Design: intelligent or not?

In response to Razor: I do not assume that natural selection is blind. I study natural selection and conclude that it is blind based on the weight of the evidence. I have not yet seen any reason to view natural selection as anything other than blind. (how could it be anything other than blind seeing as though it is not a thing, or a force, it is merely a mathematical phenomenon. Inclusive fitness is real, natural selection is merely a metaphor for understanding inclusive fitness.)

That being said I would gladly abandon my position if sufficient evidence were presented to demonstrate that natural selection was anything more than the observation that genes which boost or reduce inclusive fitness will spread through, or be eradicated from the gene pool at a rate much higher than the rate of gene flow in regard to traits that do not influence inclusive fitness.

I am not being sarcastic or dishonest at all when I say that if you provide evidence against my position I will gladly read and analyze it. I have no qualms about being proven to be wrong.

 

Just to clarify: I would take as evidence in favor of a non-blind natural selection something like the development of a complex trait for which the transitional forms reduced the fitness of the organisms possessing those traits.

 

Emanresu

Yes natural selection is blind.. but how did it become?. It cannot have just sat there till it was used by creature other laws allowed?
It is not a mathematical phenomenon any more than reason and will.

Said laws you postulate came to be through random selection.. but if universes have no such structures as life at start. How did they come to be? Where did the law for antientropic structure come from if no said law previously existed to be chosen.

Occams razor said given all the variables the simplest choice is most likely. That choice is that said laws were emplaced.

Occam

 

Almost every cold blooded species is cannibalistic. Many male mammals will kill the offspring of other males. Some animal kill each other over territorial disputes and mating rights.

 

I do not see natural selection as a thing. It really is just a mathematical description. When a gene allows an organism to reproduce more than its peers, then that gene will increase in frequency. When a gene increases in frequency we say that natural selection has taken place. We do not literally mean that some force has selected that organism or that gene. Natural selection is a metaphor. In artificial selection a being is actively selecting from the gene pool, but in natural selection no selection is actually being done. We merely talk about it as if it had been selected.

Darwin drew a parallel between the actions of breeders and the fact that traits (not genes because he didn't know about them) increase or decrease in frequency when they influence what we now call inclusive fitness. I'm sure I am not going to convince you, Occam, but I just wanted to clarify my position and affirm that I disagree.

 

Eternal?

 

The main criticism I have for macro-evolution is that it really is just a best guess. Micro-evolution exists and is observable as such; macro-evolution seems to be more or less an extrapolation of that phenomenon to a general principle, which it may be. My point being there is plenty of evidence to suggest macro-evolution may occur, but the mechanisms themselves are very difficult (or impossible) to observe.

As to 'laws of nature,' I take an empiricist viewpoint. These laws do not exist in and of themselves -- they are just a description of what happens, as I think Emanresu is saying. There is no need for any law to exist on its own, a priori. We observe phenomena, and if the same thing always occurs we call it a law. All of these laws may have exceptions somewhere in the universe. No one set them down objectively as immutable laws of the universe.

 

Zorba I dig what you are saying, I would just like to comment on what you said about macro evolution. In my opinion macro evolution is not just a best guess any more than atomic theory is just a best guess. Macro evolution is a theory because it is supported by mountains of evidence (not just inferences or extrapolations from what we know about micro evolution) and because it explains a massive body of data.

The best evidence we have for macro evolution comes from embryology and genetic comparative studies. Look into those if you like, they are absolutely fascinating (especially things like yolk sacks in human embryos and limb buds in dolphin embryos). But leaving all of that aside consider these two facts: Faunal succession occurs without a single exception in the fossil record. In addition to faunal succession we actually have massive fossil evidence of the divergence of lineages. Excellent examples include the fossil record of the horse and of the whale.

In my opinion the evidence for macro evolution is equivalent to the evidence for atomic theory. Of course some people do reject atomic theory such as the well known theist Berkeley who first argued "If atheism then materialism" and then proceeded to argue against the existence of atoms in order to undermine atheism.

 

No

The only eternal thing is reality.
All else is structure/organisation within it.

One said structure is our universe.

That which resides in reality but outside this universe, Copy/plagarise what works. And thus we have our 'objective laws' gravity/entropy/ lightspeed
planks constant.. exct

Thus our universe is as simple as. A gardener who asks where he comes from makes a garden..his garden is our universe.

or to be cynical ' god is a kid with an ant farm'

Randomness and athiesm which quotes it. Is a blind alley. and the athiests know it. There are no atheists in fox holes exists as a truism because it is true.

Religion has wasted its time and its time has come.. We are now educated beyond the petty limits of religions silly stories. There is design and intent in every objective law.. How else would a rose come to be.. or an einstein... A flip of a thousand trillion coins? That doesnt even come close.

Occam

 

Zorba

Exceptions?

Step off a cliff and then tell me about your exceptions.
The ride down in nice the sudden stop destroys your arguement.
In all observed human history and astronomy NOT ONE example can be found when gravity does not apply.
Ever

I reverse the athiest line.. somewhere there are unicorns.. we just havnt seen them yet.

be wary of the term empiricist.. you have seen very little.
Book philosophy is fine but one day. you will run into me or an analogue and all the books wont cover your
position in a real debate. why? for one. i've read more books than you.
two. I take the initiative and never ever give it up.
Three. I believe everything i say.

Occam

 

They are objective law .. true?
Have we found falsity in the objectivity law of gravity or the speed of light?
no
They appear immutable

What you are railing against is that some think they were emplaced.
If those people did not speak./.. you would have no 'beef' with the idea of
concrete objective law.

What i suggest is a deep seated fear that your life is planned.
Rubbish. There is no plan and determinism is for gross material phenomena[newton]. Not will and idea. Love and concept.
Law does not plan. it is 'what can be'
No-one planned you.
You are 'unique under law'

 

Exactly

so why are we argueing?

i seem to have lost the plot.. kick me and put me on my mule

 

Occam, while I concede the point that arguments in favor of evolution do not rule out the possibility that the universe had a deistic first cause I completely reject the hypothesis that the universe had a deistic first cause and I do not simply reject the idea, I find it to be an irrational hypothesis. That is why we are arguing.

I made that concession for two reasons. The first being that it is literally and strictly true that the fact of evolution does not rule out a prime cause. The second reason was to reaffirm my conviction that evolution is fact by claiming that the only chance for a designer is at the beginning of the universe itself because it is clear that species arise from evolutionary processes and are not immutable aboriginal creations.

 

Thanks for the psychoanalysis, and for totally missing my point.

I didn't say that these laws have exception here -- if they did, they wouldn't be called laws. What I said was that these laws are not set down somewhere in and of themselves, like they are in, for instance, the legal system (I know the difference between these types of law, so don't start on it). In the legal system, if you commit a crime you go to jail because that's the law; if it weren't for the law nothing would happen. With natural laws, the laws exist because that is what has been observed to happen in the first place. There is no great cosmic book of laws; there are just things that always happen (in our experience), so we call it a law that they do. Do you follow me?

 

The law of gravity. entropy and say planks.. are not things in themselves .. not apriori
They are our reality as defined in this universe. This universe is apriori.

your talk about legal systems is an insult to my mind . or are you joking?
Objective law is not emplaced.. it IS

occam

 

Well which is it, eternal or not. First you answer no then proceed to say that reality is eternal. I wasn't referring to Mickey Mouse Club.

 

Razor, that thing about no atheists in fox holes is not a truism because it is not true. I know a few atheists who survived close combat, and one person who became an atheist in combat. I know you posted that a while back, but I just saw it.

 

Try to be a bit more comprehensible and I'll try to respond to your statements. How is the universe a prori? How was my mentioning the legal system an 'insult to your mind?'

 

First, most natural laws are NOT ridgid-- they are statistical propositions.

Second, the assumption of a pre-existence designer does NOT meet the criteria of simpilist explanation. Indeed, it is by far the most complicated explanation for existence possible.

 

Now is the only practical nature for me, but as a matter of curiosity, I would like to see the math on that statement. Rather the second portion.