|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Wouldn't that alone warrant the question of, how could the complexity of natural selection occur by chance then? No it does not. The question certainly can be dismissed in a few words. Did the meteor ~65 million years ago that struck off the tip of Yacatan do so by design? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ausar_maat writes:
No, that's not a legitimate scientific question. It's a philosophical (and perhaps theological) question. Science deals with cause, not with purpose.
Again, it still raises the legitimate scientific question: Is it "random" or "designed" or "planned"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Sermonti's claims about the taxonomy of these bugs are false. I mentionned this in my response if you paid attention. But it ISN'T the central issue. The central issue is, why does it look like a leaf, by pure chance. How does an insect mutate an "advantage" randomely. I'm not questionning the fact that mutation + natural selection causes evolution to occur. But can "randomness" as a principle explain this how specific complexity AND highly specific puporse of the said complexity ? This is a legitimate question.
quote: Absolutely, I know he's right. But how can we claim this process is random ? There is your real question.. what part of it is so difficult to grasp?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This axiom, and it's ok to call it an axiom, doesn't explain the notion of purpose though, nor does it constitute a problem for it either. Then I guess I don't see the relevance of what you're saying, here. "Purpose" exists in our minds, not in the world. It's just a label that we apply to things, not a property of things themselves.
Meaning to say, in this above equation, should we put the word "purposely designed" or "random" in front of "mutation". Mutations are always random, a fact confirmed by population studies on organisms.
Thus, I pointed out that the Borrato response was weak in that it didn't adress any fundamental aspects of the question of design. There is no "question of design." If things in the natural world look like they have "purpose" to you, that's something in your mind, not in the world. Why do things look like they have design to you? Because you've chosen to look at them that way. It really is just that simple.
Wouldn't that alone warrant the question of, how could the complexity of natural selection occur by chance then? Why wouldn't it? If systems were being generated with entirely random characteristics, wouldn't we expect a range in complexity just as we would expect a range in any other characteristic? And if we had a process where, every generation, we discarded the ten least complex systems and applied modifications to the survivng systems, wouldn't we expect an upwards trend in complexity? Your mistake is your assumption that randomness and complexity are somehow anathema. The flaw in your argument is that you cannot support that assertion.
That still doesn't, when we analyse that response specifically in light of the initial question, provide an answer to explain how it popped up to be morphologically almost identical to the food it eats, by chance of mutation. You won't randomly mutate into Mr. Potato-Head if you eat nothing but potatos for 2 000 000 years straight, even if you and your ancestors live in a potato field for that amount of time. It very much does answer the question. Is it just that you don't understand selection, or something? Leaf insects don't look like leaves because they eat leaves; they look like leaves because some birds who eat insects don't eat leaves.
Again, it still raises the legitimate scientific question: Is it "random" or "designed" or "planned"? It's random. We know this from population genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: If you seriously rationalise my objections to randomness with that kind of "apples & oranges" answer, then I guess you didn't give much thought to the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But how can we claim this process is random ? Because mutations occur randomly. It's just that simple. Are you asking how we detect randomness, or something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Causality is becoming gradually outdated you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It IS the central issue of the article you linked to. That is the chosen subject. You can't legitimately complain about the article just because it deals with a subject other than the one you wanted it to.
quote: That is a peripheral issue to the subject of the essay. It isn't central at all. And the answer - as I pointed out - is that it ISN'T pure chance. There is a selective force favouring camouflage as defence from predators. Thus the non-random element is the selective force which influences which traits are passed on to future generations. The mutations are "random" (in the sense that the probability of their occurrence is not related to their usefulness) but selection ifnluences whether mutations are retained and spread through the gne pool or lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: That is a philosophical statement at best, which is incurrate for a simple reason. I'll give you an example, pain... it's there both a reason and a physical purpose for pain, we both know the spinal nerve gates control the flow of pain messages from the peripheral nerves to the brain. The whole process can be explained neurologically, but it has real "purpose". If it didn't serve this purpose it wouldn't be there in the first place. The problem is that on a philosophical level, people will use "purpose" as an imaginary phenomena when it's convinient. But no, your own anatomy shows you purpose is real. Your isolading fields here my friend. That observation was not very objective on your part. The notion of "need" warrants the notion of "purpose". If need is real so is purpose..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If it didn't serve this purpose it wouldn't be there in the first place. Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That is a philosophical statement at best, which is incurrate for a simple reason. I'll give you an example Your example doesn't really mean anything. "Pain" only has purpose in your mind; it's just a model you use to connect the cause of pain with the effect of an action taken to avoid pain. But it works just as well to consider it another way - organisms respond to pain because there's a selection pressure against organisms that don't respond to pain; organisms that do not avoid painful actions or situations tend to be killed by those actions or situations.
The notion of "need" warrants the notion of "purpose". There is no need. There's only organisms that responded to pain and lived; and organisms that did not respond and died. Your thinking is backwards and teleological, you're reasoning about the cause from a basis of assuming the effect; if you think forwards, the evolutionary explanation makes perfect sense and the effects flow naturally from their observed causes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Your mistake is to assume I do. But randomness and purpose however, are anathema. It's a root question.
quote: Sorry but it does, it makes no sense to say purpose is imaginary on an organic level. Because what is puporse, it is to serve a fonction, to have a role. Organisms play specific roles and fonctions, that is purpose. It's the action for which a thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists. Like the chair your seating on. It has a purpose, it was designed to play the role of holding your backside as you answer this thread, or else it wouldn't be in your house. But what you say is inacurate even on the most basic subatomic level. But your mistake is that you confuse "purpose" with the philosophical notion of "meaning" or "significane". Then apply that mistake to your misunderstanding as it pertains to evolution. But it the "Meaning" and "significance" that you give things that are from your own mind, yes. Not purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: No actually, because purpose is intrinsic to every organism. Therefore to ask the question is legitimate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But randomness and purpose however, are anathema. If you insist that they are, then you've defeated your own argument. We know for a fact that mutations are random; thus, they must be without purpose.
Sorry but it does, it makes no sense to say purpose is imaginary on an organic level. No, it does, for the reasons that I've outlined. Cause and effect exist; but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the cause is to have the effect, except on a tautological basis where purpose is defined as the effect of a cause.
It has a purpose, it was designed to play the role of holding your backside as you answer this thread, or else it wouldn't be in your house. But that purpose is contained in my mind, and the mind of those that made it, not in the object itself. Purpose is defined in context, not in the object itself. That's why a urinal in a restroom has the "purpose" of being a receptical for human wastes, but the very same urinal - with no modification whatsoever - hanging in an art gallery loses that purpose and gains the purpose of being an item of cultural interest, an object d'art. How can you say that purpose is not imaginary when objects gain and lose purpose based simply on a change in how we think about them? Purpose is located in our minds, not in objects. It's irrefutable, no matter how often you say "that isn't so."
But what you say is inacurate even on the most basic subatomic level. Subatomic level? Can you show me the "purpose particle"?
But your mistake is that you confuse "purpose" with the philosophical notion of "meaning" or "significane". If you've defined "purpose" as simply the relationship between cause and effect, then its no wonder you see purpose where purpose does not exist. But such a definition is meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No actually, because purpose is intrinsic to every organism. That's a bold statement, but certainly not one supported by any evidence. You're obsessed with purpose, clearly; it's no wonder you find it everywhere you look. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024