2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton============================
[b]…We are told that all of these developed from a unguided, unpurposeful, series of .... I don't know what to say, skillions of fortunate accidents.
….
I assume you are implying here that it is just all an astonishing coincidence to have so many “fortunate accidents” (beneficial mutation) by conveniently ignoring natural selection -the vast ce of the blunders of evolution such as putting the blood vessels in front of the retina etc.[/b]
APPEARECE” is the operative word here.
The illusion of purpose is shattered by the existence of the blunders of evolution such as putting the blood vessels in front of the retina etc.
===================================
I think you have to give more thought to the objection that a non-optimal design is still a design.
And I also think that if you can look at a biological system and detect supposed flaws in the design, you have just admitted that detection of design is a legitimate science.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Ie. ID is not a science but we can detect some blunders here in the design.
Detection admits that there is a scientific skill going on there. I think that is how it works.
"We detect errors in the design of this supposed Intelligent Designer" at least admits that ID detection is valid science.
The question does remain is there actually an Intellgent Designer ?
And it could be some ancient committee of 12 super smart alien Atheists. So relax. We're not asking you to pass the plate and sing a hymn just yet.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…I think you have to give more thought to the objection that a non-optimal design is still a design.
[b]============================
APPEARECE” is the operative word here.
The illusion of purpose is shattered by the existence of the blunders of evolution such as putting the blood vessels in front of the retina etc.
===================================
I think you have to give more thought to the objection that a non-optimal design is st t alien Atheists. So relax. We're not asking you to pass the plate and sing a hymn just yet.[/b]
….
Did I say it wasn’t a design? -answer, no. It is a non-optimal design from sloppy natural processes which is why it is non-optimal.
The word “design” normally implies intelligence but what a word implies depends on the context and in THIS context the word “design” doesn’t imply intelligence because we are talking about evolution designing living forms which obviously isn’t supposed to have intelligence -this is your flaw here -you are just playing here with semantics.
…And I also think that if you can look at a biological system and detect supposed flaws in the design, you have just admitted that detection of design is a legitimate science.
...
I assume you are referring to “intelligent design” which is obviously not what I was referring to by “design”. When I am referring to “design” in THIS context, I am obviously NOT referring to “intelligent design” but the blind unintelligent design from nature. Thus I am NOT implying that “intelligent design” is a legitimate science!
…I don't think you can have it both ways.
….
But I am NOT having it both ways!
…Ie. ID is not a science but we can detect some blunders here in the design.
…..
We can detect some blunders here in the UNINTELLIGENT design, yes. So there is no contradiction here! “ID” means “INTELLIGENT design” and not “UNINTELLIGENT design” -right? -so we are not talking about the same thing!
A snowflake has what can be called an observable “design“ (its complex geometric structure), does that mean snowflakes are produced by INTELLIGENT design? Answer, no. Their design is produced by natural process just as proven to be so for the design of living things.
…"We detect errors in the design of this supposed Intelligent Designer" at least admits that ID detection is valid science.
...
I cannot find where I said: "We detect errors in the design of this supposed Intelligent Designer" but if I said this then in what way does this imply that “ID detection is valid science”? 😛 obviously it does the exact opposite!
…The question does remain is there actually an Intelligent Designer ?
...
-not really because science has already answered this for the origin of species -the answer is simply “no” -evolution can be correctly described as an “unintelligent designer” (if we take a none-standard meaning of the word of “designer” to adapt to this context where obviously no intelligence would be implied) for it creates complex forms even though it has no intelligence.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by jaywill
I am still thinking it through.
Do you really think so, or do you think there is a possibility that you are preoccupied with promoting and defending your own view?
Would you not agree that this Evolution process is alledged to have accomplished some totally fantastic things ?
It depends what you mean by 'fantastic'. I certainly think that the modern evolutionary synthesis is the most plausible and well evidenced explanation we have for the diversity of life we see around us.
We are told that all of these developed from a unguided, unpurposeful, series of .... I don't know what to say, skillions of fortunate accidents.
Have you ever wondered how that might be so? Have you really looked into the mechanisms of evolution to see how natural selection does this? Or does your personal incredulity prevent you from taking that next step of actually finding out about evolution?
It is for all intents and purposes a miracle, if it is true.
Only if you don't understand it.
The only possible alternative I see to being astounded at this "sloppy" process and what it can do is a psuedo Buddhist view that the result only has some illusionary appearance of design.
That's perhaps because you haven't exhausted the alternative of actually looking into evolution properly.
So the casual Evolutionists adopts a pseudo Buddhist view -
That's the straw evolutionist you just made.
When I hear people take this casual attitude I suspect that they have made a adjustment in thier metaphysical world view to a pseudo Buddhist philosophy. The sloppy process has only made some illusionary appearance of having organized matter so astoundingly.
I think you are wrong. If you look into evolution properly you will realise that it produces design. it is just that there is no intelligent designer involved. Just a dumb algorithmic process running billions of parallel trials for billions of years.
In fact, if anything, it is your attitude that is casual. You lack the imagination to understand how evolution could do these things and I suspect you lack the motivation to find out from people who have studied this for a living. So you just assume you have it right. That's as casual as it gets.
Originally posted by CalJustTo answer your question: no, this site has not had much influence on my views concerning the most plausible explanation for, say, the diversity of life and faculties (although there are obviously many people who know what they are talking about on the subject). My views on such subjects have been informed mostly through my studies apart from this site.
There have been 245 threads on evolution since 2004.
Just kidding - I haven't actually counted them!!
But I am somewhat curious - after all those innumerable discussions, is anyone from either side willing to confess that they have been - even a little bit - influenced by the opposite point of view?
C'mon, be honest!!
However, the threads on this site have sometimes been very entertaining...like this one. It's funny how those who declaim the loudest on evolutionary theory are the ones who obviously know next to nothing about how, say, natural selection is supposed to work. I mean, take robbie carrobie and jaywill, for examples. Now, it's obvious that their understanding of natural selection blows to the point of disgrace, and yet these are exactly the people who presume to give you an earful concerning how implausible evolutionary theory is. This would all be would be just fine with me if they happened to approach this topic with any intellectual integrity; but the fact is, they continue to demonstrate their disingenuity. As Lord Shark has pointed out, they have their own agendas that ensure they remain willfully ignorant. Of course, everyone is ignorant of lots of things and that in itself is no crime; however, the way these people declaim on evolution without actually having the slightest intention to engage the topic honestly is unconscionable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey robbie, did you check up on that reference I had for you concerning the evolution of moral faculty? Remember, we had those discussions where you claimed to be looking for plausible evolutionary explanation, and I offered up to you some thoughts and the Joyce book written on that very subject (which also includes reference to all sorts of good papers on the subject). Now, did you actually look into any of those things?
yes the more i discuss the 'science', the more convinced i am of its lack of scientific credibility. for example, only yesterday i was reading an article which stated, get this, that aquatic deer were the ancestors of whales and yes, this was dished up with the usual dogma, and a side salad of 'missing link found'. But do not question it, for then ...[text shortened]... a jam jar sitting on his desk before you can say, can i have some toast with my marmalade!
Of course you didn't because, as I have said many times, you are simply devoid of any intellectual integrity. The way you approach this subject is simply shameful. Please, by all means, keep on declaiming on subjects of which your knowledge base absolutely sucks.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHi LJ,
t's funny how those who declaim the loudest on evolutionary theory are the ones who obviously know next to nothing about how, say, natural selection is supposed to work.
I must admit I'm probably one of those who don't know how Natural Selection (NS) is "supposed" to work. My field of interest is energy, the kind that burns your toast and not the kind that fuels your cells.
However, there ARE things that intrigue me with the basic concept of NS. As I understand it (and please help me if I'm wrong) at the simplest level NS works on the basis of genetic copying errors which are then eliminated/selected according to their advantage for survival.
The perennial discussion on the eye is not really what interests me, but the evolution of SYSTEMS. For example, take any egg-worm-larva-adult system (I love the butterfly). Prior to that system, there must have been something simpler, going back to asexual reproduction.
I'm sure that Leary and Dawkins know what this looks like, but could you just enlighten me as to what could possibly have existed just prior to the final system?
I think I remember a discussion where Dawkins comments on the "chicken-and-egg" conundrum, saying that clearly the chicken came first, and at some time there must have been a chicken that laid the first egg. Is that perhaps your view?
Originally posted by jaywillThere really ought to be a hymn for the veterans of this forum to sing, atheists and theists alike, especially those who have fought in the trenches of evolutionary 'debate'. Any suggestions?
And it could be some ancient committee of 12 super smart alien Atheists. So relax. We're not asking you to pass the plate and sing a hymn just yet.
I also support the motion of a plate; I'd like to see what people drop into it.
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloactually you orangey melon i did, but as per usual they were totally unconvincing, how you people can somehow relate the cooperation of certain insects, etc as the basis for a moral faculty is quite beyond me, next you will be telling that the interdependency of bees and flowers laid the basis for humanities moral faculty - lol, it is to laugh or in your case boohoo, these people just don't want to keep there intellectual integrity, whiny whine and a boohoo!
Hey robbie, did you check up on that reference I had for you concerning the evolution of moral faculty? Remember, we had those discussions where you claimed to be looking for plausible evolutionary explanation, and I offered up to you some thoughts and the Joyce book written on that very subject (which also includes reference to all sorts of good papers se, by all means, keep on declaiming on subjects of which your knowledge base absolutely sucks.
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustI am really not sure what you are asking. Presumably you mean to ask something about transitional or intermediate forms, but I am not understanding what exactly.
Hi LJ,
I must admit I'm probably one of those who don't know how Natural Selection (NS) is "supposed" to work. My field of interest is energy, the kind that burns your toast and not the kind that fuels your cells.
However, there ARE things that intrigue me with the basic concept of NS. As I understand it (and please help me if I'm wrong) at the simples time there must have been a chicken that laid the first egg. Is that perhaps your view?
but the evolution of SYSTEMS.
Are you under the impression that natural selection proceeds principally at the level of "systems"? Since you keep bringing up Dawkins for whatever reason, one of the things for which I think he argues well is for the idea that natural selection proceeds principally at the level of the actual replicator (he argues down to the level of gene). Of course, we can talk meaningfully about evolution's proceeding at many different levels. And, of course, it is often useful to discuss at the level of, for example, individuals or groups or whatever. However, I personally think that if you want to understand the basics of natural selection, you should think first down to the replicator level (even if your interest ultimately lies at the level of "systems'😉.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYeah, sure you read it. You lie like a rug.
actually you orangey melon i did, but as per usual they were totally unconvincing, how you people can somehow relate the cooperation of certain insects, etc as the basis for a moral faculty is quite beyond me, next you will be telling that the interdependency of bees and flowers laid the basis for humanities moral faculty - lol, it is to laugh or in ...[text shortened]... o, these people just don't want to keep there intellectual integrity, whiny whine and a boohoo!
Joyce doesn't argue that the cooperation of certain insects is the basis for a moral faculty, so perhaps you read the wrong book. Or perhaps you should think up better lies.
Originally posted by LemonJelloi read it, ringwett posted a whole load of stuff, and i would be pleased if you kept your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims to the realms of your hypothesis, if you don't mind
Yeah, sure you read it. You lie like a rug.
Joyce doesn't argue that the cooperation of certain insects is the basis for a moral faculty, so perhaps you read the wrong book. Or perhaps you should think up better lies.
Originally posted by Proper Knobi think that you may be the missing link noobster, you may have a point. 😛
I find it curious how creationists don't have the imagination to look at apes, look at the fossil record and then think
"I can see a linkage here!!"
But they have the imagination to believe miracles, virgin-births, and a resurrection are the norm.
Originally posted by Proper KnobMiracles and evolution are the opposite, God works miracles but not evolution. The are not the norm but many times the exception.
I find it curious how creationists don't have the imagination to look at apes, look at the fossil record and then think
"I can see a linkage here!!"
But they have the imagination to believe miracles, virgin-births, and a resurrection are the norm.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh, please. You read a frickin' wikipedia article** on it and somehow you think that exhausted your obligation of study before you declaim on the topic? You're an intellectual fraud; quit pretending that you have come with any sincerity. There's no point in anyone here "debating" with you on such topics if you're going to persist in insanely stupid caricatures of opposing views. For instance, no account I have ever read claims that the "cooperation of certain insects" is the basis for human moral faculty. That is simply the type of caricature that frames your disgust for any view that opposes your own.
i read it, ringwett posted a whole load of stuff, and i would be pleased if you kept your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims to the realms of your hypothesis, if you don't mind
For instance, in the Joyce book, he argues something much more plausible. He argues that the human moral faculty arose as a partial regulator on the helping behaviors (which involves discussion into such things as kin selection, mutualism, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, etc) through natural selection working on ancestors such as ours. Now, if you want to comment on the plausibility level of such an account, you need to actually bring something that bears on the actual claims of such an account -- you know, at least do your homework first. For instance, your telling me that I am silly because I think the basis for human moral faculty is the cooperation of certain insects only demonstrates that you cannot be bothered to actually understand what I think before you feel the need to declaim on it. It makes you look like an idiot; further, when you persist in it, it makes you disingenuous.
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality