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Arturo Magidin wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
That's why I offered the term "arose" instead of "developed".
and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
You didn't argue against my point.
[/quote]
Your point is not worth arguing over, Dave.
PDW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian E. Clark... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd1vqh$s1s$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com says...
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
[/quote]
<Bee bew BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP>
We're sorry, the assertion you have dialed is invalid.
Please check your logic and try again.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 12:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
He doesn't need to be saved because he actually did supply many
answers to the arguments you claim he never addresses the core issues
of genetics and evolution. Cause to Dawkins would probably be a
"boundary" or a network of boundries in which the processes of
evolution bump against and change directions, directions which, in the
playoffs of life, lead to more complex animals.
The Drunkard’s Walk
A drunk staggers out of a bar. Here’s the bar, and he’s leaning right
against the wall of the bar. Now, he’s staggering completely at
random, back and forth. There’s a gutter 30 feet away. He staggers
five feet every time he staggers, completely at random, goes towards
the bar as often as he goes away, except if he hits the bar wall, he
can’t go through it, so he just stands there until he staggers away.
Now, where does he end up every time? Of course, he ends up in the
gutter. He falls down in the gutter, the thing’s over. He’s going to
lend up in the gutter every time.
It’s like flipping six heads in a row because he staggers five feet,
but his movement is entirely random. The only reason he ends up in the
gutter is that he’s beginning next to this wall that he can’t go
through. The history of life did the same thing. The history of life
began with a bacteria next to the left wall of maximal simplicity.
So in its random motion back and forth occasionally a species staggers
over towards greater complexity, but it arises within an effectively
random system. The complexity is toward the gutter in that analogy.
And the bar wall is home.
You can’t get simpler than a bacterium, so as life expands, there is a
real trend. The real trend is the success in expansion of life. If you
begin at maximal simplicity, there’s no room to get any simpler, so
what happens is this position of maximal simplicity. The bacterial
mode just gets higher and higher.
How to get directional & predictable
motion within a totally random system.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/november96/gould.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention,
You are poisoning the well (and misusing the word "develop"). Tropical
storms develop every hurricane season, but there is no requirement of
"intention" in the use of the word. In short, you are playing word
games.
[/quote]
That's why I offered the term "arose" instead of "developed".
[quote]and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
You are poisoning the well (as well as exhibiting ignorance of quantum
mechanics).
[/quote]
You didn't argue against my point. And quantum physics isn't pertinent
here as Dawkins and I are talking about macroscopic structures. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| raven1... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
[/quote]
Because Dawkins doesn't work in the field of abiogenesis research is
the primary reason
[quote]Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
[/quote]
No one argues that. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.
[quote]for a development requires an intention,
[/quote]
No, it doesn't.
[quote]and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events.
[/quote]
And he doesn't. Chemistry is decidedly not random.
[quote]This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind
[/quote]
Why not?
[quote]and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
[/quote]
You're equivocating on "sight" here.
[quote]Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
Can you please refrain from posting uninformed nonsense? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hatunen... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:09:57 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]There is no Dawkinian theory currently available that describes how life
arose. Here's why:
Dawkins cannot argue that animals "develop" through natural evolution,
for a development requires an intention, and for Dawkins 1) nature is
blind and without intention and 2) intentions are mental events and have
no jurisdiction over material events.
Dawkins also cannot argue that animals "arose" as a consequence of
random events. This is because physical events are not random but, for
materialists like Dawkins, must follow strict rules of causation.
Dawkins also cannot argue that causation itself is blind and that
animals therefore arose as a consequence of blind causation. Why is
this? Even if there is a real difference between causation and its
objects, causation is without sight but its objects have sight.
Otherwise, we would be unable to distinguish objects involved in causation.
Can anyone save the day for Dawkins and say how life arose?
[/quote]
Where, exactly, did Dawkins say those things you are refuting? He
does express some hypotheticals about the origin of life itself,
but he has never made an argument about the actual source (OK,
maybe over a beer at a pub...). Dawdins freely admits not knowing
how life began on earth.
Any other straw man arguments?
--
************* 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 Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:56 am
|
|