Re: A scientific theory against God and morality


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Vacaous reasoning. Scientists don't have to answer any "why" question
at all, so don't ask me why. Physicists don't have to answer why rocks
fall either.

You don't have to calculate comparisons in a simulation. Regardless if
the result is reproduction or no reproduction, the outcome is the
basically neccessary consequent of the interaction of the individual
with the environment,

No. For the result to be a *consequence* of an interaction of the
individual and some specified environmental factor, the environmental
factor has to have a *causal* effect -- that is, it has to have a
significant *causal* effect relative to what would happen in the
absence of that environmental factor (or in the presence of a different
factor). When the *consequence* or result occurs regardless of which
particular environment it is exposed to, then that environmental factor
is not exerting any *causal* effect. That is, relative to that
environmental factor, the result is a matter of chance; the
environmental factor plays no role in determining the consequence.

In a completely controlled environment, where all environmental factors
are constant, any *consequence* is a result of chance (chaotic factors
that cannot be controlled and, thus, occur independently of the
organism one is looking at) or endogenous factors (such as different
alleles) and is specifically *not* a consequence of the interaction of
the individual with its environment.

If there are no endogenous factors that affect the observed consequence
significantly and differentially, then the consequences observed are
entirely ascribed to chance (chaotic or uncontrollable factors).

the result is not the consequent of any
comparison.

Sometimes, of course, the consequence *is* the direct result of a
comparison. Organism with phenotype A (studmuffin) beats out organism
with phenotype B (nerd) for the babes in a direct comparison. But most
of the time, the comparison is done experimentally and is a
*population* measure. One is unable to determine whether any
particular consequence is due to *cause* or *chance*, but by looking at
the numbers in populations it is a snap. This is no more than saying
that one cannot tell, by looking at the result of a single coin flip,
if the coin is honest. One must look at a larger number of flips. If
the numbers don't differ *significantly* from a 50:50 ratio, we say the
coins, as far as we can tell, are honest. Similarly, if two
*populations*, differing in a phenotype, produce selective consequences
(whether that be average age, to the extent this would affect
reproduction, of survival or fertility) that don't differ significantly
from each other, then there is no selective difference between the two
phenotypes.

There are no comparisons in nature, there is no struggle,
that is just sumperimposed on nature by Darwinism.

At the population level, there are comparisons one can observe in
nature that differentiate between particular phenotypes. But these
need not involve struggle. Nor will there *necessarily* be a
significant difference in 'reproductive success' of different
phenotypes. Natural selection is not an inevitable consequence of
having different phenotypes. Change in allele frequencies over time
(aka evolution), however, *is* a consequence of genetic systems.

When Darwinists look to a meadow of grass they see a struggle of all
against all for reproduction in their imagination. What is actually
happening is grass working for what they do not know, all approaching
certain death, the one reproducing as a neccesary consequence of it's
interaction with the environment, the other not reproducing as a
neccessary consequence of the interaction with their environment. There
is no magical force of struggle between those that do, and those that
do not reproduce, it is all of neccessity. That is reality.

Then why does grass make so many unnecessary seeds? Why do they expend
so much energy and resources into reproduction? The reason is that
most of the seed will die because they are competing with other seeds
for the limited resources. OTOH, if they would only co-operate and
produce just enough seed to re-seed the field, they could reduce the
number of seed and the resources put into failed reproduction by orders
of magnitude. You are ignoring the Reverend Malthus's relentless
logic.

Essentially Darwinists are descibing two instances of the
preservationist logic of natural selection, one instance of being
selected against, and one instance of being selected for. Then they
muddle those 2 instances together as one by a comparison, differential
reproductive success, and then declare that to be the basic logic of
the way nature works in regards to reproduction and form.

Again, you show your utter inability to think in population terms. Can
you count past two? Do you think that biologists determine the effect
of phenotypes by examining only two organisms, one with phenotype A and
one with phenotype B? Are you really that ignorant of the scientific
method?

It is proven that the preservationist logic is beyond doubt. You can
only hope to make a sophisticated use of that basic logic. But we can
easily see all possible permutations in which this basic logic may be
applied, it doesn't really add any significant meaning to emphasize
some permutation of the basic logic. And emphasizing a permutation of
the basic logic that way, mainly tends to destroy the unity of our
understanding of nature, in regards to reproduction and form.

Was the above supposed to make some sort of sense?

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > Starting from Darwins conception of natural selection as beneficial ... individuals who were well adapted to *their* local environment. ... > possibilities of reproduction and no reproduction for the organism. ... To the extent that the phenotype is genetically ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Natural Selection and Canalization and Assimilation
    ... while the expressed phenotype is proportional to the amount of substance ... Make of major genes, minor genes and environment are additive. ... RENDEL 1967 considered that it ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... success for an organism by acting on phenotype. ... differential reproductive success causally correlated with genotype. ... of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable ... and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... success for an organism by acting on phenotype. ... differential reproductive success causally correlated with genotype. ... of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable ... and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Unfalsifiable Tautology = Evolution
    ... the idea of uniform rates of evolution are presented in the ... Variable one is phenotype, with phenotypes A and B, ... whether and in which direction the selection exists? ... Environment A being an environment with the antibiotic (the selective ...
    (talk.origins)