Originally posted by KellyJayYou are making the assumption that humans HAD to happen. Where is your evidence for that? I don't think we did have to happen. It's just a lucky co-incidence for us that we did!
And again your point? You want a certain end result you get set it up
to aquire it. You assume evolution doesn't have one and therefore we
get what we got, it is an assumption on your part. You want a grand
operating system you carefully code it, and the life is much more
complex than Windows or Unix, yet you think life just happened. Go
figure?
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's not how evolution works, and you know it. However, Richard Dawkins (in The blind watchmaker) shows quite conclusively that you can write a program to develop an algorithm for any end point you have in mind.
So you think you could write a complex operating system such as Windows without an aim in mind?
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo I couldn't. But using Evolutionary techniques I could produce most computer programs (an operating system wouldn't be a good example because how do you judge how well it works).
So you think you could write a complex operating system such as Windows without an aim in mind?
Asking me to sit down and write some code doesn't have anything to do with Evolution does it dj? In fact it's more of a proof that I'm not God.
Originally posted by KellyJayNo! I did not start with those assumptions. I looked at life, and looked at the possible ways it could form. A divine creator is one of those possibilities. So too, is abiogenesis. I choose abiogenesis over Muffy because the necessary conditions for abiogenesis of current life forms were present on early earth, which makes abiogenesis more parsimonious than Muffy, since it requires less assumptions.
It has everything to do with what you want, you start off accepting that
life can and does spring forward without any intervention divine or
otherwise, and you go about making points that support it, which is
what I said everyone does, including you. You think I error when I
look at things from my perspective with the assumptions I make, yet
when you d ...[text shortened]... sumptions and move on proving what you believe,
deny it you are only fooling yourself.
Kelly
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour rocket-ship jocks man just said that evolution works without an aim in mind.
That's not how evolution works, and you know it. However, Richard Dawkins (in The blind watchmaker) shows quite conclusively that you can write a program to develop an algorithm for any end point you have in mind.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzthe necessary conditions for abiogenesis of current life forms were present on early earth
No! I did not start with those assumptions. I looked at life, and looked at the possible ways it could form. A divine creator is one of those possibilities. So too, is abiogenesis. I choose abiogenesis over Muffy because the necessary conditions for abiogenesis of current life forms were present on early earth, which makes abiogenesis more parsimonious than Muffy, since it requires less assumptions.
Prove this assumption.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThere is no aim.
What is the aim of evolution?
Evolution doesn't have a purpose.
It's just a filter - weeding out the less successful and allowing the more successful to continue.
There can be no aim since the goalposts constantly change anyway.
Consider the larger dinosaurs. Perfectly adapted to suit high oxygen content in the atmosphere. You might say they were designed to suit it - or that the end goal of evolution was to make them suit that environment.
But wait?
A set of steak knives you say?
No, the goalpost shifted - the environment changed. Being suited to higher oxygen levels was a bad thing suddenly. Ergo, dead dinosaurs.
And definitely no goal.
As I've said before evolution is contingent.
It makes whatever suits environments - and only does half assed job at that sometimes.
If we've got a goal we can do a much better job.