What's the point of speaking of evolution as having purpose?

John Jones wrote:

If I cannot describe an environment without reference to a creature, then where there are no creatures I cannot refer to an environment. If either of us refer to a granite block as an environment, rather than as a physical situation, then we are constrained to construct attributes that a creature requires to live in it. Why are we so constrained?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you are saying here. How is one 'constrained to construct'? Do you mean 'obliged', or am I misunderstanding you?

John Jones wrote:

The way the term 'environment' is used. Attributes define a creature but they are also only attributes in particular physical situations. In other words, a creature defines environment, and vice versa. Unless, of course, we equivocate the term 'environment'(see below). This should dispel the apparant 'circularity'.
We can limit the use of the term 'environment' by expanding its definition to include physical situations not associated with life-forms. This would be the other use of the word that would contribute to any equivocation.

It seems to me it is you who is equivocating (is that a word..?). I think 'physical situation' is what 'environment' is intended to mean when people talk about the environment shaping the evolution of a species. It may also include other living creatures, prey, predators, etc. but not necessarily.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

John Jones wrote:
If I cannot describe an environment without reference to a creature, then where there are no creatures I cannot refer to an environment. If either of us refer to a granite block as an environment, rather than as a physical situation, then we are constrained to construct attributes that a creature requires to live in it. Why are we so constrained?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you are saying here. How is one 'constrained to construct'? Do you mean 'obliged', or am I misunderstanding you?

John Jones wrote:
The way the term 'environment' is used. Attributes define a creature but they are also only attributes in particular physical situations. In other words, a creature defines environment, and vice versa. Unless, of course, we equivocate the term 'environment'(see below). This should dispel the apparant 'circularity'.
We can limit the use of the term 'environment' by expanding its definition to include physical situations not associated with life-forms. This would be the other use of the word that would contribute to any equivocation.

It seems to me it is you who is equivocating (is that a word..?). I think 'physical situation' is what 'environment' is intended to mean when people talk about the environment shaping the evolution of a species. It may also include other living creatures, prey, predators, etc. but not necessarily.

'Constrained' is fine. It draws attention to the difficulties that the example brings us to consider.

Attributes define both creature and physical situation or environment. If now you want to say that environment and physical situation are the same, then we lose the distinction between physical situation and physical situation defined by attributes.

0 Replies

?
The term environment can be separate from the organisms therein, although its like a tree falling in the forest with no ear to hear, does it smell as much?

Usually, however, we consider the environment to be the entire surroundings of an individual or group.That includes all the other organisms as well as atmospheric, edaphic, and aquatic components

In physical terms we use environment to explain natural physical phenomena. Like, "environments of deposition", Its no big deal . Im sorry for interrupting.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

No because I'm not trying to sell you anything. I think it's funny that evolutionists like yourself like to call people like me close-minded when in fact you are the one that seems a little stubborn. If you think the idea of an unseen force being the origin of life is "improbably crazy", then you prove my point. I didn't belittle your beliefs, I simply said they are hard for me to believe. Honestly, I wouldn't rule anything out and I only suggest that you don't either.

It all comes down to what we're trying to discuss John; possibilities or probabilities.

The basis of your argument seems to be that "anything's possible", therefore, you propose an "unforseen force". Well, that's fine, but I guess I'm just not interested in playing that game. It doesn't have any value.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

?
The term environment can be separate from the organisms therein, although its like a tree falling in the forest with no ear to hear, does it smell as much?

Usually, however, we consider the environment to be the entire surroundings of an individual or group.That includes all the other organisms as well as atmospheric, edaphic, and aquatic components

In physical terms we use environment to explain natural physical phenomena. Like, "environments of deposition", Its no big deal . Im sorry for interrupting.

So which use of the term 'environment' are you going to use? If environment has as its focus a creature, and you want to define a creatures environment, you look to the creature to define it.
You cannot argue 'the creature is physically surrounded by its environment', without assuming what that environment should be. For example, the environment of the human skin bacteria is weakly acidic, but this is not part of the human environment.

So we cannot simply say 'environment physically surrounds the creature'.

0 Replies

Re: What's the point of speaking of evolution as having purp

John Creasy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
The fact is, the conditions of this planet are so fragile that if you changed one aspect (oxygen, distance to the sun, etc.) life would be impossible.

No. Only *our* form of life might be impossible, but other forms of life would have evolved to fit the new conditions you propose. And if those forms of life happened to evolve intelligence, they would be asking the exact same questions we are asking, and they would be saying "our conditions are perfect for life, any change would make us impossible".

And that brings us fill circle to where we are now.

Arguments of probability and arguments of condition perfection are non-sequitir.

Can you prove that a single celled orgainism is my ancestor?

It cannot be proven 100% any more than the theory of atoms can, but there is more than enough evidence of it for a reasonable, objective person to understand that it's true. One can see the mechanism of evolution in action in the world, as when bacteria develop immunity to medicines. One can piece together the fossil evidence of the origin of species and see their sequential development. Of course, there is no convincing people who just don't wish to believe something.

John Creasy wrote:
Why didn't all single celled organisms evolve? How did the first organism just magically come to life from nothing?

The fact that certain individual single celled organisms have useful mutations, and beget lines of more sophisticated creatures, in no way causes other single celled organisms to do so.

There is enough evidence to prove that I am a direct descendant of a single celled organism?? What is this evidence? You didn't answer my question about how life started.

There is evidence that existing species have descended from very simple creatures, became progressively more complex, and formed separate lines over time. I speak, of course, of the fossil records - both their existence and their apparent age and sequence. Mr. Farmerman can probably quote you chapter and verse on this.

I didn't notice that you asked how life started, but if you did, here is the answer. Complex organic compounds formed in the oceans over millenia. That effect has actually been reproduced in labs using mock-ups of the environment of the Earth of eons past. With billions, trillions, quadrillions, etc. of tons of soup sitting around in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years, eventually a molecule formed which could replicate itself. The rest is just evolution by natural selection (which depends also on mutation). Try as you will, you won't find an inconsistency in the theory. The only "flaw" in the theory is that you simply don't want to believe it, but the truth will not be suppressed for long. Science and the scientific method have given us our civilization. Religion, on the other hand, has shown no similar progress or validation over history.

0 Replies

Re: What's the point of speaking of evolution as having purp

rosborne979 wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
How did the first organism just magically come to life from nothing?

We don't know. We have theories, but no single theory on origins has gained preeminence over the other theories (unlike the Theory of Evolution which is not only the dominant theory, but the *ONLY* scientific theory which explains everything we see in such detail).

We pretty much do know. See my post above.

0 Replies

john jones said

Quote:

So we cannot simply say 'environment physically surrounds the creature'.

..yes we can. you seem to be stuck on the groove that only has to do with life. "environment" means just that, the surrounds.

0 Replies

Re: What's the point of speaking of evolution as having purp

Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
How did the first organism just magically come to life from nothing?

We don't know. We have theories, but no single theory on origins has gained preeminence over the other theories (unlike the Theory of Evolution which is not only the dominant theory, but the *ONLY* scientific theory which explains everything we see in such detail).

We pretty much do know. See my post above.

I was referring to the details, not the general concept of how it happened.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

john jones said
Quote:
So we cannot simply say 'environment physically surrounds the creature'.
..yes we can. you seem to be stuck on the groove that only has to do with life. "environment" means just that, the surrounds.

Yes but dear Sir, if you are talking of environment as it pertains to creatures, then a creature is the focus of that environment. And the focus cannot be a physical focus 'in' the environment, as my bacteria example demonstrated. The focus is a teleogical focus. We define a creature by its attributes, and its attributes are attributes with respect to the environment in which they are attributes.

In other words, when we speak of a creatures environment we do not choose ad hoc what its environment is, we construct it from the list of attributes. Do we not?

0 Replies

Then , please be so kind to use the modifer "creature" in all your discussions, then Ill have no argument.
Im used to
Temperature environments of magmas

geophysical environments of deep oceanic ridges

yatta yatta.

As far as a creatures environment, it like evolution is a tale of adaptation . I dont think anyone stated that we choose ad hoc (sic) a creatures environment, because environments are in flux even daily. Its the creatures job to adapt or die.

0 Replies

Dinasaurs didn't adapt; they're finding dinasaurs in China that are 1.5 million years old - even eggs.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Then , please be so kind to use the modifer "creature" in all your discussions, then Ill have no argument.
Im used to
Temperature environments of magmas

geophysical environments of deep oceanic ridges

yatta yatta.

As far as a creatures environment, it like evolution is a tale of adaptation . I dont think anyone stated that we choose ad hoc (sic) a creatures environment, because environments are in flux even daily. Its the creatures job to adapt or die.

You are not using the right grammar. I will show you:
By geophysical environment of deep oceanic ridges, you could say just deep oceanic ridges. But you also want to say that the deep oceanic ridges are in a 'geophysical environment'. We must conclude that the 'deep oceanic ridges' is the focus of geophysical environments. But this is not clear, for either this means that the deep oceanic ridges are the focus of other, unnamed, places (which is unneccessary, if not obscure) or that the deep oceanic ridges are the physical focus of geophysics, which is plainly not true because geophysics is a study.
What you should say is 'the geophysics of deep oceanic ridges'.

0 Replies

.
Ill have to tell all my colleagues that weve been mispeaking these last 30 years. While geophys is a discipline, its also the collective attributes of the rock media that can be studied by geophysics. Sounds circular but we use the term as and adje ctive all the time.
Geophysical environment is often used to collectively present the structural, sedimentological and geomorph conditions of an area. Geologists engage in neologic discovery every day.
I believe Rogers and Santosh use "geophys environments of deep ocean ridges" in their book "Continents and Supercontinents". Thats why, if you stick to using creatures when you limit your discussions to life, then youll be OK.
How about "political environment"

or the "The environment of the Art Moderne"

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

.
Ill have to tell all my colleagues that weve been mispeaking these last 30 years. While geophys is a discipline, its also the collective attributes of the rock media that can be studied by geophysics. Sounds circular but we use the term as and adje ctive all the time.
Geophysical environment is often used to collectively present the structural, sedimentological and geomorph conditions of an area. Geologists engage in neologic discovery every day.
I believe Rogers and Santosh use "geophys environments of deep ocean ridges" in their book "Continents and Supercontinents". Thats why, if you stick to using creatures when you limit your discussions to life, then youll be OK.
How about "political environment"

or the "The environment of the Art Moderne"

I am truly sorry. But you must admit, 'geophysical environments of deep ocean ridges' is a bit of a mouthful when 'the geophysics of deep ocean ridges' is courteous and less contrived. 'Environment' doubles the meaning already inherent in geophysics, and is unnecessary.

Perhaps I can present my case with greater clarity:
'Geophysical environments' can refer either to environments found in geophysics, which may not be relevant to ocean ridges; or, to a study, for which 'ocean ridges' cannot be a physical focus. It therefore seems preferable to drop the term environment in this instance and simply say 'the geophysics of deep ocean ridges', which does not send the mind needlessly scurrying about for unnamed environments.

'Political environment' may also be a doubling of intended meaning, where the term 'politics' may serve us just as well. I have this excellent book which I recommend to all writers and lay scholars, The Cassel Guide to Common Errors in English, by Harry Blamires. Much of the material is taken from journalism and professional magazines.

0 Replies

Oh hey, ya wanna talk mistakes in journals, I see the language slowly morphing from decade to decade regarding words that have been coopted by editorial boards as "suggested alternatives for clarity" > I know when we get done with an article sometimes, it bears no resemblance to the authors original thoughts. I used to ed a geology journal and we always had crazy discussions about word usage. Ive always operated under the assumption that, "language is not our friend"

Cmon CI, whereve you found any juried literature on 1.5 million year old dinosaurs??You been reading Liberty College propoganda?

0 Replies

Would you believe the National Geographic?

0 Replies

Actually, what the article says is, "A thick rain of volcanic ash sends a rat-sized mammal (Gobiconodon zofiae) and three dinasaus (Dilong paradoxus) fleeing for their lives. Based on the features of a 125-million-year-old fossil preerved by such ashfalls, these tyrannosaurs exhibit a downy covering of protofeathers, the first found among their family. The evolutionary precursors of true feathers, protofeathers were hairlike and probably developed for insulation."

0 Replies

Cmon, your kidding no? It has to be a stupid typo. Tell me which issue and Ill wire it to my Dover Colleagues.
Thats a hoot, all these Creationists cant make a dent, then the Nat Geo just rolls over. heeh heeh.

Somebody got chewed out, if your not kidding.

0 Replies

Here, farmerman, try this link. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/society/ngo/events/98/dinosaurs/

0 Replies

What's the point of speaking of evolution as having purpose?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know