Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
45 online now:
AZPaul3, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,216 Year: 12,964/23,288 Month: 689/1,527 Week: 128/240 Day: 17/10 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 4 of 187 (810555)
05-30-2017 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
05-30-2017 11:00 AM


...it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction ...

I don't think that conclusion can be drawn from the haphazard nature of reproduction. If the objective was to be profligate and try lots of new things then one could say that the whole shebang was carefully orchestrated and the results are flawless.

The best we can do, not being able to conclusively disprove the possibility of some designer, is to define the shape that he must take according to the evidence that we expose.

So what we can conclude about the nature of any potential designer based on how reproduction works is that they don't care too much about who you might be shaking hands and sharing holes with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 11:00 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 6:45 PM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 6 of 187 (810557)
05-30-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-30-2017 6:45 PM


Hard to say what is working or not if we don't know what the goal is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 6:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 7:26 PM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 8 of 187 (810560)
05-30-2017 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-30-2017 7:26 PM


It is not a cop out but rather a logical restriction. You presume to know what the designer's objective might be.

Reproduction is what it is. You can't say that there is no designer because reproduction doesn't look like you think it should. Furthermore, you will find it difficult to argue that the observed aggregate of reproductive methods is anything but successful.

Finding out what doesn't work is very nearly as important as finding out what does work. Some things work for a while and then they don't. Perhaps all of these failed life forms were merely stepping stones on the way to some ultimate objective. Perhaps the variety is the objective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 7:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 8:25 PM Dogmafood has responded
 Message 10 by Porosity, posted 05-30-2017 8:53 PM Dogmafood has responded
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:44 AM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 11 of 187 (810565)
05-30-2017 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
05-30-2017 8:25 PM


I don't find that hard to argue at all. I simply look at the evidence. Almost every species that ever existed went extinct.

Yet I look from my window upon the splendor of it all.

Almost all potential reproductive events fails.

Still over population is a serious problem.

In a vast number of actual reproductive attempts that result in a new living creature the critter dies before it can reproduce.

Not every individual needs to reproduce for the species to continue.

The certainly can be described as unsuccessful.

Only after you make a bunch of assumptions regarding what the objective is.

Sorry but designers get graded on the results.

Do you really think that you are up to the task of assessing whether or not some potential GOD of the universe has done a good job of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 8:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 9:01 PM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 13 of 187 (810567)
05-30-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
05-30-2017 9:01 PM


Absolutely. And I even find support for that throughout the Bible.

What does the Bible say about the arrangement of the periodic table? Any adjustments recommended there?

And it takes no assumptions to conclude that a near 100% failure rate is reasonably described as a failure.

Unless you imagine for a moment what the world would look like if every potential reproductive event met with success.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 9:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 9:49 PM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 14 of 187 (810568)
05-30-2017 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porosity
05-30-2017 8:53 PM


No.. Evolution is not an entity trying to find a path or what works.

I agree with you about that but I am talking about the potential objectives of some hypothetical designer.

What catches my interest is the question of what we can infer about the designer from the design should either one exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porosity, posted 05-30-2017 8:53 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 12:32 AM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 16 of 187 (810571)
05-30-2017 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
05-30-2017 9:49 PM


Nice attempt to move goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention, change the subject.

We are assessing the performance of GOD. Don't you think that the arrangement of the periodic table is pertinent and also intimately related to the way that reproduction works?

If there was some designer she designed a system that could only succeed by being inept, inefficient, ignorant, ill thought out, and with all the characteristics of an unplanned system that is just barely good enough to get by.

And yet get by it does.

Here you sit on this wee speck, a mote upon a mote, casting aspersions. You should be smart enough to know that you don't know enough to decide how smart you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 9:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:53 PM Dogmafood has responded
 Message 29 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:14 AM Dogmafood has responded
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:47 AM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(2)
Message 19 of 187 (810577)
05-30-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:53 PM


If you opened your eyes you might see that it is not I who is calling the hypothetical creator inept.

You, on the other hand, are a complete fucking idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:53 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 11:44 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 38 of 187 (810686)
05-31-2017 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Porosity
05-31-2017 12:32 AM


Aside from navel gazing, a designer does not follow and is not be needed or make sense in the bio chemical systems we observe here on earth.

I agree but jar made the point that no designer would design such a system. My point is that the notion of a designer can not be dismissed by some perceived inefficiency in the nature of reproduction. It just doesn't follow especially if you don't know what the design objective was.

I expect that there is no conscious entity behind the existence of the universe but not because I think that some potential GOD could have done a better job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 12:32 AM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 8:38 PM Dogmafood has responded
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 11:58 AM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 39 of 187 (810687)
05-31-2017 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
05-31-2017 7:14 AM


If you wish to imagine some designer then we can only judge that designer based on the evidence at hand.

I just take exception to the idea that we know what a properly designed universe would look like. I am fairly certain that I would strike out childhood cancer if I were GOD but I am also certain that if I were GOD then my perspective would be different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:14 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:07 PM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 40 of 187 (810688)
05-31-2017 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
05-31-2017 10:44 AM


In one moment you claim that no one can know the objectives of the designer, and then you turn around and propose what objectives the designer has. Go figure.

I was offering possible alternatives to jar's assumed design objectives. The point was that no one can know what those objectives might have been.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:44 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 42 of 187 (810692)
05-31-2017 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
05-31-2017 10:47 AM


PT writes:

We are assessing the performance of GOD.

That seems to be a rather large and unevidenced assumption.

You are misreading the argument.

If we are contemplating the possibility that GOD exists then we should realize that we are not capable of critiquing anything that THEY might have done. You need a GOD's view to do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:47 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:46 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 45 of 187 (810733)
06-01-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-31-2017 7:07 PM


As I said, simply a cop out. Once you introduce the "Designer might have other plans" gambit then any reasoned discussion ceases.

Are you insisting that some hypothetical designer have the same design objectives that you would have? We make judgements based on our values. What makes you think that a prime mover would have the same values as you do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:07 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 54 of 187 (810815)
06-01-2017 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Porosity
05-31-2017 8:38 PM


We know what design looks like and we simply do not see anything being designed in nature.

We know what our designs look like. It is one thing to look at a piece of pottery on earth and say that it was designed but how do you assess a universe for elements of design? What would a designed universe look like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 8:38 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Porosity, posted 06-03-2017 3:04 PM Dogmafood has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 1814
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 55 of 187 (810816)
06-01-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
06-01-2017 11:58 AM


If you see a bunch of boulders strewn across the landscape, don't you doubt that the arrangement was designed?

I certainly do but when I get to contemplating why there are boulders and landscapes the question is less clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 06-02-2017 11:58 AM Dogmafood has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020