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.
monkenstick said:what is being ignored now?
what a bizarre statement, perhaps you have some examples of fictional mutations
I still don't think you understand his point at all, he isn't suggesting that these neighbors have ever existed, he is simply saying that there were other possible permutations of the algorithm called NDT that didn't eventuate, nothing more - it has no impact at all on any of the empirical data concerning evolution
[/size][/color][/font]
It wasn't Darwin. It was Dawkins. And they form no part of any proof. Again you demonstrate that you don't understand the quote you're attempting to discuss.mark kennedy said:An algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.
toff said:Come on, Mark. You're obviously an articulate man, so I can't believe you are not understanding what has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this thread. We are not talking about Darwin. We are talking about Natural Selection. Darwin's opinion as to its philosophical implications is completely irrelevant. It's up to you to demonstrate how Natural Selection (an observed natural phenomenon) is metaphysics. No amount of quotes from Darwin will do it.
No, he wasn't, and whether or not he was is completely irrelevant to your assertion.
I don't understand what point youo're trying to make here - I can only conclude that you do not understand the original quote. He is talking, hypothetically, about all the possible animals which COULD, conceivably, exist...but don't. How does this make natural selection metaphysics? If I mention all of the possible planets which COULD have come into being if our galaxy had been a little different, does that make astronomy metaphysics?
Yes, Mendel was an "afterthough" in that his discoveries were not integrated by Darwin into his theory. So what? Darwin made some rough guesses as to how heredity worked - and was wrong. We have since worked out more accurately how it does work. So what? How does that make NS metaphysics?
There are no "blinder-wearing zealots". Science is naturalistic. That's its job. This doesn't make it metaphysics - quite the opposite. Neither evolutionary theory nor NS says anything about a god - neither that he did something nor that he didn't do something. It is a natural observed phenomenon - describing it without a reference to a god is no more metaphysics than describing what makes it rain is.
Misleading. Nobody - except you - is talking about fictional ones.
In short, Mark, you have made an assertion - that NS is metaphysics - and have completely failed to support that assertion. To do so, you would have to address the OP (which you haven't) and also answer the simple question - how can an observed natural physical phenomenon be metaphysics?
toff said:It wasn't Darwin. It was Dawkins. And they form no part of any proof. Again you demonstrate that you don't understand the quote you're attempting to discuss.
Philosophy is not speculation. Natural science is not about deductive certainty. All scientific theories are essentially empirical constructions of what "could be," regardless of their likelihood.mark kennedy said:Thats the nature of metaphysics, you fill in the blanks with presumption, premises and analogies. Astronomy is not metaphysics in and of itself unless the principles are applied uniformly to all of physical science in both thought and practical application. Speculation about what COULD be is the work of the philosopher, not the natural scientist.
Mendel got lucky. Many, if not most heritiable traits are not monogenetic.Mendel reduced inherited characteristics to mathmatical ratios.
You could potentially write a more incoherent paragraph, but it would probably take substantially more work.I could be reproduced and demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't count in natural science. It is wrong for the evolutionist to use the real world credibility of his work to make evolution more credible. NS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory, this is metaphysics, since it includes all living systems and it links them to physics. The only way to do this is to claim a substantive element, and thus, metaphysics based on premise.
mark kennedy said:NS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory
what was dawkins talking about then?mark kennedy said:Thats funny, I stand corrected. It changes nothing but thanks for pointing that out.
no THEY AREN'TAn algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.
NS is only part of the mechanismDarwin was the first to suggest NS as a (not the, as has been pointed out) mechanism for the origin of species. He makes no bones about the fact that he developed his philosophy as an antithesis for 'special creation', as he calls it. His philosophy is far from irrelevant, its the whole point of his work and its the cornerstone of modern biology and geology. I am amazed that I am not being pressed for a definition of NS or at least confronted with Darwins, or yours for that matter.
Thats the nature of metaphysics, you fill in the blanks with presumption, premises and analogies.he's not FILLING IN any blanks, the hypothetical animals never existed, and dawkins isn't proposing that they did, or that they needed to for evolution to occur
sure, and this particular speculation has NO BEARING at all on evolutionary theory, and isn't used at all in the science of evolutionSpeculation about what COULD be is the work of the philosopher, not the natural scientist.
yes, he did, and he fudged his data, because it cannot be reproduced today. This is due to the simple fact that his laws of inheritance are violated in realityMendel reduced inherited characteristics to mathmatical ratios. I could be reproduced and demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't count in natural science. It is wrong for the evolutionist to use the real world credibility of his work to make evolution more credible.
it isn't metaphysics, because empirical data is used to test this hypothesis all the timeNS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory, this is metaphysics, since it includes all living systems and it links them to physics.
it isn't metaphysics, because the claim is tested constantly against dataThe only way to do this is to claim a substantive element, and thus, metaphysics based on premise.
did he actually fudge his data then? how much by? He must have had at least a reasonably good data set to be able to extract what are essentially the right answers. Having never actually seen his work though I can't really comment.monkenstick said:
yes, he did, and he fudged his data, because it cannot be reproduced today. This is due to the simple fact that his laws of inheritance are violated in reality
not in the strict phenotypical sense no, but I suppose you could always argue that, mutations aside, the set of all phenotypical effects which are uniquely possible in the presence of that particular allele will be inherited in a mendelian fashion. (this is just a contrived way of saying the genes themselves are inherited in a mendelian fashion)monkenstick said:anyway, the important point is that mendel's laws don't hold in reality
not all genes are inherited in mendelian fashion though:not in the strict phenotypical sense no, but I suppose you could always argue that, mutations aside, the set of all phenotypical effects which are uniquely possible in the presence of that particular allele will be inherited in a mendelian fashion. (this is just a contrived way of saying the genes themselves are inherited in a mendelian fashion)
What does that have to do - at all - with Natural selection being a 'metaphyscial' construct???mark kennedy said:Darwin is clear in his intent, purpose and very aware of the implications of his fantastic claims.
*snip irrelevant gibberish*
Yes, I do. The fictional ones are these "monstrosities" you keep referring to and a real mutation is what I pasted a definition to several posts ago that you ignored.I know the difference between a real one, and a fictional one. Do you?
This guy is incredible...mark kennedy said:An algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.
SLP said:More later, but...What does that have to do - at all - with Natural selection being a 'metaphyscial' construct???Yes, I do. The fictional ones are these "monstrosities" you keep referring to and a real mutation is what I pasted a definition to several posts ago that you ignored.
So, like I have asked several times - do you even know what a mutation is?
what are you on about? can you give an example of one of these fictional monstrosities which are required, and can you tell us what dawkins was talking about?mark kennedy said:These ficional 'monstrosites' are another word for mutation. These supposed anomilies are the key to the mechanism and the metaphysical construct. I've read your posts and considered your definition, I am wondering if you fully appreciate what a mutations is by implication and the lack of real substance in its essense.
Jet Black said:what are you on about? can you give an example of one of these fictional monstrosities which are required, and can you tell us what dawkins was talking about?
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?