Dawkins - a mistake in thinking?
John Jones
"Life results from the non-random survival
of randomly varying replicators."
Here are the consequences of his claim:
1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
ARE NOT random events,
2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
replicators ARE random events?
So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
random and non-random?
IAAH
No. He isn't.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Dave Riegert
@news.eternal-september.org:
It sounds to me as if he is merely restating survival of the fittest.
The "best" of the random mutations are the ones that reproduce.
It's not just the a random selection of the random mutations that survive,
but the ones that are best suited to their environments.
At least, that's what I get out of it.
--
Dave R.
Arturo Magidin
> How can Dawkins make this claim?
> "Life results from the non-random survival
> of randomly varying replicators."
>
> Here are the consequences of his claim:
> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
> ARE NOT random events,
You are assuming that "survival" can only depend on "environmental
forces that bear upon ... replicators". There is no warrant for such
assumption.
> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
> replicators ARE random events?
You are assuming that "varying" is only a consequence of
"environmental forces that bear upon ... the replicators." There is no
warrant for such an assumption.
> So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
> random and non-random?
No. That would just be the strawman that you are beating on this
particular occassion.
--
Arturo Magidin
Immortalist
The material that you have put in here lacks any evidence that Dawkins
though that the environment was either random or non-random.
Mutations are basically random but the internal and external
environment "determines" which mutations function within them most
efficiently, that is through competition and cooperation between a
pluralistic field of organisms.
In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic
material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying
errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to
ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or
can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as
meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be
subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to
descendants, and somatic mutations. The somatic mutations cannot be
transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants sometimes can transmit
somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or sexually (in case
when flower buds develop in somatically mutated part of plant).
Mutations create variation in the gene pool, and the less favorable
(or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural
selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend
to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change. Neutral mutations are
defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of
either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These
can accumulate over time due to genetic drift. The overwhelming
majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is
able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and
many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently
mutated somatic cells.
Dakota
Mutations in the offspring of the replicators are random. If these
random mutations provide an survival advantage in the existing
environment, they are likely to be passed on to future generations.
bigfl...@gmail.com
This is the sort of statement that comes about , expressing views of
classic physics in the quantum age.
BOfL
Giga
"Arturo Magidin" <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote in message
news:5619cc6e-1dd0-48bb...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
=snigger
Steve O
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:MJOdnZPFZf2acWrX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Arturo Magidin" <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote in message
> news:5619cc6e-1dd0-48bb...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>> of randomly varying replicators."
It's a fairly simple statement, I'm not sure why you are having such a
problem with it.
The random process is genetic mutation which when favourable results in
non-random survival.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240
BAAWA
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
tg
One problem with understanding this stuff is that people think of
mutation as some sci-fi thing where there is a chicken giving birth to
a dog. What you really have is small variations---not different from
the variability of any physical process. If you were to measure the
path of a projectile, you would observe small variations due to
atmospheric conditions. These would be classically 'random', and the
projectile might still hit the target as the effects cancel. But if
you also have the introduction of another variable, the combined
effect might be sufficient to make for a 'miss'.
The trick is to realize that the change at the gene level may be
binary, but the effect is not necessarily so for the organism.
-tg
John Jones
> John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in news:hd7f7k$2c4$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>> of randomly varying replicators."
>>
>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>> ARE NOT random events,
>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>> replicators ARE random events?
>>
>> So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
>> random and non-random?
>
> It sounds to me as if he is merely restating survival of the fittest.
Dawkins should have said "Life is the survival of replicators." He had
no need to include the issue of randomness as it is irrelevant to the
definition of life. His has no definition of life in any case as he
seems to avoid it by talking about replicators rather than creatures.
And how could Dawkins say that life "results from" survivors? Does he
imagine that having survivors doesn't necessarily mean having life?
>
> The "best" of the random mutations are the ones that reproduce.
Why would they be the best? There is a reason, but none is offered here.
A new factor intrudes when you bring in "the best".
> It's not just the a random selection of the random mutations that survive,
> but the ones that are best suited to their environments.
>
> At least, that's what I get out of it.
It looks like this: " the ones that reproduce the most are the best
because the best are the ones that reproduce the most"
John Jones
> On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>> of randomly varying replicators."
>>
>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>> ARE NOT random events,
>
> You are assuming that "survival" can only depend on "environmental
> forces that bear upon ... replicators". There is no warrant for such
> assumption.
It's not an assumption, it's implicit. Survival is measured within an
environment.
>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>> replicators ARE random events?
>
> You are assuming that "varying" is only a consequence of
> "environmental forces that bear upon ... the replicators." There is no
> warrant for such an assumption.
Again, these are life-forms we are talking about, and life by virtue of
being embedded in their environment.
John Jones
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
> message news:MJOdnZPFZf2acWrX...@giganews.com...
>> "Arturo Magidin" <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote in message
>> news:5619cc6e-1dd0-48bb...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>>> of randomly varying replicators."
>
> It's a fairly simple statement, I'm not sure why you are having such a
> problem with it.
> The random process is genetic mutation which when favourable results in
> non-random survival.
>
It's a fairly simple analysis of it too, if people would take the time
to read it slowly.
John Jones
Mutations are caused by the environment. But if the environment
non-randomly leads to survival then how can mutations be random?
John Jones
I don't have time either for random or non-randomness as they are
promoted in the literature. Random simply means the failure to name a
structure.
see new post
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>How can Dawkins make this claim?
>"Life results from the non-random survival
>of randomly varying replicators."
Because it's observed.
>Here are the consequences of his claim:
>1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>ARE NOT random events,
>2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>replicators ARE random events?
Mutation is random. Natural selection is not.
>So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
>random and non-random?
No.
ZerkonXXXX
> "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying
> replicators."
As usual, the pivot here is this word 'random' which infers the event is
random but could very well mean to seem random to the observer. Not
predictable.............................. yet. A heebie jeebie dark age
begins when this 'yet' is denied in absolutes.
I suppose this defeats objective determination which would then suggest
some spooky determiner. This also being a matter of faith since not every
determination can be predicted. Leaving the "I told ya so" said only
after the fact.
There is god or there is not or apathy towards both. It is all personal
business.
This NEED to prove, one we way or another, rests on human politics and
power. Making this issue out to be anything other than this is the
"mistake in thinking".
Arturo Magidin
> ArturoMagidinwrote:
> > On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> How can Dawkins make this claim?
> >> "Life results from the non-random survival
> >> of randomly varying replicators."
>
> >> Here are the consequences of his claim:
> >> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
> >> ARE NOT random events,
>
> > You are assuming that "survival" can only depend on "environmental
> > forces that bear upon ... replicators". There is no warrant for such
> > assumption.
>
> It's not an assumption, it's implicit.
That would make an *unspoken* assumption, but an assumption anyway.
> Survival is measured within an
> environment.
HINT: "Measured within" =/= "depends only on".
I measure milk in a measuring cup; but the milk does not depend only
on the measuring cup.
> >> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
> >> replicators ARE random events?
>
> > You are assuming that "varying" is only a consequence of
> > "environmental forces that bear upon ... the replicators." There is no
> > warrant for such an assumption.
>
> Again, these are life-forms we are talking about, and life by virtue of
> being embedded in their environment.
And "being embedded in" does not equal "is a consequence of only".
And you are assuming that either *all* of the forces acting on the
life forms are random or *all* of the forces acting on the life forms
are non-random. There is no warrant for that either; *some* forces may
be random, and *some* forces may be non-random, and it may be the
interaction of these two (and more) that causes the phenomenon in
question. In fact, that is what Dawkins's argument is. But you need to
create a strawman in order to "attack" it. Is it that you don't
understand it, or is that you *do* understand it and realize you
really don't have any arguments against it, and therefore must be
dishonest about what it says so you can pretend you do?
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
>
> I don't have time either for random or non-randomness as they are
> promoted in the literature. Random simply means the failure to name a
> structure.
I see: you don't have time to educate yourself, so you will instead
pontificate based on personal ignorance. Gotcha.
(And no, that's not what "random" means, simply or otherwise; you are
showing off your ignorance, again).
> see new post
I don't have the time for your nonsense or invincible ignorance.
--
Arturo Magidin
Puck Greenman
Every time you get a viable zygote, you get a genetically unique entity; in effect, a
mutation.
It is not the same as the mother, it is not the same as the father, and it is not fifty-
fifty, mother and father.
Some of it's genes bare no resemblance to either parent, they are mutations.
They will occur, irrespective of, and unrelated to, the environment.
JohnN
Please post the citation for this quote. I want to read it in
context.
JohnN
Arturo Magidin
>
> >> Mutations in the offspring of the replicators are random. If these
> >> random mutations provide an survival advantage in the existing
> >> environment, they are likely to be passed on to future generations.
>
> >Mutations are caused by the environment. But if the environment
> >non-randomly leads to survival then how can mutations be random?
>
> Every time you get a viable zygote, you get a genetically unique entity; in effect, a
> mutation.
> It is not the same as the mother, it is not the same as the father, and it is not fifty-
> fifty, mother and father.
> Some of it's genes bare no resemblance to either parent, they are mutations.
>
> They will occur, irrespective of, and unrelated to, the environment.
Mr Jones is committing the fallacy of division, by arguing that if the
environment is "random", then each and every component of that
environment must be "random"; and if the environment is "non-random",
then each every component of that environment must be "non-random."
But if the environment is the result of a complex mixture of many
processes, some of which are random and some of which are non-random,
then the mixture itself would be random, but not every component would
be random. And he is further committing the fallacy of thinking that
if *some* of those components affect a particular entity, then *all*
of those components affect that entity in equal proportions. He
ignores the possibility that the effect created by *some* of the
components is negligible, while that created by others is dominant. So
he dismisses, unspoken, the possibility that random components
dominate one stage and non-random ones dominate different stages, of a
process as a whole.
--
Arturo Magidin
John Jones
> On Nov 9, 6:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ArturoMagidinwrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>>>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>>>> of randomly varying replicators."
>>>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
>>>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>>>> ARE NOT random events,
>>> You are assuming that "survival" can only depend on "environmental
>>> forces that bear upon ... replicators". There is no warrant for such
>>> assumption.
>> It's not an assumption, it's implicit.
>
> That would make an *unspoken* assumption, but an assumption anyway.
>
>> Survival is measured within an
>> environment.
>
> HINT: "Measured within" =/= "depends only on".
>
> I measure milk in a measuring cup; but the milk does not depend only
> on the measuring cup.
Survival is ALWAYS tied to an environment. Otherwise we could say that
the human race is unsuccessful. Because, unlike some other successful
organisms, the human race has failed to survive in bottles of old milk.
>>>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>>>> replicators ARE random events?
>>> You are assuming that "varying" is only a consequence of
>>> "environmental forces that bear upon ... the replicators." There is no
>>> warrant for such an assumption.
>> Again, these are life-forms we are talking about, and life by virtue of
>> being embedded in their environment.
>
> And "being embedded in" does not equal "is a consequence of only".
An animal doesn't arise consequentially in an environment. It defines
its environment.
>
> And you are assuming that either *all* of the forces acting on the
> life forms are random or *all* of the forces acting on the life forms
> are non-random. There is no warrant for that either; *some* forces may
> be random, and *some* forces may be non-random,
That's half-baked. It's as if you think that, for certain privileged
objects, nature obligingly reacts with random or non-random events.
John Jones
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:22:40 +0000, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Dakota wrote:
>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>>>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>>>> of randomly varying replicators."
>>>>
>>>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
>>>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>>>> ARE NOT random events,
>>>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of
>>>> the replicators ARE random events?
>>>>
>>>> So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
>>>> random and non-random?
>>> Mutations in the offspring of the replicators are random. If these
>>> random mutations provide an survival advantage in the existing
>>> environment, they are likely to be passed on to future generations.
>> Mutations are caused by the environment. But if the environment
>> non-randomly leads to survival then how can mutations be random?
>
>
> Every time you get a viable zygote,
What are you insinuating?
> you get a genetically unique entity; in effect, a
> mutation.
> It is not the same as the mother, it is not the same as the father, and it is not fifty-
> fifty, mother and father.
It wouldn't be the same if it was EXACTLY the same.
> Some of it's genes bare no resemblance to either parent, they are mutations.
>
> They will occur, irrespective of, and unrelated to, the environment.
It's protected from the environment is what you are saying. yet it needs
energy and food.
John Jones
There's no world of random and nonrandom events that obligingly play
themselves out for certain privileged objects.
John Jones
I am a philosopher. We talk knowledgeably about anything under the sun.
Technicalities are no barrier to us.
John Jones
Wish I could. I can't. Someone else used it and I got it off them. I
don't think it would do much good to have a source though. You are
likely to be surrounded by other mistakes once you find it.
Conan the bacterium
Nor, apparently, facts.
Didn't you once tell us that you had never actually
read a book by Dawkins, all the way through?
Conan
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 6:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> ArturoMagidinwrote:
> >>> On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
> >>>> "Life results from the non-random survival
> >>>> of randomly varying replicators."
> >>>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
> >>>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
> >>>> ARE NOT random events,
> >>> You are assuming that "survival" can only depend on "environmental
> >>> forces that bear upon ... replicators". There is no warrant for such
> >>> assumption.
> >> It's not an assumption, it's implicit.
>
> > That would make an *unspoken* assumption, but an assumption anyway.
>
> >> Survival is measured within an
> >> environment.
>
> > HINT: "Measured within" =/= "depends only on".
>
> > I measure milk in a measuring cup; but the milk does not depend only
> > on the measuring cup.
>
> Survival is ALWAYS tied to an environment.
HINT: "tied to" =/= "depends only on"
HINT: "the environment" is not a single thing; it is a conglomeration
and mixture of many different things, forces, and effects. Your
attempts at a fallacy of composition notwithstanding.
>Otherwise we could say that
> the human race is unsuccessful. Because, unlike some other successful
> organisms, the human race has failed to survive in bottles of old milk.
>
> >>>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
> >>>> replicators ARE random events?
> >>> You are assuming that "varying" is only a consequence of
> >>> "environmental forces that bear upon ... the replicators." There is no
> >>> warrant for such an assumption.
> >> Again, these are life-forms we are talking about, and life by virtue of
> >> being embedded in their environment.
>
> > And "being embedded in" does not equal "is a consequence of only".
>
> An animal doesn't arise consequentially in an environment. It defines
> its environment.
Which meaning are you giving to "defines" now? I can only assume you
must be using your own private meaning, as you have with pretty much
all words you use so far.
>
>
>
> > And you are assuming that either *all* of the forces acting on the
> > life forms are random or *all* of the forces acting on the life forms
> > are non-random. There is no warrant for that either; *some* forces may
> > be random, and *some* forces may be non-random,
>
> That's half-baked.
No, that's accurate. It's not simplistic or dumbed down, which is what
you are insisting on.
>It's as if you think that, for certain privileged
> objects, nature obligingly reacts with random or non-random events.
No, that would be your dumbing down of what I said. The environment
consists of many forces; some act randomly, some do not. You are
trying to put them all in the same box and claim that either "the
environment", as a single entity, must act "randomly" or "non-
randomly" only, committing first a fallacy of composition and then a
fallacy of division.
It may not be "half-baked", but it is well past done instead, and
ready for the garbage heap. Certainly not edible.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> themselves out for certain privileged objects.
There is no word of "obligingly" or "priviledge" anywhere except in
your pointy head. In the meantime, you have failed to address your
fallacy as described above.
Atoms are part of the environment, yet they are subject to forces that
are negligible for macroscopic entities, which are *also* part of the
environment. Particle bombardment creates brownian motion on
sufficiently small entities, but is negligible on larger ones. Does
that mean that larger objects are "priviledged", or that particles
"obligingly play themselves out" for larger objects? Of course not.
It's simply a matter of fact that some forces act on certain objects
in a measurable manner, and on other in a negligible one. You cannot
dismiss that, because it is fact. Nor can you dismiss that you are
committing several fallacies, as described above, except by changing
the subject and introducing strawmen, as you did above.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 6:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> I don't have time either for random or non-randomness as they are
> >> promoted in the literature. Random simply means the failure to name a
> >> structure.
>
> > I see: you don't have time to educate yourself, so you will instead
> > pontificate based on personal ignorance. Gotcha.
>
> > (And no, that's not what "random" means, simply or otherwise; you are
> > showing off your ignorance, again).
>
> >> see new post
>
> > I don't have the time for your nonsense or invincible ignorance.
>
> > --
> > Arturo Magidin
>
> I am a philosopher
You are an ignoramus.
> We talk knowledgeably about anything under the sun.
Sorry: you are a *conceited* ignoramus, who is pontificating on
subjects about which he knows little or nothing, hiding behind the
term "philosopher" to excuse his idiocies.
> Technicalities are no barrier to us.
To be more precise, "truth" is no barrier to you.
To paraphrase Bentsen, I've known philosophers. I've worked with
philosophers. You, sir, are no philosopher. You, sir, are nothing but
a conceited ignorant idiot.
--
Arturo Magidin
Steve O
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hd91i5$u3d$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't understand why you are asking this question.
Genetic mutations *are* random.
They are not caused by the environment, they are simply faults in the
genetic copying process.
This copying process is amazingly reliable in general terms, but goes wrong
often enough to cause significant mutation.
These mutations are either beneficial to the organism or non-beneficial,
depending upon te environment.
Non -beneficial mutations do not last very long and beneficial ones survive
to reproduce.
It is random mutation which drives the process of non - random survival.
Whilst genetic mutation is entirlely random, natural selection (or non-
random survival) is not.
"Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins explains this process perfectly.
Virgil
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:hd91i5$u3d$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Dakota wrote:
> >> John Jones wrote:
> >>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
> >>> "Life results from the non-random survival
> >>> of randomly varying replicators."
> >>>
> >>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
> >>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
> >>> ARE NOT random events,
> >>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
> >>> replicators ARE random events?
> >>>
> >>> So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
> >>> random and non-random?
> >>
> >> Mutations in the offspring of the replicators are random. If these random
> >> mutations provide an survival advantage in the existing environment, they
> >> are likely to be passed on to future generations.
> >
> > Mutations are caused by the environment. But if the environment
> > non-randomly leads to survival then how can mutations be random?
>
> I don't understand why you are asking this question.
> Genetic mutations *are* random.
> They are not caused by the environment, they are simply faults in the
> genetic copying process.
Actually, some of those copying faults are caused by environmental
radiation of various sorts, so must be attributed to the environment.
But you are quire correct that they are about as random as anything gets.
> This copying process is amazingly reliable in general terms, but goes wrong
> often enough to cause significant mutation.
> These mutations are either beneficial to the organism or non-beneficial,
> depending upon te environment.
> Non -beneficial mutations do not last very long and beneficial ones survive
> to reproduce.
Actually, non-harmful but non-beneficial mutations can persevere
indefinitely, but 'natural selection' tends to encourage propagation of
beneficial ones and discourage propagation harmful ones.
John Stafford
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> I don't understand why you are asking this question.
> Genetic mutations *are* random.
> They are not caused by the environment, they are simply faults in the
> genetic copying process.
Some of those faults, or errors are caused by such things as cosmic rays
and chemicals introduced to the organism - and you better believe it
that some chemicals modify DNA so that the malformed pass on to
children. Those ARE environmental influences. Most mutations, as you and
I well know, are failures. So be it.
I would not call the tragedy of using Agent Orange in Vietnam as
particularly random except in the very long view. Look into it for
profound examples of genetic changes for the worse.
> [... snip reasonable, but obvious information ...]
John Jones
An environment is completely defined by a creature. It isn't a
geographical place. There are no geographical destinations.
>
>> Otherwise we could say that
>> the human race is unsuccessful. Because, unlike some other successful
>> organisms, the human race has failed to survive in bottles of old milk.
>>
>>>>>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>>>>>> replicators ARE random events?
>>>>> You are assuming that "varying" is only a consequence of
>>>>> "environmental forces that bear upon ... the replicators." There is no
>>>>> warrant for such an assumption.
>>>> Again, these are life-forms we are talking about, and life by virtue of
>>>> being embedded in their environment.
>>> And "being embedded in" does not equal "is a consequence of only".
>> An animal doesn't arise consequentially in an environment. It defines
>> its environment.
>
> Which meaning are you giving to "defines" now? I can only assume you
> must be using your own private meaning, as you have with pretty much
> all words you use so far.
Given or knowing an animal, we are also given or knowing its environment.
>>> And you are assuming that either *all* of the forces acting on the
>>> life forms are random or *all* of the forces acting on the life forms
>>> are non-random. There is no warrant for that either; *some* forces may
>>> be random, and *some* forces may be non-random,
>> That's half-baked.
>
> No, that's accurate. It's not simplistic or dumbed down, which is what
> you are insisting on.
>
>> It's as if you think that, for certain privileged
>> objects, nature obligingly reacts with random or non-random events.
>
> No, that would be your dumbing down of what I said. The environment
> consists of many forces; some act randomly, some do not. You are
> trying to put them all in the same box and claim that either "the
> environment", as a single entity, must act "randomly" or "non-
> randomly" only, committing first a fallacy of composition and then a
> fallacy of division.
>
> It may not be "half-baked", but it is well past done instead, and
> ready for the garbage heap. Certainly not edible.
>
> --
> Arturo Magidin
That's speculative scientese for teenagers.
John Jones
Like metal is part of a metal spoon.
> yet they are subject to forces that
> are negligible for macroscopic entities, which are *also* part of the
> environment. Particle bombardment creates brownian motion on
> sufficiently small entities, but is negligible on larger ones. Does
> that mean that larger objects are "priviledged", or that particles
> "obligingly play themselves out" for larger objects? Of course not.
> It's simply a matter of fact that some forces act on certain objects
> in a measurable manner, and on other in a negligible one. You cannot
> dismiss that, because it is fact. Nor can you dismiss that you are
> committing several fallacies, as described above, except by changing
> the subject and introducing strawmen, as you did above.
That isn't an analogy for Dawkins example of replicators.
>
> --
> Arturo Magidin
John Jones
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:hd91i5$u3d$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Dakota wrote:
>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>>>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>>>> of randomly varying replicators."
>>>>
>>>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
>>>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>>>> ARE NOT random events,
>>>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>>>> replicators ARE random events?
>>>>
>>>> So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
>>>> random and non-random?
>>> Mutations in the offspring of the replicators are random. If these random
>>> mutations provide an survival advantage in the existing environment, they
>>> are likely to be passed on to future generations.
>> Mutations are caused by the environment. But if the environment
>> non-randomly leads to survival then how can mutations be random?
>
> I don't understand why you are asking this question.
> Genetic mutations *are* random.
> They are not caused by the environment, they are simply faults in the
> genetic copying process.
That amounts to saying that chemical changes are random. But how can
they be random? There are biochemical pathways and chemical reactions.
What is "random" is that some non-random chemical reactions are given a
new name or structure because they don't fit in with our design of the
replicators.
Steve O
They are random errors.
There can be any number of different causes for random errors in the genetic
copying process
>
> What is "random" is that some non-random chemical reactions are given a
> new name or structure because they don't fit in with our design of the
> replicators.
You seem to be getting a little lost on this.
Why do you have such a problem with the idea that random genetic mutations
can occur?
Arturo Magidin
>
> That's speculative scientese for teenagers.
That's you avoiding the issues. So, I guess "scientese for teenagers"
is about appropriate for you, as a level of sophistication for you to
aspire to.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
That isn't an answer to the legion of problems with your simplistic
and absurd caricatures. It's just you performing a small intestine
biopsy by inspection.
--
Arturo Magidin
John Jones
No, its imagination going into idle. I What are appealing to as the
origin of random and non-random? It looks like you are just saying that
forces, objects and outcomes can be inherently one or the other without
any reason given.
John Jones
Your turn.
John Jones
What does that say? Are errors ever exact?
John Jones
Dawkins takes a WHOLE BOOK to get his message over? That's one hell of a
sentence.
John Jones
"Faults" are random but the rest are not random?
Mike Ruskai
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> dribble thusly:
>How can Dawkins make this claim?
>"Life results from the non-random survival
>of randomly varying replicators."
>
>Here are the consequences of his claim:
>1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>ARE NOT random events,
>2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>replicators ARE random events?
>
>So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
>random and non-random?
You're taking a high-level description of life and trying to apply it to
low-level physical events.
Life is a big chain of chemical reactions, and while genetic mutations are
deterministic in their causes, nothing in those causes has any tendency to
favor mutations which will continue the chain over those that will break the
chain. The effects of mutations are random with respect to the a priori goal
of furthering the multi-billion-year long chain reaction.
John Stafford
John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Steve O wrote:
> > They are random errors.
>
> What does that say? Are errors ever exact?
Certainly!
>
> > There can be any number of different causes for random errors in the
> > genetic
> > copying process
> >> What is "random" is that some non-random chemical reactions are given a
> >> new name or structure because they don't fit in with our design of the
> >> replicators.
> >
> > You seem to be getting a little lost on this.
>
>
> > Why do you have such a problem with the idea that random genetic mutations
> > can occur?
>
> What is "random" is that some non-random chemical reactions are given a
> new name or structure because they don't fit in with our design of the
> replicators.
Random means, in part, no pattern or objective. Shit happens.
Dan Listermann
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.net> wrote in message
news:nhoj-A56048.1...@news.supernews.com...
Theists need a leader. It like the Soviets who were sure that somebody
somewhere in the US decided how many boots were to be made in a year.
Conan the bacterium
Good point. Truly great thinkers never write entire books.
Conan
John Jones
Yes, but that's only because we haven't identified a pattern.
Arturo Magidin
> Your turn.
Sorry, Humpty. When you avoid the issue and erect strawman, you don't
get to decide that your burden is discharged. Just like you don't get
to decide what words mean, no matter how much you try. "Your turn" is
not an answer, it's just your way of sticking your head up your ass.
Let me know when you get a clue.
--
Arturo Magidin
John Jones
> On or about Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:03:40 +0000 did John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> dribble thusly:
>
>> How can Dawkins make this claim?
>> "Life results from the non-random survival
>> of randomly varying replicators."
>>
>> Here are the consequences of his claim:
>> 1) the environmental forces that bear upon the survival of replicators
>> ARE NOT random events,
>> 2) the environmental forces that bear upon the variable activity of the
>> replicators ARE random events?
>>
>> So, is Dawkins claiming that environmental forces are both entirely
>> random and non-random?
>
> You're taking a high-level description of life and trying to apply it to
> low-level physical events.
>
> Life is a big chain of chemical reactions,
You are using the term "life" here as a name for a list of properties.
You haven't identified what the conditions are for selecting those
properties.
Under those conditions of naming, all you have done is baptised a random
set of properties with any name whatever, but you chose the name 'life'.
> and while genetic mutations are
> deterministic in their causes, nothing in those causes has any tendency to
> favor mutations which will continue the chain over those that will break the
> chain. The effects of mutations are random with respect to the a priori goal
> of furthering the multi-billion-year long chain reaction.
But they are not random with respect to the overall structure that
emerges. So randomness isn't a physical determinant, it's a temporary
name we give to unnamed or unidentified structures.
Puck Greenman
Your age is showing, (:-)
Zinnic
> Mike Ruskai wrote:
> > On or about Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:03:40 +0000 did John Jones
>
Sounds like you are claiming that 'the part cannot be fully defined
without defining the whole' or that 'nothing can be fully explained
unless everthing is explained! So what is new?
John Jones
Yes, a part isn't a part of anything unless we say what the organizing
principle is or the condition is for it being a part.
Zinnic
Then tell us about the prime mover, else stop the silliness.
John Jones
We can talk about parts (flowers) of a bouquet, but the parts don't
summate to a bouquet. The bouquet is the manifesting or organizing
principle of the parts. Similarly, our concept of life is the organizing
principle of the parts or properties of life. But the properties don't
summate to life.
Dawkins looks at parts only. so he isn't addressing the issue of an
organizing principle or manifesting agency.
Bret Cahill
> > principle is or the condition is for it being a part.- >
> Then tell us about the prime mover, else stop the silliness.
How bad is the UK's fundy problem?
Bret Cahill
Zinnic
>
Tell us what is this "manifesting or organizing agency" that you want
Dawkins to discuss. Else stop your silliness.
Conan the bacterium
> >> I don't have time either for random or non-randomness as they are
> >> promoted in the literature. Random simply means the failure to name a
> >> structure.
>
> > I see: you don't have time to educate yourself, so you will instead
> > pontificate based on personal ignorance. Gotcha.
>
> > (And no, that's not what "random" means, simply or otherwise; you are
> > showing off your ignorance, again).
>
> >> see new post
>
> > I don't have the time for your nonsense or invincible ignorance.
>
> > --
> > Arturo Magidin
>
> I am a philosopher. We talk knowledgeably about anything under the sun.
> Technicalities are no barrier to us.
Oh, heavens, that's not very hard.
We've got tons of non-philosophers here who talk
knowledgeably about anything under the sun.
One of those talks most knowledgeably about the fact
that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has never
actually been tested. When presented with a list of
fifty entirely separate and independent experiments,
all of which were consistent with the predictions of
General Relativity, he goes away for a day or two,
gathers his strength, and then comes back here talking
knowledgeably about how General Relativity has never
been put to the test.
Over on sci.asronomy.amateur, we've got a non-
philosopher who talks knowledgeably about how present-
day so-called "astronomers" don't understand the
sideral day, and how they are better called
"astrologers", and how it all went downhill when Isaac
Newton blundered and messed this all up, and we all
followed Newton like sheep.
Right here on `alt.atheism' we've got a poster who
talks knowledgeably about how so-called "scientists"
screwed up unforgiveably when they bought into the
concept of a heliocentric solar system, and thereby
entirely mis-understood the proper order of the
heavenly bodies, and with that, all the wisdom of the
ancient astrologers. Oh, and this one also talks
knowledgeably about how the present Pope will be the
last Pope.
Over on sci.physics.relativity, we've had a poster
who's been talking knowledgeably for years now about
how Einstein screwed up with his Special Theory or
Relativity, because he failed to take into account the
negative of the speed of light. He drops by here
occasionally too, just to talk knowledgeably about that
very same thing to a fresh audience.
Also in this very group we've had a poster who can talk
knowledgeably about how the Earth's poles shifted
through a large number of degrees quite recently --
nobody noticed because all the GPS satellites were down
at the time, you see -- and how it can be proven that
we're all spiraling into the Sun as a result.
Also in this group we've got one who talks
knowledgeably about Richard Dawkins -- has something of
a jones on about Dawkins; you should pardon the
expression -- talks knowledgeably about Dawkins even
though, I am led to believe, that this person has never
actually *read* Dawkins. Although he did see him
on television once.
See? It's not that great an accomplishment.
Technicalities are no barrier to any of these folks
either.
Conan
John Jones
It's a tough one. We select the properties of life according to our
template of life. Purposefulness can select a range of properties we
call life.