Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of final causes, i.e. the purpose of something or the end towards which it naturally develops (as contrasted with efficient causes, i.e. the means or process by which a result occurs). In the context of evolution, this is sometimes used to suggest a goal, or a directing agency.... I don't see how platonic teleo
has any bearing on evolution. Explain?
Sounds like it, my question may have been like "Surely not "This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of final causes, i.e. the purpose of something or the end towards which it naturally develops (as contrasted with efficient causes, i.e. the means or process by which a result occurs). In the context of evolution, this is sometimes used to suggest a goal, or a directing agency.
Which is a misuse of the concept, implying that purpose is transmitted through the efficient causes in some way rather than being parallel to them. More to the point, a randomly acting cause, such as genetic mutation, is not a barrier to Telos.This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of final causes, i.e. the purpose of something or the end towards which it naturally develops (as contrasted with efficient causes, i.e. the means or process by which a result occurs). In the context of evolution, this is sometimes used to suggest a goal, or a directing agency.
Right. In my case though, I was suggesting that there may be an aspect of natural law which skews the probability of mutations toward functional outcomes in a way that the directedness of purpose is observable.Which is a misuse of the concept, implying that purpose is transmitted through the efficient causes in some way rather than being parallel to them. More to the point, a randomly acting cause, such as genetic mutation, is not a barrier to Telos.
Common Descent.I don't know what CD is...?
We observe that many like to cite atheists who found God,
but upon examination virtually all were raised in a religious home, fell away as disaffected youth and were sucked back in.
Yes. But so far it hasn't been observed. All we have seen so far is what would be expected from random variation and natural selection. I can't think of how a slight non-randomness of mutations would even be observable.Right. In my case though, I was suggesting that there may be an aspect of natural law which skews the probability of mutations toward functional outcomes in a way that the directedness of purpose is observable.
Common Descent.
If that's true (not disputing but also haven't seen the source.) It may be because theists have more children, and more children are raised theist. Though I think people like Francis Collins are sufficient to make reasonable counterpoints.
ISTR hearing that some parts of the genome tended to have more mutations than others. Whether that was referring to status after the repair mechanisms have done their work (apparently they vary in efficiency and area of action), or whether some parts are (somehow) more susceptible to mutations, I don't know.Yes. But so far it hasn't been observed. All we have seen so far is what would be expected from random variation and natural selection. I can't think of how a slight non-randomness of mutations would even be observable.
Yes. But so far it hasn't been observed. All we have seen so far is what would be expected from random variation and natural selection. I can't think of how a slight non-randomness of mutations would even be observable.
Right. A person's anecdote of their own spiritual or intellectual development isn't science clearly.Rare exceptions don't mean much.
Thing is, there's hardly anything more sure to get a eye-roll from atheists than someone saying, "I ( he she they ) was atheistt then found god.
Or the preacher, 'lo, verily I was the worst of sinners but I found God."
It could hardly be less convincing about the reality
of God if designed to be.
As science it is less than negative minus zero.
Concocting ways that on zero evidence one may
inject God into natural processes is anti science.
it's function is self deception.
If I believed in God I'd be inclined to learn what I could of his nature from what we see thar he did, like say build mountains with tectonics or vulcanized.
Deciding he liked hippogrifs and then going out to look for them is silly at best.
Same with creationist idess.
ISTR hearing that some parts of the genome tended to have more mutations than others. Whether that was referring to status after the repair mechanisms have done their work (apparently they vary in efficiency and area of action), or whether some parts are (somehow) more susceptible to mutations, I don't know.
Thanks for finding that paper - I thought I had a record of it, but couldn't find it.Indeed. Although I would say that there are a lot of non-random mechanisms worthy of discussion, your memory serves you well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?