02 Mar 08
3 edits
================================
Tell me Freaky, what is the 'goal' of photosynthesis?
================================
Not to answer for Freaky, why not to uitilize light to produce food for the plant.
I don't think that the production of food is simply a random by-product. It looks PURPOSEFUL.
Like my lungs look purposeful, and my eyes look purposeful, and my legs, liver, tongue, spleen, stomach all look purposeful.
Why should I adopt a pseudo Buddhist philosophy about it and say the purposefulness of these organs is just some kind of illusion?
Should I think the production of food from photosynthesis has only an illusion of purpose in order to keep any divine foot from getting in the door?
02 Mar 08
1 edit
Every process has an outcome, to say that is the purpose of that process is playing with English a little bit, although I do see your point.
The outcome of natural selection is the propagation of species.... Thus by your logic the goal is the same thing. Although I don't agree with this statement. Your running on the principal that everything has a conscious goal or purpose, which isn't true. Take the wind for example it is a by product of our atmosphere and climate, combined with the spin of our planet and a variety of other things. However the outcomes of wind is massive: weather systems, desertification, pollination, etc etc.... Are these the purpose of wind? Your assigning human characteristics to unhuman things.... To have a goal is human.... To exist is natural....
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillYes, that's why the plant uses photosynthesis, but the process itself has no goal. Goal implies forethought and all we're talking about here is a fairly simply chemical reaction occurring in chloroplasts.
[b]================================
Tell me Freaky, what is the 'goal' of photosynthesis?
================================
Not to answer for Freaky, why not to uitilize light to produce food for the plant.
I don't think that the production of food is simply a random by-product. It looks PURPOSEFUL.
Like my lungs look purpos ...[text shortened]... only an illusion of purpose in order to keep any divine foot from getting in the door?[/b]
Do the chloroplasts 'aim' to produce food - that would suggest thought and the need for neural circuitry of some sort which they don't have.
The problem is that you're assuming that because something looks purposeful that therefore it is purposeful.
This need not be the case.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillNo!
Freaky,
Since I naturally like underdogs, and I think the Darwinists, so far, are the underdogs in this debate, let me come to their unsolicited aid a little.
As I understand the process -
Natural Selection is the name we give to the results of benefitial modifications in an organism surviving and being passed on to offspring which en ...[text shortened]... igent Design and some form of creationism be fair minded? I think its a pretty good definition.
Help me! How difficult is this. see my last four posts, no sorry, read them.
02 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThe process of survival to successful reproduction. Simple enough for you?
snowinscotland,
[b]============================
Ah! And there we have the nub of the problem. Things do not 'naturally select' themselves. Natural selection is the name given to the result of the process of life, if you will, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
==============================
I have provided a definition which I think is comment can respond. I have no response about the wastefulness issue at the moment.[/b]
Look at your own family tree. Any 'dead' ends? The fact is that only some survive to successful reproduction, and the result of that process is what we call 'Natural Selection'.
The implications of it we can debate further, but here we are on page eight or so and it still seems the basic definition of the concept is not getting through. *sigh*
02 Mar 08
1 edit
Differences between photosynthesis (PS) and natural selection (NS)--- off the top of my head, naturally.
1. Photosynthesis is within a closed system whereas NS works from outside a closed system on the closed system.
2. PS is a process of something, in this case the process of conversion of one form of a thing (light-derived energy) into another (chemical energy) and then a subsequent storing of the same.
3. PS works as a result of programming within those organisms who utilize the same. NS works... ?
At its base, this process can be accurately be described as an action. An action requires an agent. NS is the process of... converting losers into winners?
My guess is that the idea of NS was the result of an overactive imagination when someone saw a compelling pattern.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't make yourself ridiculous. Natural selection does happen. Fact.
Differences between photosynthesis (PS) and natural selection (NS)--- off the top of my head, naturally.
1. Photosynthesis is within a closed system whereas NS works from outside a closed system on the closed system.
2. PS is a process of something, in this case the process of conversion of one form of a thing (light-derived energy) into another (chemica ...[text shortened]... he idea of NS was the result of an overactive imagination when someone saw a compelling pattern.
What you might question (and science can't prove it) is if it was the driving mechanism for all life on earth.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAlright once again. Ill try and put it in the terms that you've just laid out...
Differences between photosynthesis (PS) and natural selection (NS)--- off the top of my head, naturally.
1. Photosynthesis is within a closed system whereas NS works from outside a closed system on the closed system.
2. PS is a process of something, in this case the process of conversion of one form of a thing (light-derived energy) into another (chemica ...[text shortened]... he idea of NS was the result of an overactive imagination when someone saw a compelling pattern.
1. NS is the closed system in which all life exists
2. NS is the process of passing genes down to the next generations
3. NS works along the fundamental principals of survival, those with an advantage are more likely (obviously) to have breeding privileges, therefore those with an advantage are going to gain dominance within a species. Therefore those with an advantage are going to pass on their genes.
At its base, this process can be accurately described as the passing of superior (as in have an advantage over their predecessors) genes to the following generation. Furthermore if applied over long periods of time this this action can be shown to result in the generation of new species of life-form.
My guess is the Idea of an all powerful being who created an entire planet and made it look like it was 6.5 billion years old, but its actually only a few thousand. Created and entire race of giant lizards which apparently never existed, then put them in the fossil record for what reason?. Designed all plants and animals to look like they evolved, but actually we're put there as is..... And so on and so forth....
Was the result of an overactive imagination when someone saw something they couldn't grasp in their head, and so created a magical god who will take them to a wonderful place and explain everything when they die. Furthermore this person decided that if everyone didn't believe them then they didn't get to go to magic land because they wouldn't do as they're told........
Religion is a tool for the weak to control the strong and by pass the very Natural selection we're currently discussing......
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat "closed system" is photosynthesis taking place in? It would have to be a system stretching from the sun to the plant to the soil to the organisms that die in the soil...
Differences between photosynthesis (PS) and natural selection (NS)--- off the top of my head, naturally.
1. Photosynthesis is within a closed system whereas NS works from outside a closed system on the closed system.
2. PS is a process of something, in this case the process of conversion of one form of a thing (light-derived energy) into another (chemica ...[text shortened]... he idea of NS was the result of an overactive imagination when someone saw a compelling pattern.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think you did understand the post.
I understand the logic. And I would understand that it is not a perfect anlogy. But I am concerned about the amount of time for chance to do its work of yielding a more survivable street crosser.
I did not give an analogy, I gave an example. (we could therefore call it a perfect analogy?)
I never claimed that it would result in a more survivable street crosser. I was asked about Natural Selection not evolution.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandPure chance is a very important part of Natural Selection and it is an important part of a number of aspects of it. In fact, pure chance is an important part of unnatural selection too ie mans efforts at breeding better crops and animals.
No!
You must not fully understand the statistics - pure chance has NO PART in Natural Selection as a mechanism.....
I did not claim that the results are pure chance, but I will not claim that there is an element of pure chance in the results too.
If you place two identical groups of animals on two identical islands, you will frequently see divergent evolution.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure I follow you.
Pure chance is a very important part of Natural Selection and it is an important part of a number of aspects of it. In fact, pure chance is an important part of unnatural selection too ie mans efforts at breeding better crops and animals.
I did not claim that the results are pure chance, but I will not claim that there is an element of pure chance in the ...[text shortened]... entical groups of animals on two identical islands, you will frequently see divergent evolution.
Natural selection is the name we give to the result of the process of the survival to successful reproduction.
The process may have many factors to contend with, eg
pure chance (the cub was is the wrong place at the wrong time),
'finger pokin' (humans breeding for certain 'better' characteristics,
'natural' advantage (the animal has better endurance/ brighter flowers/ smarter /etc resulting from genetic advantage
Any of the above will affect the process, but the result is what we call Natural Selection. Pure chance does not act on the result, it acts on the process. no?
Whoops, looks like it might be my definition, Wiki defines it as the process, but I think this is very misleading. My bad.....
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNatural selection is a process, not a force. If you want to posit a force, then you could poetically call it 'the struggle for survival', or less poetically, Death.
[b]You're being obtuse.
Just the opposite, actually. I am attempting to force those holding to the view that natural selection is the guiding force-that-is-not-a-force into applying an adequate and accurate label.
Natural selection can only be described through what it does because it is a process, not an object.
Well, you're getting close ...[text shortened]... ad' is an exchange. See how easy this should be? Even buying bread has a proper label.[/b]
Natural selection results when individuals succumb to the 'forces of Mortality' before reproducing.