bio evolution, light, sound and aroma

And all of science would describe how the rest of the universe proceeded, including the development of life and its evolution from that point to now. Nor do you need to see it in order to understand how the car was made in the way that it was.You can reverse engineer the construction of the car without incorporating any mental input from the original construct and build a fully functional replicated car. But the car is not painted just by the design, it is implemented by a physical object: you.You can also imagine that this car has only one horn, so that in your imagination you have an invisible pink unicorn. So? It seems he's just saying that there are emergent properties ...

You want to make it a magical experience you are free to have that opinion, but that isn't going to get you to a point of understanding how it works.The brain has been under development for millions of years, but this development is an difference in quantities rather than a difference in quality. Each step of development had an advantage for survival and breeding over the previous level of development and it thus enjoyed positive selection pressure to continue. Even in human ancestry we can see this development occurring, even in other animals we can see cognitive properties and even self-awareness, and we can even see simple sense and response systems in some organisms, so there is a whole spectrum of cognitive abilities, all providing their species with sufficient advantage to survive and breed compared to not having those abilities.Evolution is an arms race, not just between predator and prey, but between different species to survive in an ecology and between breeding individuals in a population to pass on their traits to their offspring. This arms race means that each generation is finding new advantages in the new traits that give them the means to survive and reproduce.Cognition is one of those traits that is seeing continued selection for greater cognitive ability ... in all organisms. It involves learning, something babies do, you know. Surprisingly they need to learn how to interpret new sensations. How surprising ... almost like being a baby again ... An experience shared by virtually all vertebrates in different degrees of quantity but not in quality. Many species overlap in their cognitive abilities and there is no abrupt shift from one more "primitive" species to one more derived species, but a spectrum of abilities. Which we can observe this in apes and some other animals in different degrees, some of which test out more intelligent and inventive than some humans. This again shows a spectrum of development by evolutionary processes where the increased cognitive ability confers a survival and reproductive advantage to the individual, the breeding population, the species.Problem solving provides an advantage for survival and reproduction.

More likely along the lines of your typical IDologist bait and switch tactic:You can see that the arrowhead was designedTherefore when something in nature appears designed that then there must have been a designer.The problem is still how design is realized: with the arrowhead we can find the cores and hammer stones and we can replicate how they were made, but with apparent design in nature we need a mechanism to realize the design, and the only one in biology is evolution ...

Then you are confusing a mechanism with a mechanical device (for making flour). A mechanism is the means by which a design goes from the drawing board to production -- the "black box" that does the necessary work to transform raw ingredients into new product. Wishful thinking, not reality. Sorry ... just because you have been discussing it that doesn't make it a valid argument -- you need to show (a) that "dispositions" exist in reality outside your mind, and (b) that organisms are limited by these purported "dispositions" -- where in the DNA does this occur?Or is this just another retread of the old creationist "limit" to evolution that claims macroevolution cannot occur? Again -- show where that limitation is enacted\engaged in determining what can or cannot evolve. And selection. Evolution's a two step process. Studies have shown that mutations are sufficiently random that any intended design\disposition\whatever can be reasonably ruled out in forming a new trait\feature. It is selection of new mutations that begins the development of new traits\features. And so you will claim that any new features that evolve are due to these mysterious magical "dispositions" ... without any empirical objective evidence that they actually exist?Seems like circular reasoning to me. Of course there are the E.coli experiments where a new feature evolved in one cloned population but not in another cloned from the same source.Curiously this means that either there is no such thing as a disposition or that having a disposition does not predict a new feature and thus is irrelevant to the study of actual new features. And yet we can map the consciousness and see the patterns that conscious thoughts make. Nothing subjective there. That's rather confused linguistically. Let's see if we can break it down ... Only when that explanation covers all the known facts in a reasonable manner (ie in concurrence with the known behavior of the elements). For instance we can say that the behavior of planets orbiting the sun is explained by the theory of gravity ... and then check all those orbital facts against the theoretical outputs.Then we can use that theory to predict the location of those planets in the future, and when those planets just happen to be in those places at the times predicted we can say that we have high confidence in the theory explaining the behavior of planets in orbiting the sun. And again, using the planet\sun example, we don't need to model the beginning of the universe or even of the solar system in order to model the current behavior of the planets and make testable predictions of future locations ... or to have high confidence in the repeatability of making those predictions and tests. Nor do we need to know where gravity comes from to make these high confidence predictions. We just need to know that it exists in a measurable quantity for determining the explanations and predictions. But it's not one person and it's not one line of inquiry when we are dealing with science. It is several different lines of inquiry and many people doing the investigations ... and they have to be peer reviewed and those discoveries need to be independently replicated.Your analogy fails to adequately describe science and thus leads you to false conclusions. Straw man arguments are like that.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Simple: they don't add to our knowledge of how things work, they fail to show up in one group when appear to occur in another, and they don't appear to explain anything.That makes them a waste of time. If it has no predictive value then it isn't necessary to discuss it when using science to understand and predict things.Ever heard of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy?You look at all the dogs in the world and claim that they evolved from wolves because they had a "disposition" to become dogs ... but that doesn't predict what the dogs look like, it's an after the fact assessment for a fantasy. We call those natural laws: gravity is one. And evolution doesn't occur to provide wanted traits, just traits occur by random mutation and that are selected because they provide an advantage. Pigs and bats come from a common mammalian ancestor ... so did bats evolve wings because of a disposition in that ancestor while pigs did not develop wings because of a disposition in that same ancestor?Evolution explains wings in bats but not in pigs ... your "disposition" fantasy doesn't. Your lack of imagination and critical thinking is noted. Emergence

quote:

---

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

​

Biology can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry which, in turn, can be viewed as an emergent property of particle physics. Similarly, psychology could be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological dynamics, and free-market theories understand economy as an emergent feature of psychology.

---

See also Synergy

quote:

---

Synergy is the interaction of multiple elements in a system to produce an effect different from or greater than the sum of their individual effects. ...

​

In the natural world, synergistic phenomena are ubiquitous, ranging from physics (for example, the different combinations of quarks that produce protons and neutrons) to chemistry (a popular example is water, a compound of hydrogen and oxygen), to the cooperative interactions among the genes in genomes, the division of labor in bacterial colonies, the synergies of scale in multi-cellular organisms, as well as the many different kinds of synergies produced by socially-organized groups, from honeybee colonies to wolf packs and human societies. Even the tools and technologies that are widespread in the natural world represent important sources of synergistic effects. The tools that enabled early hominins to become systematic big-game hunters is a primordial human example. ...

---

Synergies don't need dispositions to explain them. Gibberish.The growth of the brain from the reptilian beginning is an increase in kind, but it reaches a synergistic point where added brain function allows different uses. This is classic emergent behavior.We see this in many organisms that reach a certain point in brain development. A lack of the carbon molecules needed to make sugar in water is a disposition? Really?The fact that glass is brittle is not a disposition of glass to break, it is a characteristic of the material.Again I don't need to invent a word usage to explain these aspects of the materials, I can just use existing words, without the incredulity. You can posit all you want, but that still does not mean that the theory of evolution can be derived from "dispositions" nor that "dispositions" predict the path evolution takes in any way. Which again is not something you can derive from "dispositions" nor that "dispositions" predict the path the universe development takes in any way or its behavior. Do you think soap bubbles need to be explained by godly imposed dispositions? Are sand grains tumbling down a sand dune driven by godly dispositions? At what point do you say "dispositions" are not involved? If everything has "dispositions" then it becomes as meaningless as the luminiferous cosmic ether fantasy.Curiously I don't need "dispositions" in order to posit creator god/s in any way, nor do I need to "exorcise the need for a creator" to see that science explains how things are done, how that creation is being continually effected\realized\developed.When god/s create the laws of gravity they don't need to be included in every explanation of how gravity works. True, you are free to have whatever opinion strikes your fancy ... I prefer ones based on objective evidence, tested science and consilience with observations of reality as much as possible, then I allow speculation ... but it "lives" in a world constrained by what we do know.

Because that's not sufficiently "deified" ...

No they don't -- every thing you mention can be just as easily described as the properties of the objects. I can discuss things endlessly without having to refer to any "disposition" but just using common words properly. When you know the properties of glass, you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with, because of its propensity to shatter.And as a designer I know that all materials have different degrees of brittleness and strength. A pure glass thread can hold more weight than a steel thread of the same diameter. Steel will also fracture when it's cold and the brittleness modulus is exceeded. Aluminum will have brittle fatigue cracks propagating over time until failure occurs. I also know that glass flows over time such that ancient panes of glass are thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top than when first installed. Heated it can flow instead of fracture, and so it can be blown into many artistic shapes.Reference to "disposition" not required. Or because we would not expect organisms to be able to fashion glass from melting sand ... without burning themselves up in the process.Reference to "disposition" not required. Curiously I don't find this argument persuasive in the slightest - I could only rule them out in the short term. Meanwhile we can observe squirrels and marsupials with evolved wings, flying snakes and frogs to say nothing of all the insects ... so it is not inconceivable that some species of pig could evolve wings if the ecological conditions were available.What you can rule out is evolution that makes any organism unfit to live in their ecology because they will not pass selection for breeding and survival.Reference to "disposition" not required. Again only if you can establish that these would not provide a selective advantage. If we looked at brown or black bears the question is not so unimaginable ... so it is only a matter of degree of advantage, not a matter of a difference in the kind of advantage.Reference to "disposition" not required. Bass Ackwards thinking again. If there is no disadvantage there will be no negative selection.Curiously we could look at bird plummage if we want to really eviscerate your argument.Reference to "disposition" not required. Synergy and Emergence don't displace (?affect?) properties. Something won't emerge without a propensity to do so, you need the correct chemicals and context and forces for something to emerge, it is not the magic creation of something new.Reference to "disposition" not required. Such as the example with pure water it has an impressive but limited set of properties on its own without the addition of new chemicals or forces.Reference to "disposition" not required.Further the properties of materials are due to what they are, not to any "mystical disposition" of the components. Sand does not have the property of being fragile, and nor does it have tensile strength to hang weights of any amount.Glass does not have the properties of fragility and tensile strength because these were "dispositions" in sand, rather it is a function of the structure and molecules of the material.Reference to "disposition" not required.If I can discuss anything with the relevant properties without "disposition" being mentioned or needed, then it doesn't add to our knowledge of how things work. QED.Furthermore, the normal connotations of disposition are based on the primary definitionsdisposition
noun
1. the predominant or prevailing tendency of one's spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude: a girl with a pleasant disposition.
2. state of mind regarding something; inclination: a disposition to gamble.So implying these for inanimate objects is confusing and contrary to succinct discussions.Sadly I don't need to personify or deify materials for you.Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : +