Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 88 by Wissing]

I would say it's possible the current evidence just doesn't point that way right now.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 89 by DanieltheDragon]

I'm not really sure it's a 'yes' or 'no' question... I think we're looking at this differently.

My argument seems a bit too reliant on semantics. Let's see if I can tie this very philosophical discussion into reality. And this may be a new thread... but I'll leave it here for now and see whether it will get lengthy:

What are the implications on society as a whole, in each of the following cases?
1.) if the majority of people take the view that life evolves, and the universe is inherently inanimate.
2.) if the majority of people take the view that life evolves, and the universe is inherently animate.

Assume that, in either case, the people in question are looking at the exact same evidence, and that this evidence is accepted, and that the evidence is sufficient.

[10CC]

Given such a complicated definition of life, I am sure that you will agree that life never began to exist from non-life.

Note that the definition quoted says 'all or most of the following characteristics'. I can easily imagine a series of evolutionary stages that display at first only one one or two of the items listed, then three or four of list, then finally all of them. At what point the result would count as 'alive' is of interest only to pedants.

That definition makes it easier to get life from non-life, by allowing for intermediate stages between living and non-living.

Almost certainly life arose from non-life through a series of stages, each more 'nearly alive' than the one before.

May I ask as to "how many stages, or how many generations does it take for 'life' to evolve from 'non-life'"?

When a cell dies, or a man dies, how many stages/generations does it take for that cell, that man to come to life again?

Thanks.

Allegedly just 36hrs. Or was that a fairy tale......I get confused.

[scourge99]

Nice post, Daniel. Very concise.

It appears my argument gets stuck when I try to compare biology to technology. The counter argument is that they're just not the same thing. Why? Because technology rests on conscious thoughts and ideas, as you stated:

You also don't seem to understand that analogies do not make an argument. They are just a tool to use in making a point.

In particular you seem to be engaging in a fallacy known as a "false anaolgy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1]

* P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
* Object P has been observed to have further property x.
* Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from?

Is a manifestation of a working brain similar to how an operating system is a manifestation of a working computer.

If our consciousness arises exclusively out of the fact that we have brains... well, brains evolved, didn't they? If we agree that "environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought", then we should also agree that conscious effort and thought are derivatives of biological evolution.

Evolution certainly has had an impact on our conscious thoughts. Its been proposed that the evolution of the mind is what drives us to have sex, it makes us afraid of things that go bump in the night, and other behaviors and traits that make us more liekly to reproduce than those who don;t have those behaviors and traits.

But i don't think every single behavior and trait we have has some evolutionary advantage. Though a mind may be a manifestation of a working brain which was produced by evolution, a mind has no means to pass its knowledge through genes. That is, our physical bodies are influenced by evolution because evolution works on our genes. But our thoughts are not dictated by our genes. There is no way for evolution to act upon our thoughts because our thoughts and beliefs are not encoded in our genes.

[olavisjo]

.

In particular you seem to be engaging in a fallacy known as a "false anaolgy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1]

* P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
* Object P has been observed to have further property x.
* Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from?

Is a manifestation of a working brain similar to how an operating system is a manifestation of a working computer.

In particular you seem to be engaging in a fallacy known as a "false anaolgy"

[scourge99]

.

In particular you seem to be engaging in a fallacy known as a "false anaolgy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1]

* P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
* Object P has been observed to have further property x.
* Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from?

Is a manifestation of a working brain similar to how an operating system is a manifestation of a working computer.

In particular you seem to be engaging in a fallacy known as a "false anaolgy"

I was answering his question "where does consciousness come from?". I wasn't making an argument.


Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute or just nitpicks that serve no purpose?

[olavisjo]

.

Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute or just nitpicks that serve no purpose?

No, just nitpicks.

You may as well have compared the working brain to a working abacus or a working pencil and paper.

[scourge99]

.

Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute or just nitpicks that serve no purpose?

No, just nitpicks.

You may as well have compared the working brain to a working abacus or a working pencil and paper.

Your inability to comprehend concepts outside your narrow worldview comes as no surprise. You've engaged in many many debates about secular morality on this forum and yet you still cannot even comprehend or accurately represent a non-theistic view of morality. So it comes as no surprise to me that something a bit more complicated--like consciousness--flies completely over your head, even when simple analogies are put forth to help with understanding.

[arian]

May I ask as to "how many stages, or how many generations does it take for 'life' to evolve from 'non-life'"?

When a cell dies, or a man dies, how many stages/generations does it take for that cell, that man to come to life again?

Thanks.

Allegedly just 36hrs. Or was that a fairy tale......I get confused.

OK, .. that was funny, but I believe we are talking about 'evolution', .. or was that a fairytale, .. I get confused with all this big-banging going around.

You can start with the pre-primordial soup, from non-life and explain to us; "how many stages, or how many generations does it take for 'life' to evolve from 'non-life'"?

Thanks again.

[arian]

Nice post, Daniel. Very concise.

It appears my argument gets stuck when I try to compare biology to technology. The counter argument is that they're just not the same thing. Why? Because technology rests on conscious thoughts and ideas, as you stated:

You also don't seem to understand that analogies do not make an argument. They are just a tool to use in making a point.

In particular you seem to be engaging in a fallacy known as a "false anaolgy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1]

* P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
* Object P has been observed to have further property x.
* Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

So here's a new point to add: where does our consciousness come from?

Is a manifestation of a working brain similar to how an operating system is a manifestation of a working computer.

OK, .. but who wrote and installed the 'operating system' in the brain? It wasn't evolution, even you agree as you state it just below

If our consciousness arises exclusively out of the fact that we have brains... well, brains evolved, didn't they? If we agree that "environmental pressures are derivatives of conscious effort and thought", then we should also agree that conscious effort and thought are derivatives of biological evolution.

... Though a mind may be a manifestation of a working brain which was produced by evolution, a mind has no means to pass its knowledge through genes. That is, our physical bodies are influenced by evolution because evolution works on our genes. But our thoughts are not dictated by our genes. There is no way for evolution to act upon our thoughts because our thoughts and beliefs are not encoded in our genes.

I believe that our thoughts and beliefs 'move on' after our physical body/brain dies? Isn't it the 'mind', .. that spirit (that operating system) within man that runs the brain? Without it the brain is dead, .. just sitting there like a working computer without an operating system, a complex array of trillions of perfectly aligned cells, .. purposeless and useless.