₦airaland Forum

sinequanon:
No. I will say that it is ill-defined, in that the notion of assigning number to assumption is ill-defined. So Occam's razor is a rather qualitative protocol. One assumption can be argued to be two, three, four... assumptions, depending on your philosophical framework.

You're right that Occam's razor is qualitative, you are also right that changing philosophical framework can change the way assumptions are perceived. However, if our philosophical framework is grounded in scientific method, then I don't think there can be any ambiguity about the quality and quantity of any assumptions made. Scientific propositions should be falsifiable, else, we're not discussing science anymore. Occam's razor is routinely used as a protocol to eliminate propositions that are irrefutable because they are unfalsifiable. For example, introducing directedness to natural evolutionary processes assumes that there is one or more sentient entities with unfathomably impressive capabilities, including the capability to make long term predictions about the environmental development of our planet, and/or outrightly exercise holistic control over it. Now, unless such an entity (or entities) can be defined in a testable way and shown to be a necessary actor in the evolutionary process, such a position is unfalsifiable. On the other hand, the position that evolution by natural selection is undirected needs not make assumptions about the existence, capabilities and interests of any sentient entities, it just needs to show that all the processes that cause evolution can be explained by naturally observable phenomena, and is thus, falsifiable. Occam's razor cuts away, and rightly so, the more superfluous of the two. I'm interested to read about your alternative framework within the realms of science that prefers directedness over undirectedness.

No. I have explained, already.
You earlier cited extinct species as "just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer".

I said that just because they became extinct does not mean that they had no purpose. Then I gave you the specific fact that the extinct ancestors of man gave rise to man. That could have been the purpose of the extinct lineage.

This is a baseless assumption. Maybe those extinct ancestors were the real purpose, and man is a virus-like mistake that led to their extinction. Do you now see the pointlessness of stamping a purpose on anything without first defining what that purpose may be? You must first show why man is a purpose, for your assumption to carry any weight! What about other extant species that came from the same extinct ancestors of man. Are they also a purpose? If so, what is that purpose?

I can concisely cite an inclusion of the fact, but not an omission in what is an extensive definition.

The wiki discourse omits the point. But obviously, I can't pinpoint where it is omitted, as there is no rule as to where it should go. Feel free to search through it. All I can say is that it is a sufficiently important premise that it would certainly have been included if intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You can also read the wiki article on the teleological argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

In order to demonstrate the supposed equivocation in ToE regarding directedness, you cited as an example for "undirectedness", one of Dawkin's books, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design", which is described on Wikipedia as "an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.". Now, by way of contrast, you have cited the Wiki discourse on evolution because it does not allude to "undirectedness". The link you shared is not a discussion about evolution by natural selection, it is about evolution in general, so there is no reason to for it to specify undirectedness. It is well known that directed evolution can and routinely does occur, which is why we have so many morbidly engineered dog breeds. In the page that specifically discusses natural selection, 'random mutations' was clearly stated as a way in which variations occur, from which natural selection (of the most adapted varieties) can then proceed.

So I'm still waiting for you to clarify the equivocation, because I see none so far.

In evolution by natural selection, a species can serve the purpose of giving rise to another species, and then become obsolete! So it has "served its purpose", and you can then say that it "ends up having no purpose". This is quite different to what you later wrote, that it was pointless.

So, when I say "in some sense", I am still referring to the context of evolution by natural selection.

The emboldened statement is inherently nonsensical, unless you're claiming natural forces are deliberate, or that the process of evolution can predict the forces of nature and prepare well in advance for any particular outcome. Is any of these your claim?

Even if we are to accept this study, you are misinterpreting it. It says that the 75% is NECESSARY! So it has at least the function of buffering deleterious mutations. By "non-functional", they are referring to more specific coding functions.

Also, what they are calling a "non-functional gene" can later, through mutation become functional.

So, that is two reasons why your characterization of the DNA as waste does not follow logically.

No, you're the one who has misinterpreted the study. It proceeds from three fundamental assumptions: (1) that mutations in the human genome are random, (2) they tend to be deleterious when they occur on functional genes, and (3) the deleterious mutations are subject to a fixed average rate per generation.
So yes, if mutations are random, and occur at a fixed rate, we'd better had a disproportionate amount of useless genomes to reduce the likelihood of random mutations damaging functional ones. That, or we should be able to reproduce a 100 million times for viability. There's no conceivable reason to consider a directed process which is so unnecessarily complex as explanation, when mindless nature is a simpler, demonstrable and generally more compelling explanation for the complexity. The only question then is whether these assumptions are justified. So do you reject the assumptions made in the paper?

"foresight or purpose" in the logical OR sense. BOTH must be absent.

Okay. I apologise for not paying attention to this vague definition earlier on. I shan't make that error twice! So, are you now saying 'directedness' is synonymous with foresight, even in the absence of purpose? If so, pray tell, what practical function does foresight alone serve in your so-called directedness, supposing there is no actual purpose?

As for the example, YOU cannot assume why the child is acting the way he is. It is my example.

I listed all the categories under which any reason you give will fall. Basically, the only scenario in which a child dancing crazy in the courtyard can be construed as undirected is one in which the child is truly crazy, and there's no reason why you, I, or any other person should make any assumptions about the purposefulness of the child's actions without being privy to his mental health history.

AgentOfAllah:
...

I am laughing.

You wrote a total mess up there, and completely lost track of the argument. It will be useless debating with you.

I'm not going to wade through the whole lot, correcting the mess, but if you pick any one of your objections, I can demonstrate how illogical you are. And I give you the pick, just to show you that I am not cherry-picking. No way will I go through the entire thing you wrote, containing so many inaccuracies.

As a small courtesy, I will take your first objection, regarding Occam's Razor. Science can be grounded by philosophy, not the other way round.

"However, if our philosophical framework is grounded in scientific method..."

Suppositions like this show that you are clueless about philosophy, and have a lot of reading to do. Sorry, but your above supposition is nonsense. The rest of your post is riddled with similar things. If you were to stand up and present such ideas in front of knowledgeable people, you would make a laughing stock of yourself. Sorry.

sinequanon:
I am laughing.

I am not sure what amuses you, but a good laugh is healthy, so laugh on.

You wrote a total mess up there, and completely lost track of the argument. It will be useless debating with you.

It could be the case that I've lost track and my argument is a total mess, but until you actually show me how so, I can't take your word for it.

I'm not going to wade through the whole lot, correcting the mess, but if you pick any one of your objections, I can demonstrate how illogical you are. And I give you the pick, just to show you that I am not cherry-picking. No way will I go through the entire thing you wrote, containing so many inaccuracies.

If you're tired of the conversation, it's okay, but don't patronise me. Whenever/if ever you're willing, everything I wrote is up there for you to shred. If it's as bad as you say, it shouldn't be difficult to counter, I imagine.

As a small courtesy, I will take your first objection, regarding Occam's Razor. Science can be grounded by philosophy, not the other way round.

"However, if our philosophical framework is grounded in scientific method..."

The emboldened is wrong! Logical positivism as well as experimental philosophy are both philosophical frameworks grounded in science. In fact, the relationship between philosophy and science is more of a feedback loop, rather than hierarchical, as you seem to suggest. I believe "armchair philosopher" is the appropriate pejorative term that describes people who hold tyrannically linear views such as yours.

Suppositions like this show that you are clueless about philosophy, and have a lot of reading to do. Sorry, but your above supposition is nonsense.

I wasn't aware this has now shifted from a discussion about evolution by natural selection to philosophy.

The rest of your post is riddled with similar things. If you were to stand up and present such ideas in front of knowledgeable people, you would make a laughing stock of yourself. Sorry.

Oh! I see, so you were tickled by my ideas, and you now feel the need to justify your delicate excitability. You obviously consider yourself a knowledgeable person. Well, let me be clear, I am not afraid to present my ideas in front of knowledgeable people. I freely admit that I am not, myself, knowledgeable, but I have been privileged to meet many in my life time, and one thing I am sure about is that knowledgeable people generally don't laugh at people for having contentious ideas, that's what crass ignoramuses who have arrogated omniscience to themselves do! Knowledgeable people debate the ideas and diligently point out the flaws without any drama. So if you're a knowledgeable person, you're an exotic breed! Meanwhile, it's beginning to look like you are incapable of defending your 'directedness' theory, so you have instead resorted to ad hominems. Well done!

AgentOfAllah:
Logical positivism as well as experimental philosophy are both philosophical frameworks grounded in science.

Wrong. Find yourself a primer in philosophy, and stop this clueless rambling.

http://kaimatai..jp/2016/06/how-improbable-is-it-that-proteins-can.html?m=1

Skimmed through this thread a few days ago and stumbled upon this blog today. Thought I should share as it explains this issue to a layman like me who knows fvck all about protein formation.

Akin1212:
You are seriously a fool.

- You said in the presence of water protein is immediately broken down into amino acids.

- Now, you are running everywhere to prove that water breaks down protein and you saw that it is a very slow process which takes several hundred of years. What does that mean to you?

- I told you that in science, when a reaction takes several hundreds of years, for example, 500 years, then it means it is impossible or nearly impossible.

- Nobody can start such experiment and observe it happen and because of this it is impossible.

- Now, tell me how your claim stands? Have you lived for a hundred of years before to see it happen? Don't forget you said it happens immediately.

So, in light of the above evidence you brought here, hydrolysis of water is impossible.

Good morning the fearless Akin

missyQween:
Good morning the fearless Akin

You found me here

Akin1212:
You found me here

Lol,Yeah
I heard,We won't be able to click for accommodation immediately after paying for school fees, How true is that ?