Originally posted by kevcvs57
But it would not be the same argument; the way we treat the human animal directly affects us because we are the human animal it would be tantamount to self harm. Think about the Geneva convention; every body who signed it did so to prevent the enemy treating them badly. All across the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualised violence during territori ...[text shortened]... another species go out of their way to avoid fatal damage to the enemy within their own species.

It would not be the same argument? The Nazi's treated those of another race as if they were another species. Some Muslims treat people of another religion as if they were of another species. As you can see, being a different race or religion are not the same either. Nonetheless, people have made the distinction in the past and used it to treat others in a way they would not want to be treated themselves. So in the case of another species, is this just another arbitrary difference we use to justify imposing our will on those who are weaker than ourselves?

I marvel at the blind acceptance that being of a different species is liscence to treat that species how you will. Of course, we also see this blind acceptance with Klan members, for example, in terms of racial differences.

I still await proper justification for treating other species the way we would not like to be treated. If it is merely intelligence, then being of another species is not really the issue here is it? It is really about IQ level.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Then the least well adapted will die/ fail the objective.

Just like the least well adapted Rabbits will die/fail in my first example.

This is quite basic, are you trying to argue that there is something outside of our d.n.a that is controlling an organisms ability to survive in any given environment
Yes. 'Natural selection' is named as such because 'nature' does the selecting. DNA does not strive to achieve a goal. It does not adapt to survive. It undergoes random changes, and then is selected for or against by nature.

... and this 'delusion' theory of yours where did this delusion come from.
I never said 'delusion'. I said 'illusion'. There is a significant difference.

What I am saying is that within the confines of the evolutionary model the objective of the individual organism is to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass on the genes which contain the instructions for the objective and the means to achieve it; this is not a conscious strategy.
And what I am saying is that any such objective is an illusion.

If you do not agree with this then give me an alternative explanation.
Survival of the fittest. Those that survive, survive. Those that do not, do not. No objective required.

P.S please no more inane examples involving defenseless animals.
Too difficult for your brain? And it was only those that died that were defenceless. That's what its all about. Survival of those with defences. But its not an objective. It just is.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you eat meat whodey? do you wear clothes made in asia? or used a laptop or been to a zoo?[/b]

Yes I do. but that does not mean I"m above questioning my own morality in a Dasa like fashion.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes I do. but that does not mean I"m above questioning my own morality in a Dasa like fashion.

so you are happy to have human slaves then?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just like the least well adapted Rabbits will die/fail in my first example.

[b]This is quite basic, are you trying to argue that there is something outside of our d.n.a that is controlling an organisms ability to survive in any given environment
Yes. 'Natural selection' is named as such because 'nature' does the selecting. DNA does not strive to ...[text shortened]... its all about. Survival of those with defences. But its not an objective. It just is.[/b]

This is quite basic, are you trying to argue that there is something outside of our d.n.a that is controlling an organisms ability to survive in any given environment

Yes. 'Natural selection' is named as such because 'nature' does the selecting. DNA does not strive to achieve a goal. It does not adapt to survive. It undergoes random changes, and then is selected for or against by nature.
SO NATURE IS SENTIENT NOW IS IT; IT GOES AROUND SELECTING ORGANISMS FOR SURVIVAL, NICE ONE: AND I SHALL REPEAT AGAIN I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT DNA STRIVES TO DO ANYTHING. IT IS A NON SENTIENT PRISONER OF RANDOM DESIGN AS ARE WE. BUT WITHIN THE MODEL etc etc




What I am saying is that within the confines of the evolutionary model the objective of the individual organism is to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass on the genes which contain the instructions for the objective and the means to achieve it; this is not a conscious strategy.

And what I am saying is that any such objective is an illusion.
THEN YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MODEL OR PERHAPS EVEN THE CONCEPT OF A MODEL IN THIS CONTEXT.




If you do not agree with this then give me an alternative explanation.
Survival of the fittest. Those that survive, survive. Those that do not, do not. No objective required.

YOU SAY SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST I PREFER SURVIVAL OF THE BEST ADAPTED, THIS IS SEMANTICS AGAIN AND NOT AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION.


P.S please no more inane examples involving defenseless animals.
Too difficult for your brain? And it was only those that died that were defenceless. That's what its all about. Survival of those with defences. But its not an objective. It just is.

LOL; NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT, JUST IRRELAVANT; AND WHAT I CLASSIFY AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN EMPTY WINDOW i.e INANE

Btw "It just is" Deep; really deep.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
SO NATURE IS SENTIENT NOW IS IT;.

I made no such claim.

IT GOES AROUND SELECTING ORGANISMS FOR SURVIVAL, NICE ONE: AND I SHALL REPEAT AGAIN I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT DNA STRIVES TO DO ANYTHING. IT IS A NON SENTIENT PRISONER OF RANDOM DESIGN AS ARE WE. BUT WITHIN THE MODEL etc etc
And the model itself is purely an illusion. A way of thinking about it if you will. Just as you jumped to the conclusion that nature is sentient just because it makes selections. It appears that way, but it isn't so. Its an illusion.

THEN YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MODEL OR PERHAPS EVEN THE CONCEPT OF A MODEL IN THIS CONTEXT.
I clearly understand it better than you, and realise that the model is just a model, not reality.

YOU SAY SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST I PREFER SURVIVAL OF THE BEST ADAPTED, THIS IS SEMANTICS AGAIN AND NOT AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION.
I was not playing on semantics, nor trying to say 'best adapted' was wrong. I am saying that when the best adapted survive, it is purely a result of natural selection, not a result of some desire/aim/objective/plan/Raison d'être (or whatever other word you care to use) of the organisms.

LOL; NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT, JUST IRRELAVANT; AND WHAT I CLASSIFY AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN EMPTY WINDOW i.e INANE
How would you know, you didn't bother to even think about it for a moment? My examples are real examples representative of how evolution works. That you find you cannot explain your position in relation to them and are forced to try to dismiss them out of hand only shows the weakness of your position.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so you are happy to have human slaves then?

I don't own any slaves :'(

Originally posted by twhitehead
I made no such claim.

[b]IT GOES AROUND SELECTING ORGANISMS FOR SURVIVAL, NICE ONE: AND I SHALL REPEAT AGAIN I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT DNA STRIVES TO DO ANYTHING. IT IS A NON SENTIENT PRISONER OF RANDOM DESIGN AS ARE WE. BUT WITHIN THE MODEL etc etc
And the model itself is purely an illusion. A way of thinking about it if you will. Just as you jumpe ...[text shortened]... and are forced to try to dismiss them out of hand only shows the weakness of your position.[/b]

You are clearly not reading or understanding my posts. I am well aware of how evolution works certainly aware enough not gain any enlightenment from your primary school examples which although correct enough in themselves (other than the dubious inclusion of a rabbit farmer into the natural world) do not prove your argument that is why I labelled them inane (pointless) I have not claimed that genes are sentient I have simply tried to explain their role within the evolutionary model and their OBJECTIVE within that model. The posts are there I have no problem being found at fault by somebody who can illuminate the situation for me but clearly you are not in this category so I am getting off this not so merry-go-round, feel free to carry on waffling.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
You are clearly not reading or understanding my posts. I am well aware of how evolution works certainly aware enough not gain any enlightenment from your primary school examples which although correct enough in themselves (other than the dubious inclusion of a rabbit farmer into the natural world) do not prove your argument that is why I labelled them inan ...[text shortened]... in this category so I am getting off this not so merry-go-round, feel free to carry on waffling.

I agree with twhitehead that there is no purpose or objective to DNA, life, evolution, ect.

And it is exactly the same as discussing water flowing downhill to the sea.

There are laws of physics, and matter following those laws.

An objective or a purpose is a function of a mind that can have intentions.

Chemical interactions in nature do not poses a mind nor are they directed by one.
They have no inherent objective or purpose.


Gene mutations happen randomly and without purpose.
Those that happen to improve the life forms survivability will cause that life form to have
a greater probability of survival and pass on those genes.
There is no intent or end goal, no direction to evolution.

Simply matter following the laws of physics.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I agree with twhitehead that there is no purpose or objective to DNA, life, evolution, ect.

And it is exactly the same as discussing water flowing downhill to the sea.

There are laws of physics, and matter following those laws.

An objective or a purpose is a function of a mind that can have intentions.

Chemical interactions in nature do not p ...[text shortened]... o intent or end goal, no direction to evolution.

Simply matter following the laws of physics.

"And it is exactly the same as discussing water flowing downhill to the sea.

There are laws of physics, and matter following those laws."

Not exactly is it though when your water example is governed by the laws of physics(gravity) but the gene example is governed by the laws of chemistry. I understand that you and twhitehead are evangelical reductionists but I am not convinced.

For about the tenth time I will state that I am not claiming that genes or evolution are sentient. I am saying that in the evolutionary model certain actors are there in order to achieve certain objectives in order for the model to function. so unless you can explain to me the physical law that makes an antelope run away from a lion or makes a blind joey climb to its mothers tit unaided I shall have to assume it is trying to fulfill a genetically coded objective.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't own any slaves :'(

there are slaves who work to produce your clothes and many of the raw materials that you use every day.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
You are clearly not reading or understanding my posts. I am well aware of how evolution works certainly aware enough not gain any enlightenment from your primary school examples which although correct enough in themselves (other than the dubious inclusion of a rabbit farmer into the natural world)

The problem is that you are dismissing my examples a "primary school" examples and refusing to actually put some thought into them. For example, I never said that a rabbit farmer was part of the natural world, but it remains a fact that the rabbits in my example evolve. I included the rabbit farmer quite deliberately to try and illustrate a very important point (that the selection of genes is external to the organism and not a result of any deliberate behaviour by the genes) which you obstinately refuse to see.

do not prove your argument that is why I labelled them inane (pointless)
They illustrate my argument, and labelling them inane won't make that any less true.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
so unless you can explain to me the physical law that makes an antelope run away from a lion or makes a blind joey climb to its mothers tit unaided I shall have to assume it is trying to fulfill a genetically coded objective.

Well maybe you need to be more specific about what your claim actually is.
Are you claiming that all organisms - even those that do not display such complex survival behaviour you describe - have encoded objectives, or are you only talking about complex behaviours?
And what happens when there is an antelope that does not run away from lions? Would you still ascribe an objective to it when there clearly is no survival behaviour?

And just to be clear about my stance: I do not deny that most complex organisms have genes that are coded for survival. What I deny is that this encoding is part of an objective. I say it is nothing more than the natural outcome of natural selection ie those genes that are encoded for survival survive, and those that are not, do not. When an animal survives, it no more 'fulfills' anything than an animal that dies. It is simply that one survives and one dies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is that you are dismissing my examples a "primary school" examples and refusing to actually put some thought into them. For example, I never said that a rabbit farmer was part of the natural world, but it remains a fact that the rabbits in my example evolve. I included the rabbit farmer quite deliberately to try and illustrate a very important ...[text shortened]... ss)
They illustrate my argument, and labelling them inane won't make that any less true.[/b]

I did give some thought to your examples and as I stated there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them as a description of natural selection but they did nothing to convince me of your argument because I did not feel that I was making the claims that they were addressing; hence my labeling them inane/pointless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well maybe you need to be more specific about what your claim actually is.
Are you claiming that all organisms - even those that do not display such complex survival behaviour you describe - have encoded objectives, or are you only talking about complex behaviours?
And what happens when there is an antelope that does not run away from lions? Would you ...[text shortened]... ore 'fulfills' anything than an animal that dies. It is simply that one survives and one dies.

I am simply using the term objective in the sense that if the antelope survives; the coding for survival for that organism in that environment, at that time is successful i.e job done. For the antelope that did not survive I would say the opposite is true. The amoeba for me is not like the antelope or the water flowing down the hill because although it is a simple organism it still follows it's genetic coding for survival albeit unconsciously travelling through water collecting food according to those who study them it follows a rudimentary strategy for this collection again; without any awareness of this strategy. but to me the water is something else another category it has properties rather than strategies.