Help me understand Intelligent Design

Define "purpose" and explain how it is intrinsic in a malaria mosquito.

quote:

---

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."

---

It's irrefutable? Really?According to who? You?There is no basis for your definition and you clearely haven't even attempted to deal with fonction as intrinsic.You seem in denial for some reason? Maybe this is why you're trying to get around the fact that your definition of purpose was an honest mistake. That it was confused for meaning and significance.Because even in the very operation of mutations in genetic algorithms, purpose is there..again. According to every standard text on the subject. That purpose, role, fonction, all the same anyway, is to prevent populations of chomosomes from becoming too similar to each other. To slow down the mutation if you may. So even the very randomness of the selection process on that level has purpose. That's why GAs avoid choosing the fittest in a population of chroms and opts for a random and sometimes semi-random selection. So when you say that "We know for a fact that mutations are random; thus, they must be without purpose", I don't know if you understand the full extant of what you're referring to, in terms of proving that selection has no purpose because it's random. Yes, it is, but in that context, for that purpose...you won't get away no matter how much you try I'm afraid.If I'm obsessed by purpose, your obsessed by denial of it, and shield your denial behind incomplete assumptions you have about randomness, then say "we" proved it. It's not that simple.Also, "purpose" like every other thing is subject to the only constant in the universe: change.Another important notion that we forget, is symbios in living organisms and in our eco-system. It always balances itself out. Right down to frogs, when you put one next the other, their heart beats ultimately synchronise in perfect synthony. This balance in our eco-system is not random either.

Acccording to anyone willing to approach the issue objectively. Since you're intent on asserting "purpose" no matter the evidence, that clearly isn't you. Nonsense. If that's the conclusion you're reaching, you haven't even been reading my posts. More evidence of your lack of objectivity.My examples have destroyed the idea of intrinsic purpose. You haven't even tried to rebut them; instead you've simply repeated your assertions. Now you're pretty obviously gearing up to a big ad hominem attack. Yup, there you go. And what, pray tell, is the standard text on "purpose"? Now you're just making things up. You're the one who asserts that a random mutation must be without purpose, not me. Because purpose resides in our minds, we can apply it to anything, including that which is random.You're the one who asserted that randomness was anathema to purpose. If you believe that to be true then you have no choice but to believe that mutations are without purpose, because there's no coherent, legitimate basis for disputing the fact that mutations are random.But it's your position, not mine. Nonsense. I've never denied purpose; I've simply attempted to educate you on the nature of the purpose we sometimes see in the natural world. But you're not at all interested in being educated, I see; simply in repeating assertions you have no way to support. It is that simple. Mutations are proved to occur at random. I realize you find that statement objectionable, since it proves that you're wrong, but the experiments are clear and irrefutable; mutations happen at random. It's a fact of life. You don't have to take my word for it; look it up. No, they don't. Ecosystems often become unbalanced, especially due to the introduction of new species. This is simply nonsense. I have no idea where you aquired such a hilarious misunderstanding but this is certainly not the case.

Note the change of topic title

Please note that AM use the word "selection" in his last sentence above but you were both talking about "mutations". It is necessary to read more carefully.Crash, your first to answers in your post don't really contribute much. There is no need to for you to reassert your views any more than it helps to have AM doing it.AM seems to have, earlier, given some example of purpose for mutations but he seems to be simply defining purpose as "result". Why don't you get the definition of "purpose" clear before you attempt to carry on? That working is unnecessarily inflamatory. Instead try:
"I have never heard of such a thing please supply the source of your infomation".(PS I have read of fireflies synchronizing their flashes so it doesn't seem to me to be totally out to lunch. It also doesn't seem to mean a darn thing in this discussion)

quote:

---

Acccording to anyone willing to approach the issue objectively.

---

That's actually a statement you just made, where is the proof in that? Anyone can state such a claim. So if I we're to tell you the same thing, we'd be playing ping pong for a while, to no avail.However, though I appreciate you tried to "educate" me on the definition of purpose, I corrected you by pointing out that your definition alluded to other words of a philosophical nature. I gave you a clear definition, yet you rejected it. In return, you answer with your own unsupported assomptions of purpose. That assumption, is not even a principle, it's your opinion based on the definition you choose to cling to. Maybe I should use the synonyms: Role and fonction. Would that help?

quote:

---

My examples have destroyed the idea of intrinsic purpose. You haven't even tried to rebut them; instead you've simply repeated your assertions. Now you're pretty obviously gearing up to a big ad hominem attack.

---

another....statement, to just say you destroyed the arguements doesn't destroy it. I rebuted your assumptions clearly. If you read back my posts carefully.

quote:

---

You're the one who asserted that randomness was anathema to purpose. If you believe that to be true then you have no choice but to believe that mutations are without purpose, because there's no coherent, legitimate basis for disputing the fact that mutations are random.

---

I explained the nature of it's randomness and established it had purpose and a limited context. So to state this as though I hadn't done that is unfair and untrue. It's denial perhaps ?If my explinations of the nature of randomness in mutations of GAs is incorrect, please tell me so. Then we'll have something concrete to work with. If not, you have to accept it has purpose. Not to do so would indicate you're only interested in proving your point. In that case, we'll be going around in circles.

I've answered this question of yours either here or on the other thread, but I'll do it again.It's not that there was a beetle that looked like a cockroach and it had offspring that looked like a leaf. That's not how it happens.A group of bugs live on a particular plant and are subject to predation from birds. The birds distinguish the bugs from their surrounding by color and shape. Therefore the more different you are from your surroundings, the more likely you are to get picked off.Those bugs that don't get picked off - the one with camoflague, live to breed.As this continues, the least camoflagued bugs continue to get picked off. But what constitutes least camo is slowly sliding upwards. The least camod 10000 generation of bugs may be more camod than the most camod of the 1st generation.Some of these bugs are well camod because they are the same color as leaves, or the same size as leaves, or the same shape as leaves. As those groups survive and breed, we start to see bugs which are the more and more color, size and shape of leaves.Other groups of bugs face the same problem. Some of them adapt to be more sticklike, others take on the image of a different, less tasty species, etc.It's a slow process and it happens gradually, not overnight.

quote:

---

(PS I have read of fireflies synchronizing their flashes so it doesn't seem to me to be totally out to lunch. It also doesn't seem to mean a darn thing in this discussion)

---

I agree with you, in and if self it is irrelevant. True or not.And I appreciate your objectivity in the matter. It is refreshing to this thread.thank you NosyNed

Welcome to the fray "ausar_maat" Egyptology? I'd say the IDer's are implying purpose at best. Why is purpose necessary to evolution? No purpose need apply. Was it the purpose of the Borrato response to address "fundamental aspects of the question of design"?What is the evidence of purpose in the life around us? Synchronous behavior is not purpose but behavior. It may suit the purpose of the individual, but that doesn't get us to an ID concept.If we want to evaluate the validity of design concepts we can address purpose: what is the purpose of a retina that faces away from the light it is designed to sense? What is the purpose of a virus?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, the ball's in your court, where it has been for a while. Any time you'd like to start supporting your assertions and fleshing out your arguments is fine with me. Perhaps you'd like to begin with defining exactly what you mean by "purpose"? It appears that you've equated it to "function", though those two things are obviously not the same. Which is apporpriate, because purpose is a philsophical construct, not a property of material objects. You've given no definition. Not in any post directed to me, anyway. Role and function are not synonymous with "purpose", but if you'd like to discuss function instead, that's fine with me. What is your question in regards to function? Do you challenge the power of natural selection and random mutation to generate systems that have function? No, of course not. What destroyed your arguments were my rebuttals, of course. Anybody can go back and read them. Maybe you'd like to? I've made no assumptions, and my arguments have yet to be addressed by you. But we can sit here and restate the debate all day long. The record is clear, anybody can go back and read it. Maybe it would be more fruitful for you to try to defend your own arguments, instead of making claims about how good they were? In particular I'd like you to defend your assertions about:1) "Standard texts" in the field of "purpose";
2) "Purpose" as a property operating at the subatomic levels
3) Randomness being anathema to purposeI've challenged all those points; your response has been to ignore those challenges. Do you really think that constitutes the behavior of someone who is winning the debate? This isn't a contest about who can ignore the other person the best, AM. You've contradicted yourself, then. Are these not your words?

quote:

---

But randomness and purpose however, are anathema. It's a root question.

---

Can randomness have a purpose? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind. I've already accepted that randomness can have purpose. I've done this in two posts before, and now this one. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.The only person here who's position on the compatibility of randomness and purpose is ambiguous is you, because you've contradicted yourself several times on the issue. Furthermore your conflation of "purpose" with things like "function" only adds to the lack of clarity in your position. Until we're absolutely clear on what you mean by "purpose" there's going to be no way we can really address your questions on how function can come about as a result of natural selection and random mutation.

I presumed he had just made a typo. I was reading carefully. I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of my post. I've elaborated and expanded my arguments, as required by the forum guidelines (and by good sense.) I did research the claim before I dismissed it, you know. There's absolutely nothing in the literature about it, nothing in any popular press about frogs, it's not even a common misconception that I'm aware of. The father of a close friend of mine is a prominent amphibian expert, and in the course of our occasional conversations about frogs growing up he never once mentioned such a phenomenon. As far as I know, which is not insignificant, it is totally out to lunch. It doesn't even make sense physiologically. Heartrate is a function of the efficiency of the cardiac muscle in moving blood at a certain rate; if two frogs were to synchronize their heartrates one or both of them would be moving blood faster or slower than they'd need to, with physiological consequences. And what would be the benefit to offset that cost?

No, I don't know that. It's wrong.I'll grant that there are uncaused quantum events. However, cause is still very important to science.

re frogs: I'll be watching for AM's support for the assertion then (or retraction).

quote:

---

ell, the ball's in your court, where it has been for a while. Any time you'd like to start supporting your assertions and fleshing out your arguments is fine with me. Perhaps you'd like to begin with defining exactly what you mean by "purpose"? It appears that you've equated it to "function", though those two things are obviously not the same.

---

Here, once again, we are dealing with denial. Or lack of knowledge on definitions, or both.But I defined purpose as "Role" and "Function". This is the reason I said, that if you keep denying the word purpose, maybe you'd be more comfortable with the latter 2 words. But you, in response, claim that they are n-o-t the same. Alright, then I guess we have to revise our dictionaries then, because Webster's Dictionary gives us a definition of the word "FUNCTION",let's read it shall we?

quote:

---

Webster's second definition of FUNCTION:
2 : the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists : PURPOSE

---

Notice, I didn't add the word PURPOSE in that definition, it was a part of it.As for "Role", here is the definition we find.

quote:

---

Webster's second definition of ROLE:
Variant(s): also rle /'rOl/ Function: noun
2 : a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process 'played a major role in the negotiations'

---

You'll notice "Function" pops back up in Role's definiton. Also, in the same dictionary, we're not surprised to find (well it maybe a surprise for you?) precisely the exact same second definition of "Purpose" as written for the second definition of the word "Function". Let's read it toghether.

quote:

---

Webster's second definition of PURPOSE:
2. the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists. 'still trying to discover her purpose in life' -- see ROLE

---

Notice, we're specifically told to see:ROLENow, I know Ned said it was pointless to reiterate one's point and I agree with you Ned. But in light of the above definitions, please allow me to reiterate the fact that I specifically defined "Puporse" from the very beginning in my earlier posts. Yet, systematically, Crash denied and rejected my definition, as though, somehow, I just made it up myself. Or never bothered to give one.Clearly, it was not the case.

quote:

---

Which is apporpriate, because purpose is a philsophical construct, not a property of material objects.

---

I think we can dismiss that in light of the above definitions

quote:

---

You've given no definition. Not in any post directed to me, anyway.

---

I think we can dismiss that in light of the above definitions

quote:

---

Role and function are not synonymous with "purpose", but if you'd like to discuss function instead, that's fine with me. What is your question in regards to function? Do you challenge the power of natural selection and random mutation to generate systems that have function?

---

I think we can dismiss that in light of the above definitions

quote:

---

I've made no assumptions, and my arguments have yet to be addressed by you. But we can sit here and restate the debate all day long. The record is clear, anybody can go back and read it. Maybe it would be more fruitful for you to try to defend your own arguments, instead of making claims about how good they were? In particular I'd like you to defend your assertions about:

​

1) "Standard texts" in the field of "purpose";
2) "Purpose" as a property operating at the subatomic levels
3) Randomness being anathema to purpose

​

I've challenged all those points; your response has been to ignore those challenges. Do you really think that constitutes the behavior of someone who is winning the debate? This isn't a contest about who can ignore the other person the best, AM.

---

1) "Standard texts" in the field of "purpose";yes, that was my bad, I should have been more specific and I wasn't. You're absolutely right. But what I should have said is that in any standard text on the subject of biology, genetics, neurology, subatomic physics, astrophysics, neuroevolution in general, the notion of "purpose" is constantly refered to, albeit, on a random basis perhaps .2) "Purpose" as a property operating at the subatomic levels;I guess the answer to challenge #1 also answers challenge #2, especially in light of the definitions given for: purpose, role and function.3) Randomness being anathema to purpose;Again. My bad. I really do contradict myself in a sense. I can certainly understand that you would point it out. Thank you.
Rather, I should have said the following:Even randomness has purpose, in the specific way it occurs during the mutation of genetic algorithms, which is to prevent populations of chromosomes from becoming too similar to each other. Therefore, as am sure you already know, GA systems tend to avoid choosing only the fittest in a population in the process of generating the next one, but opts for a random or semi-random selection, although it does so with a weighting of the fitter ones.So I ackowledge my statement was unclear and therefore contradictary if understood in the wrong context. I thank you for pointing that out. But I repeat, I should have said instead:Even randomness has purpose in the mutation processThat is, in light the very process I just described. But I also said in an earlier post, that if the process I described wa inacurate, then please correct me. If not, then you cannot circumvent: PURPOSE.I see no further reasons to continue arguing this word, I think that much should be clear.SIDE NOTE:
As for the Frogs, I greately apologise, I ws told this by a friend of mine, he happens to be a biologist. I have no clue where he read that from. So I shouldn't have mentionned it. I take it back.Nonetheless, it had little baring on the subject as Ned pointed out.In terms of the purpose of viruses, well let's all read Lynn Margulies and comeback on that discussion later shall we? This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-09-2005 12:11 PM

I have a question for you about purpose, ausar_maat. For perspective, I drive a Toyota.What's the purpose of my auto? Is it

1. To make money for the Toyota corporation?
2. To provide earnings for shareholders of the Toyota corporation?
3. To provide me transportation to and from work?
4. To convert chemical energy into kinetic energy?
5. To convert petroleum into carbon dioxide and other vapors?
6. To wear rubber off tires?
7. Something else (you suggest)?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think that the discussion of purpose vs. function can be clarified if you would simply answer crashfrog's question which you quoted here but didn't actually answer. I don't see that we can dismiss the question in light of the above definitions. It is clear from Websters that purpose and function are interchangeable but it is not clear (at least not to my small brain) that they are interchangeable with respect to the position of Intelligent Design. Are you saying that natural selection and random mutation generate systems that have function and hence are "designed"?