Re: A scientific theory against God and morality


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx kirjoitti:

neverbetter wrote:

This sounds like you want to disagree with something but I'm not sure
what. What do you think the logic is then? Differential reproductive
success means having more descendants than something else. Any which
way it works for organisms to reproduce is just fine if it produces
viable descendants. If they reproduce their species lives on. If they
don't, they go extinct. If genetic variation makes some individuals of
the species more likely to reproduce, eventually that genetic variant
will become more dominant in the population and when these changes
accumulate the species may change. I don't see any problem with this.

The point of natural selection theory should be to explain the forms of
organisms. You can't do that when you start the logic with being better
at reproduction than another. You have to start the logic with
preservation of form through reproduction.

This makes no sense to me. Forms of organisms ARE preserved through
reproduction. If organism A is better at reproduction than organism B,
then the form of A is more likely to be preserved through reproduction.
It doesn't matter which sentence you start with, you are describing
natural selection anyhow.


When you start the logic with being better at reproduction as another,
you end up with superior organisms that have a will to reproduce.

No. The will to reproduce is not a necessary consequence of some
organisms being better at reproduction than others. The bacteria are
far better at reproduction than us humans, but they don't have a will
to reproduce. Lots of organisms such as the above mentioned algae,
viruses, bacteria, trees etc. are perfectly capable of reproducing
without exhibiting any evidence of having a will to do so (or anything
else either). Likewise, some people are better at being brown-eyed
than others but you can't infer from this fact that natural selection
has given them a superior will to be brown-eyed.

When you start the logic with preservation through reproduction, you
end up with essentially passive organisms that are shaped by the event
of reproduction.

Not true. The genetic code of the next generation of organisms is
shaped by the events of reproduction (who gets to reproduce, what kinds
of mutations happen), but this doesn't mean that the organisms need to
be passive. You and I had no control over having been born nor on our
genetic makeup, but this in and of itself doesn't mean that we have to
be passive. There are a lot of things that can be actively done even if
we missed determining our own conception.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sociobacteriology
    ... necessity of germ line segregation in metazoan organisms that I have seen. ... any specific method of reproduction. ... The individual trees grow tall to compete for sunlight. ... I fed Cuban tree frogs to my ribbon snake ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sociobacteriology
    ... necessity of germ line segregation in metazoan organisms that I have seen. ... any specific method of reproduction. ... The individual trees grow tall to compete for sunlight. ... I fed Cuban tree frogs to my ribbon snake ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... Organisms do not ... life uniformly and consistently has is reproduction. ... a designer and the purpose the designer had in mind for each design. ... about natural selection in these posts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Digital Genetics and Evolution Theory
    ... large complex organisms from simply wearing out. ... primarily by selection on repair and maintenance mechanisms. ... short-term reproduction at the expense of repair and ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Cumulative fitness, Red Queens, and the interaction matrix
    ... Do you restrict your answer to fertile organisms reproduced? ... Did you mean you lump the reproduction of individual organisms together ... Reproduction by proxy (inclusive fitness). ... Again what is the centricity: group centric, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)