Ok, you go for it. Dirt particles settle in a fluid how they want to.
If that's what you need in order to make your philosophy work, you are too far up the garden path for conversation. — Banno
Repeating your mistake does not help your case. — Banno
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/yeast-study-suggests-genetics-are-random-but-evolution-is-not-20140911/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution — Banno
These are probably descriptive accounts of evolution — TheMadFool
Indeed, Indeed. No wonder you don't wish to address them. I think I've accompanied you far enough up your garden path for this evening. Cheers. — Banno
Yes. The selection process is "natural". But how did the criteria for those automatic choices arise in Nature? Darwin saw an analogy between human selection (animal breeding) and the weeding-out process of evolution. In this analogy, personified Nature plays the role of Breeder. But he didn't really mean that the natural Process itself made deliberate choices with a future goal in mind. Instead, his unspoken reference may have been to the Creator, that he was beginning to doubt. He later said that proposing a godless creation was "like confessing to murder"So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature? — Gnomon
Natural selection. — 180 Proof
Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke:Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness. — TheMadFool
Well, no. You've framed the issue in an absurd way. Just go read some actual biological texts, and try to understand the topic before you expound on it.Give me another shot at this — TheMadFool
Well, no. You've framed the issue in an absurd way. Just go read some actual biological texts, and try to understand the topic before you expound on it. — Banno
Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke: — Gnomon
the heliocentric model — 180 Proof
Time to get to the interesting bit now...
A scientific hypothesis, evolution is one, makes some assumptions and based on them some predictions. If the predictions bear out, the scientific hypothesis in question is said to have been confirmed and if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is falsified.
Now, let's suppose that evolution is teleological is a scientific hypothesis. We now need some observable predictions and that is nothing but non-randomness. Ergo, the following scientific argument,
9. If evolution is teleological then we should observe non-randomness in evolution [hypothesis & prediction]
10. If we observe non-randomness in evolution then the hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed
11. We do observe non-randomness in evolution
Ergo,
12. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed.
In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool
Well then, Fool, answer my question on nature's evolutionary "teleology" which should be quite easy considering you think it is "confirmed" — 180 Proof
Non sequitur. Your analogy is fatuous, Fool. Rather: 'knowing a woman just walked down an empty beach means I can know the path she took by backtracking her footprints in the sand.' The epistemic difference between a claim being true and being untrue – search parameters of evidence entailed by predication. So if "evolution" has a telos (A) cite the observational evidence and (B) describe its fulfillment or end-state (à la an Aristotlean "final cause"). Absent that, TMF, you're just talking out of your bunghole and the discussion can't go any further.Knowing that there's a man in the room doesn't mean I know who that man is.Two different epistemological situations. — TheMadFool
Of course "evolution" is non-random — 180 Proof
Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable — 180 Proof
Chaotic systems — 180 Proof
Non sequitur. Your analogy is fatuous, Fool — 180 Proof
Scientific method:
2. Hypothesis: Evolution is teleological
3. Given the hypothesis evolution is teleological, evolution should exhibit non-randomness
4. If evolution exhibits non-randomness then the hypothesis evolution is teleological is confirmed
5. Observations show that evolution exhibits non-randomness [according to you and Banno]
Ergo,
6. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed — TheMadFool
So if "evolution" has a telos (A) cite the observational evidence and (B) describe it's fulfillment or end-state (à la an Aristotlean "final cause") — 180 Proof
you're just talking out of your bunghole and the discussion can't go any further. — 180 Proof
Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool
I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof
What Fool doesn't understand is "direction" does not imply destination and purpose – end goal – is synonomous with destination in this context. He is evidently profoundly ignorant of chaos theory, stochastics, etc.I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. — Gnomon
He is evidently profoundly ignorant of chaso theory, stochastics, etc. — 180 Proof
Of course "evolution" is non-random — 180 Proof
Okay. Good luck with all that nonsense and pseudo-science. Non-random =/= purposeful. :roll: :rofl: — 180 Proof
Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed — Gnomon
Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. — Gnomon
Fool affirms the consequent. — Banno
In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool
Keep going. You continue to make my point. — Banno
can you tell by looking at evolution if it's purposeful? — frank
Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool
I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.