Dawkins' "evolution" is a design
John Jones
But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
random events?
Drafterman
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.
Tapestry
First off, you cannot separate the power of GOD from creation.
They are inseparable.
Secondly, evolution doesn't happen.
Drafterman
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.
chazwin
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.
Sla#s
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hcsmjr$jnn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
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
Michael Gordge
> Otherwise,
> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
> random events?
There has been a "random evolution event" really? what happened? This
will be interesting, anyway so how was church last Sunday? idiot
MG
Brian E. Clark
jonesc...@btinternet.com says...
> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
Stop misreprsenting Dawkins. Mutation is random. Selection
is not.
> 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."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
John Stafford
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.
chazwin
> "John Jones" <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
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.
John Jones
> On Nov 4, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>>
>> But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
>> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
>> random events?
>
> Random evolution events would be those events involved in the
> evolution of life (for example: mutations).
> Other random events would be those not involved in the evolution of
> life (for example: the decay of of a carbon 14 atom on Neptune).
Evolution is a physical synonym for life - life rephrased as a sequence
of events. 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.
> 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?
John Jones
> On Nov 4, 8:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
>
> 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.
Precisely. And he's not getting with this naivety. Because this naivety
obscures the fact that Dawkins design for life is the same as the design
for life that a God would employ - non-physical and teleological. But
Dawkins disguises that fact by assuming design to be a physical
tampering of some sort. Such a design is a straw man against theist
intervention.
> 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.
That "selection" assumes mind over matter, if it isn't random.
> Whilst this cannot actively select successful traits, buy eliminating
> negative traits, it selects advantageous traits whilst selecting a
> myriad of other neutral traits.
Now we just shift the problem of finding a design for our ability to
distinguish life from non-life. The problem remains if we talk about
life in terms of "evolution" but the problem still remains when we
switch to talking about "traits" and "survival". I still need a design
or template for recognizing, for example, what is alive from what is dead.
>
> 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.
>
It doesn't help if we recognise the variety of "traits" as infinite. I
still need a design to distinguish traits from the infinite random dross
that is all natural material things.
John Jones
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?
John Jones
No.... look you need a design to be able to pick out an ear or a rabbit
or a living thing in the first place. You assume that these objects are
inherently recognizable.
John Jones
> In article <hcsmjr$jnn$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> jonesc...@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.
>> 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?
John Jones
> 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.
John Jones
How did you come to distinguish this "it"? You made a creative act.
Yap
> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
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.
>
> But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
> random events?
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.
Hatunen
<jonesc...@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? It is one of
hte best explnaations of evolution I've evr seen, and the
language is mostly simple enough for even a creationist or an
IDer to follow.
>Otherwise,
>how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
>random events?
Please explain why he has to.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Drafterman wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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.
Brian E. Clark
@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, chaz...@yahoo.com says...
> > 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 that simple.
Yes and no. Selection isn't the only factor in evolution.
But in terms of his comments, he's correct and you're not.
> The rabbit might breed too, that way evolution
> does not give a hoot about the length of ears.
Exactly, precisely wrong.
> For the long ears to prosper those with short ears
> would have to die before breeding.
No no no.
The key idea here is "differential reproductive success,"
not "reproducing before dying."
Here's an example, just for the purpose of explanation.
Longer ears might give Rabbit X a few more tenths of second
warning that a cat is approaching, allowing her to hide
before the cat pounces. Rabbit Y, with shorter ears,
detects the cat, but not before the cat has leapt. Thus
Rabbit Y is obliged to run and hop and dodge to escape the
predator. Both Rabbit X and Rabbit Y survive, and both
produce offspring. But Rabbit Y is spending a lot more or
her resources on flight and escape, while Rabbit X can
devote equivalent resources to making more milk, or keeping
her babies warm, or raising another litter in a given year,
to a degree which more than offsets the economic penalty of
producing longer ears in the first place. That's difference
enough to ensure that over the generations, the genes that
give Rabbit X her longer ears will become widespread, and
the genes that give Rabbit Y her shorter ears will become
scarce.
> None of this is "design" but it is luck and flaw.
What's the flaw? The speedster cars of the 1920s worked
very well, and they all were capable of finishing the race,
but their designs cannot compete successfully with today's
models.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:01:42 +0000, John Jones
>
> >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?
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
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:58:22 +0000, John Jones
>
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
Immortalist
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.
turtoni
"In philosophy, systems theory and science, emergence is the way
complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively
simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of
integrative levels and of complex systems."
Errol
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
Michael Gordge
> Maybe evolution is not as random as popular belief would have it.
Other than perhaps in the minds of ewe silly church going mystics,
where is "random evolution" a popular belief?
Perhaps ewe are really talking about those same silly Kantian
scientists who demand / insist on a non-existent being a requirement
of fact & truth?
MG
Errol
> On Nov 5, 5:01 pm, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe evolution is not as random as popular belief would have it.
>
> Other than perhaps in the minds of ewe silly church going mystics,
> where is "random evolution" a popular belief?
>
Evolution myths: Evolution is random
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random.html
OK! Happy? You've had your chirp, now piss off and study Ayn until you
spot something about either evolution or randomness, then try again
Zinnic
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> Maybe the blueprint for the evolution of humans and all life was
> imbedded in the physics of our universe in the same way as the six
> numerical relationships that shape the universe
>
> See
> Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, by Martin
> Rees- Hide quoted text -
>
A model relevant to randomicity/repeatability of evolution!
Place a black ball and a white ball in a bag. Without looking pick one
ball out of the bag. Replace it in the bag along with a second similar
ball (black or white). Keep repeating this selection and addition of
balls.
Does the ratio of black and white balls in the bag after n
repetitions converge towards 1:1 ? If not why not?
ZerkonXXXX
> 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?
Yet again the cause/effect binary trap.
If 'design' then a designer. If a 'purpose' then intention and some thing
or one that intends.
Fall back position which does not help at all: "Laws of Physics" or "Laws
of Nature" both assigning the power of law making to human abstraction,
not unlike a god.
'Random event' and 'accident' makes no sense other than by "no sense has
yet been made of the event but it will make sense sooner or later". How
can any process restricted by a given environment be random or an
accident?
If on the other hand, the Grand 'purpose' is exactly what is taking place
and so always self-evident and self-defining. It is left for the human to
decide their own purpose as individuals and as species. Whatever this may
be however it is contained and restricted as well as liberated and
expanded by this self-defining condition.
In evolution, being is becoming. To understand this fully is humanly
impossible, I think, but to make no attempt to do so is certain human
doom.
Errol
If the number of replacement balls are equally black and white, then
yes, they will converge towards 1:1
What interests me, is the remark from Dr Morris that some features are
so adaptive that they are essentially inevitable -- like the ability
to see and, as his title suggests, the intelligence and self-awareness
that are the hallmarks of humanity.
So if he is correct, then we are humans in a universe that seems to
inevitably churn out humans.
I can understand that the relationship between the gravity and nuclear
forces will decide whether or not asteroids and planets and
ultimately, stars can form or not. I am wondering whether or not there
is some other finely tuned number or numerical relationship we are
currently unaware of, that might assist in the development of life,
sight, intelligence and self-awareness.
ZerkonXXXX
Since "It's beer-thirty" at "Here" therefore "time to go", and since this
does exist (unfortunately not at this 'here' yet but it almost certainly
will, or at least usually has up to now) it can be concluded that purpose
also exists.
Beer-thirty holds the purpose of going to a much higher purpose of beer.
Is this an accident or random? Obviously not since it is a 'time'. Is it
a design? Obviously yes because this has all happened in a 'here'. Is it
part of human evolution? A search for 'beer-thirty" indicates a concept,
not practice, quite new to the human race so yes it is.
So the answer to everything is: "When it's beer-thirty; it is also time
to go."
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
A relationship other than the obvious facility of the lower elements
in the periodic table to combine and form organic compounds from the
basic molecules such as of hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2), ammonia
(NH3), methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O).
Add Methane to Ammonia with a dash of water vapour and you have amino
acids.
Mix these amino acids up a bit and you get proteins. Thereafter it
becomes too complicated for a layman such as myself to identify a
common relationship that can be simplified down to a single driving
factor that would inevitably produce complex life forms.
Errol
> 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.
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.
John Stafford
<3867e9d6-2752-43c6...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [... please see the excellent article ...]
> Maybe the blueprint for the evolution of humans and all life was
> imbedded in the physics of our universe in the same way as the six
> numerical relationships that shape the universe
>
> See
> Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, by Martin
> Rees
Good stuff. Thanks for that.
The more I learn of, for example, cell biology, the more it is clear
that what we have here on earth today is perfectly bound to a few
physical constraints and successful biological mechanisms have
limitations that follow a vector. That would imply that the laws of
physics direct development and evolution. Physics is the definition of
purpose by its outcomes.
Later, if I have time, I will post a link showing some stunning cell
'protein motor' information, perhaps some virus behaviors, things that
work at simple, elemental, but profound physical limits to specific
outcomes.
Zinnic
>
> - Show quoted text -
In practice the numbers of black and white balls balls converge at
several different ratios. It has to do with the early random
selections of black and white balls. If white balls predominate in
the first picks then the convergence ratio will differ significantly
from when back balls predominate in the early picks.
IMO, this indicates that randomicity is a factor in speciation! The
incidence of convergence in evolution results from selectivity of the
survival advantages (eg sight, intelligence and self-awareness)
conferred by random changes in the organism and its environment.
Drafterman
> Drafterman wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
>
> > 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).
>
> of events.
Not true. Evolution is how life changes. That is, life is affected by
evolution. They are not synonyms.
> 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?
> 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.
Drafterman
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".
> You made a creative act.
No I didn't. I just simply described evolution.
John Stafford
<5e577d6b-85b2-4037...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What interests me, is the remark from Dr Morris that some features are
> so adaptive that they are essentially inevitable -- like the ability
> to see and, as his title suggests, the intelligence and self-awareness
> that are the hallmarks of humanity.
But that does not mean that the universe will churn out humans.
Intelligence and awareness exist in most forms of life, to some degree,
and we do not know what other forms might be intelligent (other than
possibly the universe itself), such as complex gas formations. Who knows
- they might be evolving and communicating among themselves.
John Stafford
<755a9c80-f31b-4a35...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
turtoni <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
Emergence is a weasel-word. It just has a cooler buzz than 'aura' or
'magic'.
Errol
> In article
> <5e577d6b-85b2-4037-a2f1-8afb97a45...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What interests me, is the remark from Dr Morris that some features are
> > so adaptive that they are essentially inevitable -- like the ability
> > to see and, as his title suggests, the intelligence and self-awareness
> > that are the hallmarks of humanity.
>
> But that does not mean that the universe will churn out humans.
> Intelligence and awareness exist in most forms of life, to some degree,
> and we do not know what other forms might be intelligent (other than
> possibly the universe itself), such as complex gas formations. Who knows
> - they might be evolving and communicating among themselves.
Agreed. I was using humanity as a synonym for intelligent and self-
aware. Possibly not a good idea.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Nov 5, 5:01 pm, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe evolution is not as random as popular belief would have it.
>
> Other than perhaps in the minds of ewe silly church going mystics,
> where is "random evolution" a popular belief?
I didnt know mystics when to church.....they generally take their
'church' with them.
Perhaps they do in Kiwiland (a lot of evolution needed there if that
is the general view).
BOfL
Sla#s
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hct56u$ntf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Sla#s wrote:
>> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcsmjr$jnn$1...@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?
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> 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
Hatunen
Why attack only Dawkins? Anyone who understands the theory of
evolution knows that there is no design and no goals. A lot of
posters are arging against what Dawkinknows or beleives or says
and ignoring the fact that he is just the messenger.
Hatunen
<vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 2:19�am, John Jones <jonescard...@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
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".
Immortalist
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:18:35 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>
> >On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>
> >> But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
> >> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
> >> random events?
>
> >Some things that are designed appear to have some purpose or goal. If
> >evolution designed things which include purpose and goals apparent by
> >their behavior this doesn't necessarily mean that the designer has to
> >have a purpose.
>
> >Dawkins probably just thinks that there is no designer with goals.
>
> Why attack only Dawkins? Anyone who understands the theory of
> evolution knows that there is no design and no goals. A lot of
> posters are arging against what Dawkinknows or beleives or says
> and ignoring the fact that he is just the messenger.
>
The explanatory text of my first paragraph is sufficient to meet your
desire to be universal and abstract, but the line space break led to
narrowing the thesis down to Dawkins as one example.
> --
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) *************
Red Celt
> 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?
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
hypa...@comcast.net
More like you need to believe that this 'designer' exists, while we
say the hell with the unnecessary middleman.
hypa...@comcast.net
What a boring god you believe in.
Christopher A. Lee
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.
ZerkonXXXX
> On Nov 5, 2:41 pm, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@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.
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..
> 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.
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.
chazwin
> Sla#s wrote:
> > "John Jones" <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:hcsmjr$jnn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>
> >> But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
> >> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
> >> random events?
>
>
> > What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
> > and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
> > advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
> > carried on?
>
> > Slatts
>
> It's not the particular traits that concern me. It's how we come to
> distinguish a trait AT ALL. How do we distinguish a rabbit ear from a
> branch that the rabbit sits under?
Ask Linneaus! His taxonomic methodolgy was so good that is has
survived Darwin and genetics.
I do agree that the identification of traits can be problematic -
mainly because they are subjectivly identified but are presented as
objective.
ZerkonXXXX
> Emergence is a weasel-word.
!! well one thing for sure, it's trying to say there's a one way street
when in fact it's a two lane.
chazwin
> Brian E. Clark wrote:
> > In article <hcsmjr$jn...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > jonescard...@btinternet.com says...
>
> >> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>
> > 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.
But selection is contingent on survival thus not random.
>
> >> 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?
John Jones
> On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
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.
John Jones
> On Nov 4, 7:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Drafterman wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Tapestry <estry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 4, 2:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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".
I meant how did you come to distinguish this ancestor or "it" as being
an example of a type of object?
John Jones
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:hct56u$ntf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Sla#s wrote:
>>> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hcsmjr$jnn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>>>>
>>>> But Dawkins knows that evolution IS a design with a purpose. Otherwise,
>>>> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
>>>> random events?
>>> You just refuse to understand it don't you.
>>>
>>> What is "design" about one rabbit in a litter having slightly longer ears
>>> and another having slightly shorter ears? Then longer ears having an
>>> advantage and hence that one breeds more and the longer ear trait being
>>> carried on?
>>>
>>> Slatts
>> It's not the particular traits that concern me. It's how we come to
>> distinguish a trait AT ALL. How do we distinguish a rabbit ear from a
>> branch that the rabbit sits under?
>
> You've lost me there totally - what has that to do with the OP?
>
> Slatts
>
>
In order to pick out a random selection of events as being a type of
object I have to impose some sort of design or template onto the events.
Otherwise, all I get are any set of random events.
John Jones
No.. my point is that I need a design or template to distinguish a
rabbit from the tree it sits under.
John Jones
> On Nov 5, 12:17 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Brian E. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <hcsmjr$jn...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> jonescard...@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.
>
> But selection is contingent on survival thus not random.
They mean the same,
..but whether nature is random or not, it makes no difference to my
point that a template must be applied to distinguish any object.
John Jones
> To us, a god is untenable since every event in this world negates the
> presence of a supernatural being.
That wouldn't interest me here.
John Jones
> On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>>
>> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
>> random events?
>
> 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.
Yes, instead the designer is Dawkins who can mysteriously identify a
life form from any other random event.
John Jones
> 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.
Puck Greenman
I think this John Jones, is another monkfish, ignoring his own ignorance, and playing
petty word games, in order to convince himself of his superiority.
...Or perhaps, merely of his existence.
Immortalist
wrote:
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?
Immortalist
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.
Hatunen
How do you tell a bicycle from the tree it leans against? I
assume yo can do that. You search your mempory for all the
similar objects you've seen and decide it falls into the category
of objects called "bicycles".
That's simple, aint' it? Even you could do it. So, you look at
all the observations of creatures that look like the object under
the tree, find out that it is pretty universally agreed that the
group name of all those critters will be "rabbit", compare the
prior observations to the critter under the tree and decide it
is, indeed, a rabbit. In other words, the template comes from all
prior observations of rabbits.
Beware, though, It might be a hare. Or a coney. You might have to
get a little more specific on the observations. Maybe get a
sample of the critter's DNA and have it compared to hisorical
observations of a rabbit's DNA.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
Hatunen
Are you claiming the object deosn't exist unless you have applied
some kind of template?
Hatunen
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>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.
We figured you to be too lazy to actually learn anything about
what you're talking about.
*plonk*
Errol
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is your attention span so narrow that you spend your time dividing
posters into god botherers and atheists?
John Jones
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:58:22 +0000, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Drafterman wrote:
>>>> Evolution, for Dawkins, has no design or purpose. It is random.
>>>>
>>>> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
>>>> random events?
>>> 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.
It means that in the absence of any definition of life we have to fall
back on a list of properties or a list of sequenced historical events
(evolution) as a description of it.
John Jones
Read it slowly. I checked it and its grammatically ok and it makes sense.
John Jones
I have to impose the design or template of a bicycle on what I see befor
me. The design or template if a bicycle is a tool that I carry that
helps me travel around. For an animal that doesn't travel around there
is no bicycle - just a random jumble of objects.
> I
> assume yo can do that. You search your mempory for all the
> similar objects you've seen and decide it falls into the category
> of objects called "bicycles".
Yes. I'm not arguing there.
>
> That's simple, aint' it? Even you could do it.
Yes.
> So, you look at
> all the observations of creatures that look like the object under
> the tree, find out that it is pretty universally agreed that the
> group name of all those critters will be "rabbit", compare the
> prior observations to the critter under the tree and decide it
> is, indeed, a rabbit. In other words, the template comes from all
> prior observations of rabbits.
Yes, and I call the rabbit a life-form based on my experience of
life-forms. However, a template or design informs that experience of a
life-form. Otherwise I wouldn't experience a life-form but I would
experience a moving heap of chemicals or a moving object.
>
> Beware, though, It might be a hare. Or a coney. You might have to
> get a little more specific on the observations. Maybe get a
> sample of the critter's DNA and have it compared to hisorical
> observations of a rabbit's DNA.
As I say, without the design or template of a life-form all it would be
would be food on the move, or a moving object or heap of chemicals.
John Jones
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:30:03 +0000, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> chazwin wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 12:17 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Brian E. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <hcsmjr$jn...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> jonescard...@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.
>>> But selection is contingent on survival thus not random.
>> They mean the same,
>>
>> ..but whether nature is random or not, it makes no difference to my
>> point that a template must be applied to distinguish any object.
>
> Are you claiming the object deosn't exist unless you have applied
> some kind of template?
>
Yes. There is no piano for a cat. There are no crown jewels for the
ravens in the tower of London.
John Jones
> In article
> <755a9c80-f31b-4a35...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> turtoni <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 3:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> how could Dawkins distinguish random evolution events from any other
>>> random events?
>> complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively
>> simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of
>> integrative levels and of complex systems."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>
> Emergence is a weasel-word. It just has a cooler buzz than 'aura' or
> 'magic'.
While the wiki article also had errors in it, emergence isn't an aura.
It's the way we perceive objects. A set of roses do not gain the
property of a bouquet no matter how you arrange them. We make pictures,
and the pictures emerge non-causally from their elements.
Drafterman
> Drafterman wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 7:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Drafterman wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, Tapestry <estry....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 4, 2:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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".
>
> I meant how did you come to distinguish this ancestor or "it" as being
> an example of a type of object?
In this context "it" is not referring to an object. It is referring to
the process of evolution.
"It" refers to evolution, not the ancestor.
Why are you focusing so much on the trivial use of a pronoun?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You made a creative act.
>
> > No I didn't. I just simply described evolution.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Drafterman
> Drafterman wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
>
> 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.
Except they are. The definition of life is arbitrary. The propterties
scientists have decided constitutes life are, in and of themselves,
not special.
Scientists took all things which were considered "alive", then, to
classify "life" determined the properties that "living" things have in
common. This resulted in our template for what is alive. That life
happens to have those things in common might as well be random. You
must understand that the concept of "life" precedes the classification
of the properties which life has. It's reductionist.
This arbitrary nature also results in a grey area. There are things
(such as viruses) which defy classification. This may be unavoidable.
It is also evidence against design because if things were designed
then they would be 100% one or the other.
>
>
>
> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
John Jones
> On Nov 8, 6:22 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Drafterman wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
>> 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.
>
> Except they are. The definition of life is arbitrary. The propterties
> scientists have decided constitutes life are, in and of themselves,
> not special.
If the properties of life are arbitrary then there is nothing to
distinguish them from any set of properties.
>
> Scientists took all things which were considered "alive", then, to
> classify "life" determined the properties that "living" things have in
> common.
Scientists used the template of life to select a range of properties.
They didn't choose a set of properties at random.
A classification of life doesn't identify life. A classification only
lists properties. Properties don't define the concept that brings them
together. These properties must be brought under a concept to become
significant, to become properties at all.
> This resulted in our template for what is alive.
No, the template was already there before properties were brought under
it. How can you go about getting a set of properties for life unless you
already have the template for it?
Richard Smol
> 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?
The answer is right there in your question.
RS
John Jones
It isn't trivial. If I say "only I know what it is" or "only I know what
art is" for example, then I am entitled to challenge whether this use of
"it" is legitimate.
If a definition of life has not been given, and the definition is
required, then I can't use the word "itself" as an aid to that
definition, as it assumes what needs to be defined (life).
Drafterman
But "it" was not being used to reference "life", it was being used to
reference "evolution". You can replace the word "it" with "evolution"
and the meaning of the sentence remains the same. This is an
appropriate use of a pronoun. This is the third time I've explained
it. Why is this a hard concept?
Drafterman
> Drafterman wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 6:22 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Drafterman wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@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?
> >> 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.
>
> > Except they are. The definition of life is arbitrary. The propterties
> > scientists have decided constitutes life are, in and of themselves,
> > not special.
>
> If the properties of life are arbitrary then there is nothing to
> distinguish them from any set of properties.
Nothing except the desire of scientists to distinguish them from any
other set of properties.
>
>
>
> > Scientists took all things which were considered "alive", then, to
> > classify "life" determined the properties that "living" things have in
> > common.
>
> Scientists used the template of life to select a range of properties.
> They didn't choose a set of properties at random.
No, but the set of properties that life happens to have in common (and
thus subject to selection by scientists) were not predetermined.
>
> A classification of life doesn't identify life.
Yes, it does.
> A classification only
> lists properties.
Yes, it lists the properties we use to identify whether or not
something is alive.
> Properties don't define the concept that brings them
> together. These properties must be brought under a concept to become
> significant, to become properties at all.
They are brought under the conception we have of life, through
observing the world. We see the difference between a bug and a rock.
We make these distinctions all the time. But this subjective
impression is not perfect or consistent. This is why we have
objectified it by developing a scientific classification. Thus life no
longer depends on what people think is alive.
>
> > This resulted in our template for what is alive.
>
> No, the template was already there before properties were brought under
> it. How can you go about getting a set of properties for life unless you
> already have the template for it?
The template was based upon human pattern recognition. We codifed that
through the scientific process. While both are fallible, the
scientific process is less so and it's failings are not tied to a
single human's perception.
Puck Greenman
>It means that in the absence of any definition of life we have to fall
>back on a list of properties
Which describe life.
Hatunen
And which taken together would consitute a definition.
chazwin
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:44:44 +0000, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >It means that in the absence of any definition of life we have to fall
> >back on a list of properties
>
> Which describe life.
Evolutionary theory, does not describe life but describes the
mechanism by which living things are modified over time. It is not a
design, as a design implies a designer. THe mechanism is an automatic,
unintentional, disinterested process that operates, and has done so
for billions of years. It is no more 'clever' or 'designed' than the
fact that apples fall from trees.
John Jones
But how would we be able to assert that?
John Jones
The mechanism is identified by a design.
John Jones
No it doesn't. No selection of properties will give you their organizing
or identifying principle, except where life is a name only for a list of
properties.
>
>> Properties don't define the concept that brings them
>> together. These properties must be brought under a concept to become
>> significant, to become properties at all.
>
> They are brought under the conception we have of life, through
> observing the world.
Thankyou. At last. And that isn't given by a list of properties.
> We see the difference between a bug and a rock.
> We make these distinctions all the time. But this subjective
> impression is not perfect or consistent.
It's what informs/identifies/manifests our list of properties. It's
fundamentally crucial.
> This is why we have
> objectified it by developing a scientific classification. Thus life no
> longer depends on what people think is alive.
No. a classification or list of properties must have an organizing
principle that lets us select them. Otherwise all we have is a random
set of properties.
>
>>> This resulted in our template for what is alive.
>> No, the template was already there before properties were brought under
>> it. How can you go about getting a set of properties for life unless you
>> already have the template for it?
>
> The template was based upon human pattern recognition. We codifed that
> through the scientific process.
Yes, but you may be sliding the term "pattern" into simply another
property in a list. It isn't a property in a list, it's an organising
principle for that list. It creates the list.
> While both are fallible, the
> scientific process is less so and it's failings are not tied to a
> single human's perception.
The scientific process is logically, completely, informed by our perception.
John Jones
I can't keep rechcking. It looks like you used a pronoun to assert what
needed justifying.
Drafterman
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. I used the pronoun in place of the word "evolution". How many
times do I have to repeat that?
Drafterman
Ok, and?
>
>
>
> >> Properties don't define the concept that brings them
> >> together. These properties must be brought under a concept to become
> >> significant, to become properties at all.
>
> > They are brought under the conception we have of life, through
> > observing the world.
>
> Thankyou. At last. And that isn't given by a list of properties.
As far as science is concerned, it is.
>
> > We see the difference between a bug and a rock.
> > We make these distinctions all the time. But this subjective
> > impression is not perfect or consistent.
>
> It's what informs/identifies/manifests our list of properties. It's
> fundamentally crucial.
>
> > This is why we have
> > objectified it by developing a scientific classification. Thus life no
> > longer depends on what people think is alive.
>
> No. a classification or list of properties must have an organizing
> principle that lets us select them. Otherwise all we have is a random
> set of properties.
Ok, and?
>
>
>
> >>> This resulted in our template for what is alive.
> >> No, the template was already there before properties were brought under
> >> it. How can you go about getting a set of properties for life unless you
> >> already have the template for it?
>
> > The template was based upon human pattern recognition. We codifed that
> > through the scientific process.
>
> Yes, but you may be sliding the term "pattern" into simply another
> property in a list. It isn't a property in a list, it's an organising
> principle for that list. It creates the list.
Our brains created the list.
>
> > While both are fallible, the
> > scientific process is less so and it's failings are not tied to a
> > single human's perception.
>
> The scientific process is logically, completely, informed by our perception.
Yes. "our" plural. As in not singular.
John Jones
Yes, it looked as though you were relying on it to explain evolution or
something.
Drafterman
Wait. So you can use the pronoun "it" but I can't?
John Jones
IT functions as a reference in my account of the word, YOu used it
(reference) as an explanation.
Drafterman
No I didn't. I used it in place of simply spelling out the word
"evolution". Why is this an improper use of the word, and why can't
you seem to understand how I've used it despite explicitly stating
this several times now?
Puck Greenman
Cos he's a twat, of the first order.
John Jones
You said
" It happens everytime an organism reproducts an offspring that is
genetically different than itself."
So "itself" assumed what was in question. You already presupposed
reproduction simply because of your use of "itself".
Drafterman
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you read the thread you're response to this wasn't with regards to
"itself" but "it". Your movement of the goal posts doesn't get you
anything, it's just a mundane use of a pronoun. In my above statement
"it" refers to evolution and "itself" refers to "the organism that
produced an offspring". The sentence can be rewritten as:
"Evolution happens everytime an organism produces an offspring that is
genetically different than the organism that produced the offpsring."
Yeah, it's a little unwieldy and perhaps grammatically incorrect but I
guess that's what we have to do since pronouns are so confusing to
you. Which is odd, since this seems to be the only instance of them
confusing you.
Whoops! Look at all those pronouns! Guess I have to rewrite:
"Yeah, the sentence is a little unwieldly and perhaps grammatically
incorrect, but Drafterman guesses that is what Drafterman and everyone
else has to do since pronouns are so confusing to John Jones. Which is
odd, since this seems to be the only instance of pronouns confusing
John Jones."
Better?
John Vreeland
Much better to consider the genetic cross-section of an entire
population and say that when the genetic distribution of a population
changes,evolution occurs. It is usually incorrect to apply evolution
to a singe organism as it very much operates on probabilities. A
certain trait might give a certain probability of survival relative to
other traits, so populations evolve, not individuals.
Immortalist
> 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?
What do you mean bey "purpose" can you give a clear definition? If
liquid water turns into solid water (ice) it appears much more
organized as a solid, for example snow flake are very symmetrical: are
they designed and does the ways water molecules become organized when
frozen, have a purpose as you are using it?
==========example 2
DrunkManWalking
DAVID GERGEN: You used an analogy, which I found quite helpful to me,
in thinking about the randomness of it all. You talked about the drunk
coming out of a bar and staggering. Could you--
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: Yeah. It’s an old statistical paradigm called the
drunkard’s walk, which is a wonderful way of illustrating how you can
get directional and predictable motion within a totally random system.
All right. Here’s the story. 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. We understand that very easily.
DAVID GERGEN: Right.
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: He’s going to lend up in the gutter every time.
DAVID GERGEN: Right.
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: 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.
DAVID GERGEN: Right.
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: So in its random motion back and forth occasionally
a species staggers over towards greater complexity, but it arises
within an effectively random system.
DAVID GERGEN: But the complexity is over here toward the gutter.
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: Yes. The complexity is toward the gutter in that
analogy. And the bar wall is home.
DAVID GERGEN: Now, what’s interesting about that is that that--the
bar, in effect, is the left wall. It’s the simplicity. You can’t get
any simpler than that left wall is, itself.
STEPHEN JAY GOULD: 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.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/november96/gould.htm
Demonstrating the variation of a total random series of events of a
drunk moving from the left wall to the gutter across a foot path,
apparently constant demonstration of how, given enough time, the right
side will be reached. The same with the development and variation of
creatures over time from a left wall of single cell simple creatures
to the right wall of most complexity, the samples appear to be of the
same order of randomness.
Immortalist
That statement made me think of Adam Smith and his fallacy of
composition.
It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer, or the baker that
we expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their self-love, and never
talk to them of our own necessities
but of their advantages."
--Adam Smith