The Ant and the Blade of Grass

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
he literally wrote an entire book focusing nearly exclusively on this very question - The Blind Watchmaker from 1986.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the primary reason for my previous post.

[TimM]

So what does he want?

[All-In Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it logical to conclude that a magician possesses real magical abilities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism

Within evolutionary thought, the mechanistic thinking is represented by the school of neo-Darwinism, which is taught today as established theory of evolution in biology departments around the world. It is important, in my view, to distinguish between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.

Darwin’s central insight that all forms of life have emerged from a common ancestry by a continuous process of variations, followed by natural selection, is accepted by all serious scientists today. What is mechanistic is the neo-Darwinist assertion that all evolutionary variation results from random mutations—that is, from random genetics changes—followed by natural selection. The geneticist Jacques Monod expressed the neo-Darwinist dogma clearly and forcefully: "Chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere."

In evolutionary thought, then, the debate between vitalism and mechanism is reduced to two stark alternatives. The source of nature’s creativity is either a purposeful design, or a series of random genetic changes.



[/ QUOTE ]

Fritjopf Capra http://www.cts.cuni.cz/conf98/capra.htm

Is There Purpose in Nature?


Is Man a part of this Nature and does Man move and live under the aegis of random mutations?

Do random mutations create matter?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the beginning of chapter 2:


[/ QUOTE ]

Impeccable logic, who can argue with that?

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the beginning of chapter 2:


[/ QUOTE ]

Impeccable logic, who can argue with that?

[/ QUOTE ]
That whizzing you hear is the sound of the point sailing right past you.

YOU: "The problem with Einstein is he never considered the problem of relativity."
REST OF WORLD: "What the [censored]?"

[carlo]

I'm waiting for the answer.

[qwnu]

Yes, Yes, No. Happy?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Yes, No. Happy?


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there were only 2 questions. The first apparent question was the name of the article by Capra. If the answer to the "matter" query is no then the mechanistic evolutionist is obliged to relate his "mechanism" to the creative process and for what appears to be "matter".

[ QUOTE ]
The geneticist Jacques Monod expressed the neo-Darwinist dogma clearly and forcefully: "Chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere."


[/ QUOTE ]

He is obviously using "creation" in a

limited sense if the answer is no(or is he?). The logical conclusion is that he sees man as a dumbed down piece of matter following unseen and unknowing necessity for which he has no control.

The funny thing is that Dennett, in the video, all of a sudden makes Man creative as shown by the example of the "gleaming plant".

If there is mechanistic mutation and Man stands within this there cannot be any room for creativity unless your gene becomes creative through randomization.Strange, more like the "genie in the bottle".

The arguement between purpose and mechanistic mutation is stark and that means that both of them lack substance(according to Capra).

So what is being said is that we are all on this ship which sails out to the cosmic sea and earthly home as cogs on a wheel with nothin to say about this, the earthly animal.An animal doesn't think and responds to the outside and that is what we do.

That is the Man of Mechanistic Darwinism. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That whizzing you hear is the sound of the point sailing right past you.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't the point sailing past me, it's the logic, which I suspect sails past because it's illusory. Assertion logic isn't.