Death

[Stranger]

I am only disputing the idea that such chance occurrences due to which organisms and species survive or perish is claimed as some kind of a Natural Selection process. It isn't.  The idea that something is 'selected' is metaphoric.   It is purely environment dependent. At one end of a forest a particular bird or butterfly might perish and at the other end it might thrive.  It is chance.

If anything determines complexity and change in physical features, it is genetic variation.

Yes but genetic variation is random and it's the environment that, quite literally, selects which variations spread through a population and which don't.

It's not a deliberate, intelligent selection but it is nevertheless a selection (it's even the biological definition [sense 2] of the word).

[Sriram]

Have you considered, Sriram, that 'why' might well be an invalid question in these circumstances, since it presumes that an answer to it is available?

Have you considered that it might be a valid question and if we look for it we might find it?   I know that scientists shy away from such questions because of their 'God phobia' and prefer to treat them as invalid questions.....but that does not make it so.

[Stranger]

If I think that Nature is Intelligent.....then the same mutations and 'copying differences'  can be attributed to that Intelligence because of which complexity arises. It is no different from human created products evolving and becoming more complex.

Firstly, if it is due to an intelligence, considering the number of deleterious mutations, it must be rather incompetent.

Secondly, there is no evidence and no reason to assume an intelligence as it's unnecessary for the process to work. It's just (as far I can see) your wishful thinking.

[torridon]

That is just an assertion. You merely claim that mutations occur due to errors and random factors. You don't know that for a fact.  Because you assume that there cannot be any kind of natural intelligence at work...it has to be random.

It is what all the evidence suggests.  We don't live in a perfect world, so copying errors will will inevitably occur occasionally.  What kind of intelligence would employ seemingly random errors ? 

Do you think Europeans developed white skin because some sort of intelligent intervention was going on forcing bespoke mutations controlling skin pigmentation just in those individuals migrating north from Africa but not targeting people remaining in Rwanda or Botswana ?

[torridon]

You are not getting the point.  Explaining the mechanism by which something happens is not the complete picture. That is 'how' something happens. That does not in any way exclude an Intelligence of whatever kind.   The 'why' is still there.

Not all questions are valid.  "Why did you stop beating your wife ?" for instance is a loaded question, carrying within it an implicit assumption about previous behaviours which might well be not valid.

So it is with your 'Why' question, it presupposes there is a wider context within which "Why" has validity. But that is just assumption, there is no evidential grounds for it.

[Gordon]

Have you considered that it might be a valid question and if we look for it we might find it?   I know that scientists shy away from such questions because of their 'God phobia' and prefer to treat them as invalid questions.....but that does not make it so.

So, 'why' are there rattlesnakes?

[Sriram]

You could also ask...why there are guns? Why there are bombs?  Why there are plastics?  Why there are  drugs? Why do planes crash? Why do products become obsolete?    Why so much redundancy?

Yet, all these are products of Intelligence!

[Gordon]

You could also ask...why there are guns? Why there are bombs?  Why there are plastics?  Why there are  drugs? Why do planes crash? Why do products become obsolete?    Why so much redundancy?

Yet, all these are products of Intelligence!

These are all artificial so in each case there is a 'how', which involves the manufacturing process, how reliable these things are and their sort and long-term usability, and a 'why', which is that people wanted these (for various reasons).

So, 'why' are there rattlesnakes remains unanswered and is essentially a different question, and one you seem to have avoided - so 'why'?.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not all questions are valid.  "Why did you stop beating your wife ?" for instance is a loaded question, carrying within it an implicit assumption about previous behaviours which might well be not valid.

So it is with your 'Why' question, it presupposes there is a wider context within which "Why" has validity. But that is just assumption, there is no evidential grounds for it.

But the easy comeback on that is where is your evidence that there is in fact no context.

Torridon thus reveals himself as the enemy of the quest for knowledge.

[Stranger]

Explaining the mechanism by which something happens is not the complete picture. That is 'how' something happens. That does not in any way exclude an Intelligence of whatever kind.   The 'why' is still there.

Actually, as Daniel Dennett has pointed out, evolution by natural selection explains the origin of "why" (in the "for what purpose" sense). In the natural world there generally isn't that sort of answer. If somebody were to ask why planets are (roughly) spherical, they wouldn't expect a "what for" answer, they'd be wanting a "how come" (a "process narrative").

However, if you ask why some animal has some particular trait, you can often identify a purpose (it has those markings for camouflage, sharp teeth for eating flesh, and so on). That's because natural selection is a design process (without the need for a designer). The process narrative is that the variations that resulted in the observed characteristics were generated randomly and selected because they were useful in the environment: those individuals who had the characteristic had an advantage and hence left more offspring than those without it.

Intelligent humans can now see that "rationale" for various characteristic and answer "why" (purpose) questions but there was no need for an intelligence in order for the 'design' to take place.

That's a real explanation which (IMO) is way more interesting and satisfying than baseless stories about nature being intelligent...

[torridon]

But the easy comeback on that is where is your evidence that there is in fact no context.

Torridon thus reveals himself as the enemy of the quest for knowledge.

Rather I'm an enemy of sloppy thinking, of superstition, of fake news.  Best policy, look at the evidence and see where it leads.  We do not start with unsubstantiated conjectures and work backwards to try to justify them.

[Stranger]

But the easy comeback on that is where is your evidence that there is in fact no context.

Lugging the burden of proof around again...     

[Sriram]

Rather I'm an enemy of sloppy thinking, of superstition, of fake news.  Best policy, look at the evidence and see where it leads.  We do not start with unsubstantiated conjectures and work backwards to try to justify them.

Evidence is precisely what we have for Intelligence.  Complexity, Emergence, diversity, human Intelligence, order and stability, growth of culture and civilization....and much more.

Problem is that you tend to 'explain' all this through random variation and Natural Selection....as though it is in any way relevant.  These if anything, are only mechanisms by which it has happened. 

And you imagine that I am arguing against these processes...and in favor of some religious belief. That is the problem

Basically, I have no argument at all against any of the mechanisms that Science discovers.  They are fine in their place. 

But that is not enough.   Mechanisms don't explain anything about the purpose. Arguing that there may not be any purpose at all or that the 'why' question is invalid, is a cop out.  It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.

Arguments such as ...'There is evidence for evolution...so there need not be any Intelligence'....or.... ' We know the mechanism by which something happens, so there is no need for any intelligence'.... are not valid arguments.  Evolution  can happen due to Intelligent intervention, as it happens in human products.

[torridon]

Basically, I have no argument at all against any of the mechanisms that Science discovers.  They are fine in their place. 

But that is not enough.   Mechanisms don't explain anything about the purpose. Arguing that there may not be any purpose at all or that the 'why' question is invalid, is a cop out.  It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.

There you go again. Imagining there must be some 'purpose'when there is no evidence of purposefulness.  You are starting with an unsubstantiated belief and mangling the science to try to make your belief seem a plausible explanation for the evidence. We should look to the evidence as our guide, and let it take us a far as the evidence deserves, not further into the realms of fantasy.

[Gordon]

Evolution  can happen due to Intelligent intervention, as it happens in human products.

You are conflating 'natural' and 'artificial'.

[Stranger]

Evidence is precisely what we have for Intelligence.  Complexity, Emergence, diversity, human Intelligence, order and stability, growth of culture and civilization....and much more.

Those simply aren't evidence of intelligence (other than human). You do understand what evidence is, don't you? Evidence for intelligence would be things for which there is no other explanation.

But that is not enough.   Mechanisms don't explain anything about the purpose. Arguing that there may not be any purpose at all or that the 'why' question is invalid, is a cop out.  It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.

It's shying away from evidence-free storytelling. You are simply assuming that there is purpose. Where is the evidence (or reasoning) that leads you to think that this purpose exists?

Arguments such as ...'There is evidence for evolution...so there need not be any Intelligence'....or.... ' We know the mechanism by which something happens, so there is no need for any intelligence'.... are not valid arguments.

They are perfectly valid argument that intelligence is not needed. It is up to those who think that an intelligence is involved to come up with some evidence to support their view.

Evolution  can happen due to Intelligent intervention, as it happens in human products.

Yes, and all the examples of "evolution" by intelligence looks totally different from evolution by natural selection, which looks for all the world like it involves no intelligence. In fact, it explains the existence of intelligence and purpose.

[Sriram]

There you go again. Imagining there must be some 'purpose'when there is no evidence of purposefulness.  You are starting with an unsubstantiated belief and mangling the science to try to make your belief seem a plausible explanation for the evidence. We should look to the evidence as our guide, and let it take us a far as the evidence deserves, not further into the realms of fantasy.

If we see a direction in life...it is a sign of purpose. There is a clear direction in human evolution.To therefore look for a purpose is not imagination.  It is a normal human endeavor.

You keep on asserting that there isn't any purpose...as if you actually KNOW it!

How does all this mangle science btw....?!

[Stranger]

If we see a direction in life...it is a sign of purpose. There is a clear direction in human evolution.To therefore look for a purpose is not imagination.  It is a normal human endeavor.

Something moving randomly has to end up going in some direction or another. What evidence (or reasoning) do you have that human evolution was a purposeful direction?

Bear in mind that there are so many variables involved that any direction evolution took would be enormously improbable.

[ippy]

The argument was about whether Intelligence can create Intelligence (torridon said that it is not possible).

Now that you agree that it can...that is all there is to it. 

About all the other questions....there are no easy answers that anyone person can offer on a platter.   It is a conjecture much like many other conjectures like Parallel Universes, String, Dark Energy etc.   

Natural Selection (as you people define it) does not need any Intelligence because it is nothing more than a metaphor. Intelligence works through genetic variation and adaptations to specific environments.

I note that this post of yours Sriram, it seems to have taken note of post 140 on this thread, that post appears to have influenced your school of thought.

Regards ippy

[wigginhall]

A direction in life implies purpose?   Most of the trees on the York moors bend over, because of prevailing winds.  It's those bloody dryads,  I tell you.

[Sriram]

I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!!  It is seen as a threat.  A security issue. 

People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned. 

[Shaker]

I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!!  It is seen as a threat.  A security issue. 

People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.

Nobody is offended.

People are pointing out the shoddy arguments used to shore up such a stance.

[Udayana]

I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!!  It is seen as a threat.  A security issue. 

People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.

Yes, Shaker is spot on, wading through all those pages of bad thinking and circular (il)logic again.

If humans never changed, you would be claiming that that proves that they were designed not to.

In fact, that was generally the view before widespread understanding of evolution. 

[Enki]

I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!!  It is seen as a threat.  A security issue. 

People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.

I see no sign of anyone being offended, Sriram. I do see people disagreeing with you and attempting to point out to you their perceived weaknesses in your arguments, as indeed, I have.. It seems to be you who puts some sort of emotional spin on this. Are you sure you aren't guilty of simply becoming frustrated and attempting to move that frustration onto others?

[Maeght]

I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!!  It is seen as a threat.  A security issue. 

People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.

Its not that which is the issue for me. Its when you say stuff like 'It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.' when people say there is no purpose. This, and other things, suggest you are a deeper thinker and somehow a superior thinker than those who see no purpose. Its the air of superiority you put across.

Its why I tend not to join in these discussions much anymore as don't want to feel like that.