Darwin's theory

cdoherty86

Knasher wrote: »

I do strive to overcome the negative emotions I feel. And I strive to experience the positive emotions, because even if they are subjective illusions, so is my perception and I happen to enjoy the subjective illusion that is happiness, so why wouldn't I strive for it.

Because you might have offspring that can't enjoy the same perceptions of reality?

catallus

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

By Satan, for use in his butter

? Peanut butter is the work of the devil now?

But it tastes so nice

Hoop66

That's how they get ya...

Knasher

cdoherty86 wrote: »

what's the purpose of humanity?

The purpose of humanity, like the purpose of all living things, is to survive. How we go about that is really up to us.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

What's the purpose of the Elephant except making chopsticks for humans?

No purpose beyond survival. Though there are other species that are dependant on elephants. There are trees that depend on them for procreation for example.

cdoherty86

Akrasia wrote: »

What are you talking about?

The biosphere evolved over billions of years. All of life on earth evolved together into a complex interdependent biological system. Some species are more integral to the biosphere than others, but if earthworms were all disappeared from the planet in the morning, something else would take their place (after a suitable period of upheaval)

Earthworms don't depend on humans for survival so your belief we're interdependent isn't entirely accurate, is it?

Doctor Jimbob

paddy1990 wrote: »

Since we agree that emotions are just the activations of certain biochemical pathways, which arbitrarily formed due to being adaptive to generations of ancestors, then no matter what emotions you feel, there is an objective view of your subjective experience.

The Darwinist seems to AVOID integrating this objective Darwinian view of materialism into the centre of subjective consciousness.

If you accept what I've said about emotions and what they are and why we have them, which every Darwinian should, then why take them seriously? Why not reinterpret them as simply physical material that arbitrarily formed during the evolutionary process and not right or wrong in themselves? Why have strong opinions about anything?

If you interpret happiness, joy etc as simply physical material, the product of a physical process that just happened to create that particualr pathway for their activation, then, knowing how weak the basis and how false they are, why not strive to overcome them? Why does the Darwinist not strive to overcome their biasing influence, since it's objectively meaningless from a Darwinian point of view. This is where the delusion comes in. The Darwinist seems to actively buy into these biochemical based illusions, and live their lives accordingly.

Just because something has occurred as a result of biological processes rather than some alternative (which you still haven't put forward), doesn't mean that such things are meaningless. Clearly, we evolved to have these emotions for a reason. They are obviously beneficial to us as a species. You're acting as if because it's all biological it's false and meaningless, but that's a nonsense argument. I'd argue the opposite; that the very fact such things are part of our biology make them more meaningful, not less.

You go on to suggest that we could simply break free from these biological constraints. Really? Just break free from our genetic history, the very thing that has shaped all life over millions of years? As if it's a trivial thing that we should be above?

paddy1990 wrote: »

I should have pointed oout that I'm not arguing for god or religious in any way.

And to answer the above post, yes I understand all of that. My points go deeper

Then what are you arguing for?

cdoherty86

Knasher wrote: »

The purpose of humanity, like the purpose of all living things, is to survive. How we go about that is really up to us.

No purpose beyond survival. Though there are other species that are dependant on elephants. There are trees that depend on them for procreation for example.

Do Earthworms decide how they live their lives? No, they don't.
Humans have limited free will but that doesn't mean every other organism does.

Hoop66

catallus wrote: »

? Peanut butter is the work of the devil now?

But it tastes so nice

That's how they get ya...

I can't help but notice that Paddy1990 keeps using the term, beloved of creationists, "Darwinist" or "Darwinism".

paddy1990 wrote: »

...Darwinian logic.......Darwinists...pure Darwinism...

The main problem with this term is that science is about evidence and not personality cults, so naming a branch of science directly after its inventor or discoverer is a dubious practice at best. While great contributors to a field of study are respected, they are not worshiped and revered like gurus. It is interesting to note how this mentality of describing Darwin as the supposed "worshiped father of evolution" reflects the creationists' need for a worshiped father figure to be the head of everything.

It is like calling any one who accepts gravity exists "Newtonists" or those who accept relativity "Einsteinians" or "Galileans" as if the way that the universe works is a world view, passed down and declared from on high. Although Charles Darwin is a seminal figure in the modern theory of evolution, and his contribution is certainly recognized, there have been over 150 years of advancements since his initial publication of The Origin of Species - the study of evolution has expanded well beyond Darwin's original works and the ideas he outlined, namely that evolution can now be described in terms of DNA, something that Darwin was unaware of.

While it is certainly true that the "ism's" which are based on people's names (such as Thatcherism, Marxism, and Confucianism) obviously base their thoughts largely or entirely on the writings or thoughts of those individuals, the same cannot be said of "Darwinism". Therefore to think that a modern evolutionary biologist would hang on every word Darwin said as unchangeable gospel is certainly a parody of science that has no basis in reality.

Akrasia

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Niche? I didn't think an earthworm would discriminate when it came to what organic matter it would ingest and spit out.

If we are truly interdependent, what's the purpose of humanity?

What's the purpose of the Elephant except making chopsticks for humans?

Is that the best we can do?

There is no purpose.

Humans rely on the biosphere, and we also shape the biosphere. Humans have drastically reduced the populations of many many different species, but we have also massively increased the populations of others and fundamentally changed the ways many of them they look and behave through domestication.

All lifeforms act and react to the environment they find themselves in. There is no purpose behind any of it except that the powerful force of natural selection leads to the genes that are best suited to surviving and re-producing end up colonising the earth.

paddy1990

Knasher wrote: »

I do strive to overcome the negative emotions I feel. And I strive to experience the positive emotions, because even if they are subjective illusions, so is my perception and I happen to enjoy the subjective illusion that is happiness, so why wouldn't I strive for it.

Good. You are striving for an illusion. I still don't think you quite understand the implications of the meaningless and arbitrary nature of how that illusion formed and became hard wired into you.

For example, if generations of your ancestors went around killing and eating other people, so much so that this behavior was hard wired into them to produce happiness and joy, then your biochemical pathways for happiness, satisfaction, joy etc would be activated when you kill a person and eat them. Since your ancestors for generations upon generations did this. This is one example and what im trying to say here is that the actual biochemical pathway that gets activated (which in itself formed arbitrarily) is completely meaningless.

Emotions and beliefs are myths, in Darwinian logic. The only reason we have them is that they serve in the propagation of genes.

I believe that Darwinists refuse or cannot live their lives according to pure Darwinism because life would simply be completely meaningless. So they have to buy into this delusion.

I'm really trying to articulate the absolute meaningless of life in Darwinian terms.

Doctor Jimbob

Hoop66 wrote: »

That's how they get ya...

I can't help but notice that Paddy1990 keeps using the term, beloved of creationists, "Darwinist" or "Darwinism".

The main problem with this term is that science is about evidence and not personality cults, so naming a branch of science directly after its inventor or discoverer is a dubious practice at best. While great contributors to a field of study are respected, they are not worshiped and revered like gurus. It is interesting to note how this mentality of describing Darwin as the supposed "worshiped father of evolution" reflects the creationists' need for a worshiped father figure to be the head of everything.

It is like calling any one who accepts gravity exists "Newtonists" or those who accept relativity "Einsteinians" or "Galileans" as if the way that the universe works is a world view, passed down and declared from on high. Although Charles Darwin is a seminal figure in the modern theory of evolution, and his contribution is certainly recognized, there have been over 150 years of advancements since his initial publication of The Origin of Species - the study of evolution has expanded well beyond Darwin's original works and the ideas he outlined, namely that evolution can now be described in terms of DNA, something that Darwin was unaware of.

While it is certainly true that the "ism's" which are based on people's names (such as Thatcherism, Marxism, and Confucianism) obviously base their thoughts largely or entirely on the writings or thoughts of those individuals, the same cannot be said of "Darwinism". Therefore to think that a modern evolutionary biologist would hang on every word Darwin said as unchangeable gospel is certainly a parody of science that has no basis in reality.

Exactly. The field of evolutionary biology has moved on so much from Darwin's time. We know he was wrong about plenty of things. He put down a very, very important foundation, but that's all it is; a foundation.

cdoherty86

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no purpose.

Humans rely on the biosphere, and we also shape the biosphere. Humans have drastically reduced the populations of many many different species, but we have also massively increased the populations of others and fundamentally changed the ways many of them they look and behave through domestication.

So the purpose of humanity is to reduce other species to the point of extinction? Maybe you're right. Maybe the only point of humanity is to extinguish every other species before extinguishing ourselves.

However, the Earthworm, that tough guy that's existed for billions of years and something we depend on, but it doesn't depend on us, will still be around.

Unless of course you're suggesting we turn Earth into another piece of rock floating around in space to project our superiority.

Doctor Jimbob

cdoherty86 wrote: »

So the purpose of humanity is to reduce other species to the point of extinction? Maybe you're right. Maybe the only point of humanity is to extinguish every other species before extinguishing ourselves.

However, the Earthworm, that tough guy that's existed for billions of years and something we depend on, but it doesn't depend on us, will still be around.

Unless of course you're suggesting we turn Earth into another piece of rock floating around in space to project our superiority.

Who said we have a purpose?

cdoherty86

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Who said we have a purpose?

What's the purpose of the Earthworm?

Doctor Jimbob

cdoherty86 wrote: »

What's the purpose of the Earthworm?

To survive and pass on it's genes to the next generation, the same as the 'purpose' of every organism on this planet.

Knasher

paddy1990 wrote: »

Good. You are striving for an illusion. I still don't think you quite understand the implications of the meaningless and arbitrary nature of how that illusion formed and became hard wired into you.

For example, if generations of your ancestors went around killing and eating other people, so much so that this behavior was hard wired into them to produce happiness and joy, then your biochemical pathways for happiness, satisfaction, joy etc would be activated when you kill a person and eat them. Since your ancestors for generations upon generations did this. This is one example and what im trying to say here is that the actual biochemical pathway that gets activated (which in itself formed arbitrarily) is completely meaningless.

Yeah, I'm perfectly okay with all that. In fact there are species that carry on exactly like that, spiders, for example that eat their mates after sex. I'm certainly glad that I'm not part of a species that does that, though I say that subjectively as a human. I'd imagine if I was a spider I mightn't mind that much...

When do you get to the part that is meant to cause this big extensional crisis in me?

Akrasia

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Earthworms don't depend on humans for survival so your belief we're interdependent isn't entirely accurate, is it?

We rely on earthworms to compost plant matter, earthworms rely on plants for food, plants rely on water, humans irrigate the soil/divert water via dams/affect the climate.....

Panrich

paddy1990 wrote: »

Good. You are striving for an illusion. I still don't think you quite understand the implications of the meaningless and arbitrary nature of how that illusion formed and became hard wired into you.

For example, if generations of your ancestors went around killing and eating other people, so much so that this behavior was hard wired into them to produce happiness and joy, then your biochemical pathways for happiness, satisfaction, joy etc would be activated when you kill a person and eat them. Since your ancestors for generations upon generations did this. This is one example and what im trying to say here is that the actual biochemical pathway that gets activated (which in itself formed arbitrarily) is completely meaningless.

Emotions and beliefs are myths, in Darwinian logic. The only reason we have them is that they serve in the propagation of genes.

I believe that Darwinists refuse or cannot live their lives according to pure Darwinism because life would simply be completely meaningless. So they have to buy into this delusion.

I'm really trying to articulate the absolute meaningless of life in Darwinian terms.

You probably would not be a fan of Dawkins but he explains it well in his book 'The selfish gene'. We are all just here to pass on our genetic material and then wither and die like the flowers and every other living thing. Our emotions and feelings are part of the software that helps us achieve those goals.

catallus

""In the beginning was the WORD".....here I am stuck already." Goethe.

Akrasia

cdoherty86 wrote: »

So the purpose of humanity is to reduce other species to the point of extinction? Maybe you're right. Maybe the only point of humanity is to extinguish every other species before extinguishing ourselves.

I said 'there is no purpose' and your immediate reply is 'So the purpose of humanity is to reduce other species to the point of extinction'

Riiight

However, the Earthworm, that tough guy that's existed for billions of years and something we depend on, but it doesn't depend on us, will still be around.

so what.

Unless of course you're suggesting we turn Earth into another piece of rock floating around in space to project our superiority.

You've gone off the rails.

endacl

Akrasia wrote: »

We rely on earthworms to compost plant matter, earthworms rely on plants for food, plants rely on water, humans irrigate the soil/divert water via dams/affect the climate.....

Trout rely on humans to feed them earthworms on little hooks?

cdoherty86

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

To survive and pass on it's genes to the next generation, the same as the 'purpose' of every organism on this planet.

Earthworms have a function/purpose on this planet which millions of other organisms depend on, including you.

What organisms depend on human existence apart from cats and dogs in the western world.

You might have an indoor plant but none of these things really depend on you for survival.

Humans going extinct tomorrow would be inconsequential to the survival of every organism on earth.

Humans have no connection with the natural world. It doesn't matter if we go extinct.

endacl

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Earthworms have a function/purpose on this planet which millions of other organisms depend on, including you.

What organisms depend on human existence apart from cats and dogs in the western world.

You might have an indoor plant but none of these things really depend on you for survival.

Humans going extinct tomorrow would be inconsequential to the survival of every organism on earth.

Humans have no connection with the natural world. It doesn't matter if we go extinct.

I don't think I've ever read so much distilled essence of stupid condensed into such a short post.

Doctor Jimbob

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Earthworms have a function/purpose on this planet which millions of other organisms depend on, including you.

What organisms depend on human existence apart from cats and dogs in the western world.

You might have an indoor plant but none of these things really depend on you for survival.

Humans going extinct tomorrow would be inconsequential to the survival of every organism on earth.

Humans have no connection with the natural world. It doesn't matter if we go extinct.

Correct.

Are you actually suggesting that any other organism going extinct would have an effect on the survival of a significant number of species?

gladrags

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Earthworms don't depend on humans for survival so your belief we're interdependent isn't entirely accurate, is it?

We have to be interdependent,we would not survive,or have existed otherwise.

Just one of possibly thousands of examples.

Oxygen

cdoherty86

You have all made the argument we're interdependent.
Yet, you know this is false.

It doesn't matter if humans go extinct tomorrow. Nothing on this planet depends upon humanity surviving.

Eventually, you will die.

But you won't accept this...you can't accept death and you can't accept you're inconsequential to survival of earth.

paddy1990

Panrich wrote: »

You probably would not be a fan of Dawkins but he explains it well in his book 'The selfish gene'. We are all just here to pass on our genetic material and then wither and die like the flowers and every other living thing. Our emotions and feelings are part of the software that helps us achieve those goals.

I've read the book and agree with this.

People who believe this stuff tend to delude themselves about the real implications though. They are just as deluded as the religious people they bang on about.

Cianmcliam

cdoherty86 wrote: »

You have all made the argument we're interdependent.
Yet, you know this is false.

It doesn't matter if humans go extinct tomorrow. Nothing on this planet depends upon humanity surviving.

Eventually, you will die.

But you won't accept this...you can't accept death and you can't accept you're inconsequential to survival of earth.

I've heard there's a certain species of head lice that are unique to human hair, so it would be bad news for them if we all pop our clogs.

Knasher

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Earthworms have a function/purpose on this planet which millions of other organisms depend on, including you.

Sure

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Humans going extinct tomorrow would be inconsequential to the survival of every organism on earth.

Well, not inconsequential, some will survive better, some worse. Some would go extinct along with us. But the majority would be fine.

I don't really see what point you are trying to make though. There are varying levels of dependence, I don't think anyone would argue that a single species going extinct would lead to the extinction of all other life. After all 99% of species have gone extinct, yet we survive.

endacl

cdoherty86 wrote: »

You have all made the argument we're interdependent.
Yet, you know this is false.

It doesn't matter if humans go extinct tomorrow. Nothing on this planet depends upon humanity surviving.

Eventually, you will die.

But you won't accept this...you can't accept death and you can't accept you're inconsequential to survival of earth.

No. It's true, as part of an emergent and constantly (and I hesitate to use the word. Who knows what you'll decide it means...?) evolving system.

The rest of your post? No individual, of any species, ever, has been of any consequence to the 'survival of Earth' (whatever your wooly thinking understands that to mean).

The removal of a key component to an evolving and dynamic system doesn't destroy a system. It simply alters the parameters that define the next phase of its development.