Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mr freedom]
    #824337 -

Yes, Mr. Freedom, I got that. If I thought otherwise I would have mentioned ad hominem and "poisoning the well". It did not seem as if you were doing that.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #824356 -

Well, not to stray to far off-topic, but I have been accused of lacking a sense of humor.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mr freedom]
    #824372 -

LOL!!! I don't know. That certainly made ME laugh!

I'm off for the evening.

Good night, Mr. Freedom

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #825818 -

"The survival of the fittest", what a tautological masterpiece that was

You're wrong. That statement is NOT a tautology. It is only a tautology if you use the common definition of "fitness".

From "Evolutionary Analysis" by Freeman and Herron (2nd ed, pg. 61):
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is often criticized- by nonbiologists- as tautological, or circular in its reasoning. That is, after reviewing Darwin's four postulates, one could claim, "Of course individuals with favorable variations are the ones that survive and reproduce, because the theory defines favorable as the ability to survive and reproduce."

The key to resolving the issue is to realize that the word "favorable," although a convenient shorthand, is misleading. The only requirement for natural selection is for certain variants to do better than others, as opposed to random ones. As long as a nonrandom subset of the population survives better and leaves more offspring, natural selection will result.

Notes from an Organic Evolution professor:
The Nature of Natural Selection

1) Natural Selections Acts on Individuals, but the consequences are to the population (or species) not the individual.
a. Individuals don?t evolve.

2) Natural Selection Acts on the Phenotype, but Evolution is the change in heritable variation.
a. Changes in frequency of nonheritable characters are not evolution (cold and body size).

3) Natural Selection is backward looking, not forward looking.
a. Because something may be useful tomorrow is not natural selection

4) Natural Selection Can Produce New Traits, Even Thought it Acts on Existing Traits.
a. Horse?s leg

5) Natural Selection is NOT Perfect or Optimal
a. Relative fitness differences is important

6) Natural Selection is nonrandom, but it is Not progressive
a. E. coli is a good bacteria and you are a very bad bacteria

7) Fitness is not Tautological (circular)
a. Fitness is a correlation

8) Natural Selection Acts on Individuals Not Groups
a. i.e., there is no such thing as Altruism (actions that while decreasing the actors fitness increase the groups).
b. This point is arguable


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #825866 -

Nice job!

I appreciate the labor you put into the post. Yes, of course if you redefine a word you can get it to mean anything. Such ad hoc redefinitions do not impress me.

It is only a tautology if you use the common definition of "fitness".

Fitness? I said nothing about fitness.

Glad to see you back. I missed you.

I agree with the bulk of the professor's ideas.

Good post! Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #825893 -

Mr_Mushrooms writes:

You seem to be saying that life became more and more complex the more it evolved or passed generationally through descent with modification. Is that correct?

Correct.

If it is I would be interested in seeing a citation or a link to a website that offers the same statement.

I could provide hundreds of thousands of links and citations. Any biology text written in the last century, for example.

Are you further saying that a bacterium is less complex than a man because the man's DNA strand is longer?

No (although human DNA does contain more information than bacterial DNA), I say it because it is self evident that a multicellular organism is more complex than a unicellular one. Not only is each cell in the multicellular organism as complex (actually more so) as a bacterial cell, but those cells are further organized into co-operative structures (circulatory system, muscles, nervous system, etc.), adding a further layer of complexity that unicellular organisms cannot possess.

I am completely baffled as to why I am having to explain this so many times. Is it really your contention that a single bacterial cell is as complex as human? Do you not agree that a fully grown human is much more complex than a blastocyte? Perhaps I am the one who should be asking for citations.

I do not think that man has been around as long as bacteria.

Then you believe that at one point bacteria were created, then at some later date man was created, correct?

What I was alluding to in a previous post about the paradigmatic schema and equivocation is that the idea of the complexity of God juxtaposed against the complexity of a living organism of any kind is a categorical error and seems to be equivocating.

I don't understand this statement. Can you rephrase it in simpler terms?

God as He is understood by many philosophers is known to be a self-existent Being which means He was not created or came into creation ex nihilo.

Which means what, exactly? That God predates the universe?

You should look at the link above where I said something like, "Some Ammunition". It is a link to a site that refutes, brilliantly I might add, the supposed "facts" of evolution on the TalkOrigins.org site.

I have spent time at that link before. It does not refute the concept of evolution. At best it points out some unresolved holes in the DARWINIAN model (or what is popularly understood to be the Darwinian model -- not necessarily the same thing) of modification over generations. I disagree that it is "brilliant". Some of the arguments are downright ludicrous.

As an aside, I am wondering what other influences you have in philosophy. You're not a Quine fan I hope.

I don't know who Quine is. I have no influences other than the ones I listed previously. I'm an atheistic Realist, or Aristotelian, or Objectivist, or combination thereof. Logical Positivism is gibberish not worthy of study.

pinky




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #825969 -

Delightful.

I could provide hundreds of thousands of links and citations. Any biology text written in the last century, for example.

One would suffice. Would you please post it? I used a search engine to find this axiomatic truth you proclaim and was unable to find it.

No (although human DNA does contain more information than bacterial DNA), I say it because it is self evident that a multicellular organism is more complex than a unicellular one. Not only is each cell in the multicellular organism as complex (actually more so) as a bacterial cell, but those cells are further organized into co-operative structures (circulatory system, muscles, nervous system, etc.), adding a further layer of complexity that unicellular organisms cannot possess.

I am completely baffled as to why I am having to explain this so many times. Is it really your contention that a single bacterial cell is as complex as human? Do you not agree that a fully grown human is much more complex than a blastocyte? Perhaps I am the one who should be asking for citations.

I understand now. Your definition of complexity is a different one than I am using. I define biological complexity at the DNA level and you are saying that a tree is more complex than the nut of the tree. You are including structure in your definition and I was not. This can easily be resolved by posting a link that explicates your idea.

If you are confused about anything I say and I can provide a citation or a link to help clarify the matter I will.

Then you believe that at one point bacteria were created, then at some later date man was created, correct?

I often find that the dissemination of a small piece of my opinions can lead to huge misunderstandings. To give you that without a proper context might not be helpful to our dialogue.

Which means what, exactly? That God predates the universe?

If God is an eternal being and the universe is finite then the answer would be axiomatic, wouldn't it?

Ex nihilo nihil fit. Latin for "out of nothing, nothing comes"

I have spent time at that link before. It does not refute the concept of evolution. At best it points out some unresolved holes in the DARWINIAN model (or what is popularly understood to be the Darwinian model -- not necessarily the same thing) of modification over generations. I disagree that it is "brilliant". Some of the arguments are downright ludicrous.

Well, we all have our opinions, don't we?

I don't know who Quine is. I have no influences other than the ones I listed previously. I'm an atheistic Realist, or Aristotelian, or Objectivist, or combination thereof. Logical Positivism is gibberish not worthy of study.

Quine is a logical positivist. I was really into Rand at one point. A dialogue on her might be interesting.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #827355 -

"The survival of the fittest", what a tautological masterpiece that was.

"'Tis is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
- Charles Darwin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #828082 -

Mr-Mushrooms writes:

I used a search engine to find this axiomatic truth you proclaim and was unable to find it.

It was not axiomatic until the discovery of the fossil record. However, there is no point me posting several hundred thousand links here, because, as you point out, your definition of "complexity" differs from mine and the authors of those works.

I define biological complexity at the DNA level...

DNA is not an organism. DNA is the blueprint for an organism. Let's pose a hypothetical. If we were having this dialogue fifty years ago, before Watson and Crick's work on DNA, would you still say that a frog is no more complex than an e. coli bacterium?

I often find that the dissemination of a small piece of my opinions can lead to huge misunderstandings. To give you that without a proper context might not be helpful to our dialogue.

I eagerly await the full context, then.

I was really into Rand at one point. A dialogue on her might be interesting.

I would welcome a dialogue on her work. Why are you no longer "into" her? Did you discover flaws in her theories?

pinky



--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (08/19/02 11:23 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #829652 -

From a philosophical standpoint, the "why" is not the issue. The universe IS. It is the job of philosophy to aid man in existing within it.


There is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind. - Nietzsche (H.A.2.H)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #829976 -

Well I guess since this is my post I should jump back in (been out of town....sorry)

I finally trudged through alll the replies and am pleasantly surprised as to the responses it has received. I feel I must clarify what my intentions were by posting this.

1.) It was not my intention to make evolution and creationism face off. To be perfectly blunt I believe in both.

Contradictory you say????????????

I believe in our almighty creator. I believe that he set this whole thing in motion. I believe that he bestowed the ability to adapt as a gift upon us. Imagine life in all its myriad forms living in a hostile and everchanging world. It seems reasonable that every living cell would soon be extinct if not for the ability to "roll with the punches"
I find it unlikely that a random formation of primordial soup has fathered all life. I find it much more likely that "GOD" gave that initial spark to the primordial soup. Hence the watch analogy. From this the Darwinian model takes over. Call me naive but I feel there is no contradiction in having both paradigms hold hands instead of beating each other up. I have a ton of evidence for believing what I do. I can and will post some references if you wish.

When the early astonomers first proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe but rather a mere planet in a random solar system in a random galaxy......everyone felt like this was blasphemy and the end of religion. Now it is just so silly to think it deals religion a blow. I feel the same about evolution. It seems like it is anti-religion now but somewhere down the road we will find that religion and science can once again coexist and we'll wonder why we ever thought that evolution precludes religion.


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #831408 -

mirrorsaw-
What a great quote.
"There is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind." - Nietzsche (H.A.2.H)


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #832235 -

I don't know how sane he was, but you have to admire the iconoclastic spirit!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #832261 -

He was incredibly sane (until his collapse I'd imagine).
Read "What Nietzsche Really Said" by Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins, and dispel any ill notions of the man.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #832305 -

(until his collapse I'd imagine)

I don't doubt he was fully coherent in that sense but I may check out the book you recommend. One I do have to read is "Nietzsche and Buddhism", It will be interesting to see how the author can link them together.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #832510 -

It will be interesting to see how the author can link them together.
I don't think it will be too hard, as Nietzsche was a Zen master.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Contrived Spirituality..... andrewss 1,438 16 04/19/10 06:09 PM
by MokshaIs
* God - The Ultimate Drug Manufacturer OrgoneConclusion 837 18 01/10/10 06:29 AM
by Chronic7
* Biological and lingustic evolution
( 1 2 all )		 DividedQuantumM 690 22 02/19/17 03:18 PM
by sudly
* The robot revolution
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 3,400 39 11/26/03 03:34 AM
by ZenGecko
* Christianity vs Jesus
( 1 2 3 all )		 Kush_Zombie 2,111 52 06/10/16 10:18 AM
by zzripz
* Psychology as a whole- Do you buy it?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 skatealex2 12,382 192 05/05/09 09:43 AM
by daytripper23
* what are you working for?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,900 33 05/24/09 03:58 PM
by PDU
* Athiest Death Theory
( 1 2 all )		 LiquidSmoke 4,822 36 09/09/02 06:25 PM
by jayson

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,734 topic views. 1 members, 172 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.