Dr Rick

Keith's claim:

...is a simple error in reasoning known as the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; it starts with two correct assumptions about evolution and reproduction, but then interposes two new terms: nature and purpose.

To have been an attempt at a rational argument, the assumptions should have included or at least said something about nature and purpose, because as it stands now, the conclusion doesn't even remotely follow from the assumptions.

This gibberish, though technically correct, only compounds Keith's error; it introduces another fallacy known as a non sequitur that does not relate back to the original argument.

This is another error; not only is it also a non sequitur, but it is factually wrong and actually contradicts the last non sequitur; "species" don't have to "somehow make reproduction happen." In fact, over 95% of all species that ever existed ultimately failed to propagate and became extinct.

Keith's fallaciously reasoned claim about nature's "purpose" argues AGAINST intelligent design because the purpose he arbitrarily assumes nature should have is overwhelmingly unmet in reality. Keith claims that the purpose of nature is propagation of species, yet most species ultimately fail to propagate, and therefore fail to meet Keith's putative purpose of nature. Overwhelming failure is not the hallmark of intelligent design, and though it doesn't disprove intelligent design, it argues against it.

Rick

LordSnooty

Nature does not worry about anything.

Reproduction occurs because creatures are compelled to reproduce. Not by nature, and not by God. If an animal is not compelled to reproduce, it dies without mating, and so doesn't pass on those anti-mating genes.

If it does reproduce - hooray, it has passed on genetic information, which is naturally conductive to evolution.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Presumably you are attracted to (some) female humans - why do you think that is? It's genetic. You are genetically predisposed to have sex with women. There isn't some strange 'mother nature' fairy flying about and pairing us up.

Good grief, how could anyone not know this? Your ignorance of science and nature is virtually beyond belief.

Also: Evolution has no purpose. Evolution simply happens because all living creatures are genetically endowed with the desire to reproduce. Those best suited for survival in any particular environment will likely reproduce more than those unsuited to it. Thus genetic traits which encourage the survival of individuals will eventually become commonplace.

I request - nay, I demand - that you read the above paragraph again and again, until it finally penetrates your skull and lodges itself into the pile of red flavoured jelly that is your brain.

I have just read this entire thread from start to finish, and whilst I initially found some humour in your wacky misunderstandings and chucklesome misconceptions, I find that after twelve pages my capacity for deriving humour from ignorance has been sorely diminished.

Thank you.

Paul

Happy Wonderer

To be a bit nitpicky: I like it better as "...because all living creatures had parents who were genetically endowed with the ability to reproduce." Not even all humans who reproduce actually desired to do so, and there are sterile creatures. Desire implies cognition, and it seems unlikely that creatures such as bacteria and amoeba possess such a facility.

HW

LordSnooty

Well, obviously with bacteria and such, you're quite right. But for mammals, the genetic 'desire' for breeding must be passed along since mammalian copulation can't really occur by chance. Except in those cases where innocent games of Twister go horribly wrong.

Actually I was trying to think of a way to say that without using words which would lead Keith to believe that he was right all along (words such as 'compulsion', 'driven', and particularly 'purpose' are all proven to incite him into a creationist lather). As it was, I opted for the easy option and described it in the most basic way that I could manage.

Paul

Principia

Actually, I would encourage people to use those words as much as they can, because it only serves to highlight Keith's faulty logic that overt purpose necessitates his personal God. Put another way, one can subjectively find purpose in just about anything, without any a priori religious commitments. But, noone is quite able to say with any certainty and objectivity what the ultimate purpose of any process is -- and thus, the major problem of teleological reasoning in science. That is where Keith resorts to the lame excuse that his God could have any ol' purpose that we mere mortals don't have a clue about. Y'see, here is the weakness in Keith's argument: On the one hand he waves his hands about and screams "Look, there is purpose in Nature blah blah blah." But when pressed more deeply about the details of the purpose, he falls back to the Creato refrain that his God is mysterious.

Remember folks, Keith has no issues with evolution. Keith has no issues with the fact that his God is an incompetent designer. Keith has no issues with the fact that his God exhibits no interest in the welfare of his designs. So, what Keith has left with is a design argument... and thousands of years after the inception of the first design argument, we all know how that argument has taken humanity nowhere with regards to scientific advancement.

Happy Wonderer

:notworthy

Thanks, I needed that!

I'm just trying to make the point that the kids steaming up the windows of the car on lover's lane are hoping not to get the female pregnant -- or at least afterwords they are hoping that they didn't.

HW

LordSnooty

Absolutely, yes. I should have said we all have a desire to copulate, but not necessarily a desire to breed.

Mother nature, like all mothers, is evil and wishes to trick us into reproducing.

Paul

Happy Wonderer

I'm waiting for the Argumentum ad Saddam part that usually occurs about now. When all your arguments have been shot from the sky and you have retreated from your original position, declare victory and go home.


HW

beausoleil

Desire or ability, the reproduction surely doesn't come before evolution. The ability is the first thing that is selected for where evolution merges with abiogenesis. Not being able to reproduce is the most unfavourable trait anything can possibly have.

As for the whole survival-goal thing, it's a misunderstanding.

Traits arise at random and can be inherited. Some help their possessors have more success in reproducing than others. Those traits that promote success are more likely to dominate future generations. Such a process can make some pretty complicated things given time. There's plenty of time.

Keith

I'm not a great believer in TOE. I'm saying that nothing we're able to observe in nature shows complexity with high information content arising spontaneously without any human manipulation to get things started.

Keith