Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[LadyForCamus]

Any description of a process capable of creating life’s endless forms most beautiful, would, by necessity, be as flexible as what it described.

Don’t you think?

Yup, I agree. In fact, its almost poetic. That a theory which views nature as able to produce countless variations to an organism until a successful version emerges; itself survives by making endless predictions in hopes that a successful one emerges.

What? That’s not how evolution works; JFC.

[GrandizerII]

Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.

Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.

[John 6IX Breezy]

.

Pretending not to understand shit that is being spoon fed to you, and lying about your religious views in your profile would certainly meet the criteria. You’re walking the line right now. Consider this your one and only friendly, informal warning.

Lovely power move lol.

---

Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.

Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.

I'm glad we agree mother nature isn't a sentient being.

[The Grand Nudger]

Man, you’re not even gonna make it to 100 like this, even with our considerable help.

If you’d seen some of the real paste eaters driving count you’d try harder out of sheer pride for self.

[GrandizerII]

Pretending not to understand shit that is being spoon fed to you, and lying about your religious views in your profile would certainly meet the criteria. You’re walking the line right now. Consider this your one and only friendly, informal warning.

Lovely power move lol.

---

Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.

Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.

I'm glad we agree mother nature isn't a sentient being.

Yes, so stop treating it as such when you criticize the theory of evolution, because the theory doesn't suggest that.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes, so stop treating it as such when you criticize the theory of evolution, because the theory doesn't suggest that.

I haven't; every word that invokes intentionality, purpose, sentience, upward progress, goals, has been used by you guys.

My position on destinations was built solely on a deterministic deduction of natural phenomenon; that's not remotely close to nature being a sentient being with goals. Those are your words, not mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fatalistic, not deterministic. You’ve already been corrected on this.

-and that’s the problem. We don’t see fate in biology.

[Anomalocaris]

"Well-supported" isn't fine, but we can at least count the number of papers in support of a theory to categorize it as such. We can't do that with "well-established."

I saw the essential bit; and its questionable. For example, what do you call pre-theories awaiting to be "well-supported" to become full fledged theories? In my personal experience, I've only been taught how to deduce hypotheses from theories, never these pre-theories, does it work the same way? And again, how many supporting papers need to be published for a pre-theory to become a scientific theory?

All of this just to continue to defend your argument that "space pixies" is a valid theory?

That,s desperate, man.

Pretending not to understand shit that is being spoon fed to you, and lying about your religious views in your profile would certainly meet the criteria. You’re walking the line right now. Consider this your one and only friendly, informal warning.

Lovely power move lol.

---

Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.

Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.

I'm glad we agree mother nature isn't a sentient being.

Agree that god is also not a sentient or benevolent being and your intellect would have made the first significant  positive progress since when it adapted itself to potty training.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Fatalistic, not deterministic. You’ve already been corrected on this.

-and that’s the problem. We don’t see fate in biology.

I tried your googling approach to look up the difference between determinism and fatalism. I found this:

"While determinism regards humans as 'one with' the unfolding matrix of the natural universe, supernaturalism and fatalism regard humans as existing outside of this system."

I don't agree humans are outside any system. So determinism remains the correct description of my position, not fatalism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Keep googling.

Not that you didn’t find a great explanation for why your position is accurately described as fatalism, mind you...it actually is

- just that judging by your response you’re clearly too dense to comprehend it.

It’s precisely because we’re part of that ever changing natural system that we don’t have a biological “destination”. A fate. To have such s thing, we would have to be immune from the changes in that system which have a causal relationship with our continuing genetic variance.

- but here’s the real question. Why aren’t you satisfied with your own fatalism? So what if your description was fatalist....it’s how you think this stuff works, right?