Has evolution theory got religion?

[John Jones]

Is modern evolution theory, by promoting survival, promoting supernaturalism?

 

I am a hard-nosed scientist and analytic philosopher. I have noticed that evolution theory denies yet promotes supernaturalism. It is this two-facedness that I object to.

 

1) I am told that "copying" is the key to survival. Surely, this is nonsense. If I make a copy of myself do I survive if I, the original, dies? Of course not. Neither do my genes survive. New ones might have been made along the way but that is not "survival" of anything.

 

But, I hear the objection, it isn't the physical form that survives death, it is the pattern of the physical form that survives. Well, no. No - unless we want to promote animism by saying that patterns survive, like souls, across the boundary of death.

 

So is modern evolution theory, by promoting survival, promoting supernaturalism? Yes.

 

2) We are also occasionally told that life forms are blind machines. But this is animism if it isn't just a plain contradiction. A machine is a humanly-defined set of objects employed for a particular task. The very fact that there is a machine/task indicates a non-material agency that defines the physical limits of a machine.

 

My conclusion? It looks to me as though much of modern evolution theory has mucked up the facts of evolution by giving them a religious gloss in its talk of selfishness, machines and "survival". As a scientist I find this two-faced and objectionable.

[-Demosthenes-]

Rather than being philosophical the theory of evolution merely explains a natural observable process.

[Mr Skeptic]

1) What survives when something is copied and the original destroyed is the copy, not the original. You as a person are both your genes and life experiences (simplifying). When you reproduce sexually a random half of your genes will be passed on each time. When you die, the remainder of your genes that were not passed on are lost if there were no other copies elsewhere, and your life experiences are also lost. Your offspring will not have your memories. If you want to copy yourself you'd have to find a way to copy your memories and all the details of your body not determined by genetics.

 

If you want something that "lives forever" you could go with bacteria (or human cancer cells). These have no significant memory and their reproduction is asexual so they make (almost) genetically identical copies of themselves, usually of the same size and pretty much indistinguishable. If one of these then dies, was it the copy or the original?

 

2) Machines are not only made by humans. The simplest machine is a lever, and levers exist in the natural world (eg a good stick). Anything can be treated as a machine, for example the weather could be treated as a machine for cycling water. Its just a way of understanding how things work, by breaking it down into individual pieces with a specific function, when the whole is too complicated to study.

[swansont]

 

My conclusion? It looks to me as though much of modern evolution theory has mucked up the facts of evolution by giving them a religious gloss in its talk of selfishness, machines and "survival". As a scientist I find this two-faced and objectionable.

 

Perhaps, as a scientist, you could investigate evolution a little more thoroughly. The two claims you state are inaccurate.

[John Jones]

1) What survives when something is copied and the original destroyed is the copy, not the original.

 

This is what I am objecting to. Neither I nor the copy survives. Both will die. The copy is not a survival of anything.

 

You as a person are both your genes and life experiences (simplifying). When you reproduce sexually a random half of your genes will be passed on each time.

 

My genes do not get passed on. My genes die. If I make another gene like them, then that is not survival. And "passing a gene on" is a supernatural event. To what do I pass on a gene?

 

When you die, the remainder of your genes that were not passed on are lost if there were no other copies elsewhere, and your life experiences are also lost. Your offspring will not have your memories. If you want to copy yourself you'd have to find a way to copy your memories and all the details of your body not determined by genetics.

 

I was hoping that the idea that making a copy is making something "survive" across the boundary of death would be understood as a supernatural process.

 

If you want something that "lives forever" you could go with bacteria (or human cancer cells). These have no significant memory and their reproduction is asexual so they make (almost) genetically identical copies of themselves, usually of the same size and pretty much indistinguishable. If one of these then dies, was it the copy or the original?

 

If a bacterium divides into two then the bacterium dies and its substance is used to make two others. But if a bacterium creates another like it then that would not help either of them survive.

 

2) Machines are not only made by humans. The simplest machine is a lever, and levers exist in the natural world (eg a good stick). Anything can be treated as a machine, for example the weather could be treated as a machine for cycling water. Its just a way of understanding how things work, by breaking it down into individual pieces with a specific function, when the whole is too complicated to study.

 

That also is my objection. By seeing the inanimate world as providing a source of human actions and significances then we practice anthropomorphic animism.

 

Science is muddied with supernaturalism, animism etc. Science is about facts and must stick to the facts and not embellish them with non-scientific values.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is what I am objecting to. Neither I nor the copy survives. Both will die. The copy is not a survival of anything.

Why not? If the copy becomes part of your child, and the child survives after you do, the copy has survived.

 

My genes do not get passed on. My genes die. If I make another gene like them, then that is not survival. And "passing a gene on" is a supernatural event. To what do I pass on a gene?

Your descendants. You pass a copy of the gene on to your descendents. Yes, the original copy is gone, but a functional gene that does the same thing is now in your descendants, and in their descendants, and so on.

 

I was hoping that the idea that making a copy is making something "survive" across the boundary of death would be understood as a supernatural process.

It's merely a bad analogy by biologists. Genes aren't alive and they don't "survive." But a particular gene can be passed on from parent to child through the generations.

 

If a bacterium divides into two then the bacterium dies and its substance is used to make two others. But if a bacterium creates another like it then that would not help either of them survive.

The bacterium never "dies," actually. Take a look at how the bacterial reproduction cycle works. The bacteria is alive the entire time...

 

Science is muddied with supernaturalism, animism etc. Science is about facts and must stick to the facts and not embellish them with non-scientific values.

I think you're the one reinterpreting it to have nonscientific values.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, and another thing: Why is it you are saying that machines have souls (and presumably by contrast living things don't)? And that science is promoting this view? I think you'd better go look up animism as well. Anyhow, I haven't seen any souls, not in humans and not in animals. But that's not the same as saying animals have souls.

 

As for copies of genes, genes are just chemicals and identical chemicals can be made (in theory, in practice there are some slight differences in isotopes for such large chemicals). More to the point, the information in the genes is what is important, and that gets copied (with occasional mutation). The information is not lost until all copies are lost, thus copying can ensure the survival of the information even if the individual copies are lost.

 

This is by no means unique to biology. For example, the books of the Bible have been copied many times. Even if the original gets destroyed, people won't suddenly go saying each different copy is a different book, even if technically it is, because it is the information and not the physical book they are talking about.

[mississippichem]

I don't see why the philosphical implications of evolution have any effect on its truth value at all. The mecahnics of evolution are well documented and have roots all the way back to "Mendel's Peas" and old theories of inheritence. As a "hard-nosed" scientist, surley you can cite some specific example of how evolution has "mucked" up the facts? If a scientific theory makes testable predictions, or yields a model that represents reality reasonably well, the "religious-gloss" should be of no matter unless it causes the drawing of illogical conclusions.

 

We are also occasionally told that life forms are blind machines. But this is animism if it isn't just a plain contradiction...

 

This is actally just shy of the opposite of animism. The Shinto religion would be a better example of animism if I remember correctly.

[John Jones]

Cap'n Refsmmat' Why not? If the copy becomes part of your child, and the child survives after you do, the copy has survived.

 

The copy does not survive. It was created, not "passed on", and continues to exist in a number of places until it decays. That is the physical reality. There is no process of getting "passed on".

 

Your descendants. You pass a copy of the gene on to your descendents. Yes, the original copy is gone, but a functional gene that does the same thing is now in your descendants, and in their descendants, and so on.

 

You say that the functional gene does the same thing when it gets passed on. But the physical gene does not get passed on to anything. And "does the same thing" isn't survival.

 

It's merely a bad analogy by biologists. Genes aren't alive and they don't "survive." But a particular gene can be passed on from parent to child through the generations.

 

Again, there is nothing that receives, and so nothing that gets "passed on".

 

The bacterium never "dies," actually. Take a look at how the bacterial reproduction cycle works. The bacteria is alive the entire time...

Generally, survival means being alive. I think you're the one reinterpreting it to have nonscientific values

 

Survival doesn't just mean being alive. Survival is survival from some catastrophe or threat. In this case, the threat is death, and "getting passed on" or "copying" is claimed to be the means to survive it.

 

If the bacteria lives for ever (does anything do that?) then it does not "survive", unless you want to say that being alive is survival. But survival is survival OF something. Evolution theory claims that it is survival across the boundary of death through "copying" and getting "passed on". But these are supernatural claims, if not entirely logically coherent.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The copy does not survive. It was created, not "passed on", and continues to exist in a number of places until it decays. That is the physical reality. There is no process of getting "passed on".

So? The choice of terminology to describe how a copy of a gene exists in descendants says nothing supernatural.

 

You say that the functional gene does the same thing when it gets passed on. But the physical gene does not get passed on to anything. And "does the same thing" isn't survival.

Why not?

 

Survival doesn't just mean being alive. Survival is survival from some catastrophe or threat. In this case, the threat is death, and "getting passed on" or "copying" is claimed to be the means to survive it.

 

If the bacteria lives for ever (does anything do that?) then it does not "survive", unless you want to say that being alive is survival. But survival is survival OF something. Evolution theory claims that it is survival across the boundary of death through "copying" and getting "passed on". But these are supernatural claims, if not entirely logically coherent.

 

survive, v:

to remain or continue in existence or use:

Ancient farming methods still survive in the Middle East.

Genes can't remain in existence?

 

[John Jones]

'mississippichem' timestamp

I don't see why the philosphical implications of evolution have any effect on its truth value at all.

 

Yes, I know that is true. But if the facts are interpreted as values then the social impact of science - its place in our society, changes. Now my claim was that science should stick to the facts and not falsely promote itself as a movement or cause or as an arbiter of human values.

 

The mecahnics of evolution are well documented and have roots all the way back to "Mendel's Peas" and old theories of inheritence. As a "hard-nosed" scientist, surley you can cite some specific example of how evolution has "mucked" up the facts?

 

That was what my post was about. I am NOT arguing against the facts of evolution. I am arguing against the value-ridden, anthropomorphic, animistic, supernatural interpretations we place on those facts. Perhaps you see these interpretations as essential to the theory.

 

If a scientific theory makes testable predictions, or yields a model that represents reality reasonably well, the "religious-gloss" should be of no matter unless it causes the drawing of illogical conclusions.

 

I agree. It does not affect the facts, as you said at the start. But it does make illogical proposals (like the process of copying or "passing on", and "survival") even if doesn't draw illogical conclusions. This affects the way we think about ourselves and life in general. For example, it is entirely inappropriate for some evolutionists to justify altruism on the back of the facts of evolution.

 

This is actally just shy of the opposite of animism. The Shinto religion would be a better example of animism if I remember correctly.

 

 

I don't know Shintoism, but at least I would hope that if they are animists then they would say so.

[Ophiolite]

Modern evolutionary theory does not, as you claim, promote survival. You are attacking a strawman. Another poster suggested you need to study evolution a little more closely. I suggst you need to study the English language, and its rich heritage of using metaphor, a little more closely.

 

The processes of sexual and asexual reproduction are quite well understood. The consistency with which genes are duplicated in these processes have been documented with some precision. We have chosen to call these processes survival of the genes, or passing on the genetic heritage. It is well understood, at least by scientists, that these are convenient short hand terms. Survival in this context does not imply some kind of life-after-death, supernatural survival, any more than passing on the genetic heritage means that the DNA involved has passed on to a higher plane of existence.

 

Secondly, you claim that evolutionary theory promotes survival. Again, you seem to have real difficulties with using words as they are used by the rest of the planet. (If you choose to do so it is little surprise that you are confused.) Promote implies (stronglyimplies) that a great, central tenet of evolutionary theory is survival. It doesn't. Evolutionary theory merely uses, as has been noted above, the word survival as a convenient short hand for a suite of processes. You are conflating wholly different meanings of the words promote and survival to posit a set of beliefs that scientists do not actually hold.

 

Rather than putting energy into attacking an imagined, but wholly ephemeral 'supernatural' twist to evolutionary theory, you would better occupied in learning how the English works. It has a rich heritage of using metaphor that has survived since the days of Shakespeare and even thoseof Chaucer.

[pioneer]

If an animal evolved a new behavior, which gave it selective advantage, which is passed on genetically, we would associate that with evolution. About 6-10K years ago, humans evolved the behavior that we call religion, which quickly gained those with this behavior a selective advantage. This new behavior allowed an advantage over apeman and caveman.

 

In its early days, history shows that the humans who made use of this new religious behavior, would gain dominion over those without this new behavior. Religion had its appeal, because a natural propensity for this had evolved. As time when on, other competing human behavior also appear. Evolution is not about a goal or even progress, since evolution is blind. It is random. Even when reason appears, such as at the time of ancient Greece, the human behavior of religion still led evolution, due to selective advantage. More humans went that way, implicit of the selective advantage.

 

If evolution had a goal in mind, one may argue one or the other is more progressive. But evolution, according to the theory has no goal in mind. Therefore evolution simply comes down to selective advantage and breeding, with religion outbreeding atheism. Instinctively, the religious breed more, implicit of their position at the front of evolution. Atheism tend to concede this, coming up with restrictive breeding behavior (limit offspring) and abortion to maintain their second tier within evolution. Like with animals, the dominant male breeds, which in this case has the antlers of religion. The other males concede this victory and restrict their breeding behavior.

Edited October 18, 2010 by pioneer

[John Jones]

Modern evolutionary theory does not, as you claim, promote survival. You are attacking a strawman. Another poster suggested you need to study evolution a little more closely. I suggst you need to study the English language, and its rich heritage of using metaphor, a little more closely.

 

The processes of sexual and asexual reproduction are quite well understood. The consistency with which genes are duplicated in these processes have been documented with some precision. We have chosen to call these processes survival of the genes, or passing on the genetic heritage. It is well understood, at least by scientists, that these are convenient short hand terms. Survival in this context does not imply some kind of life-after-death, supernatural survival, any more than passing on the genetic heritage means that the DNA involved has passed on to a higher plane of existence.

 

Secondly, you claim that evolutionary theory promotes survival. Again, you seem to have real difficulties with using words as they are used by the rest of the planet. (If you choose to do so it is little surprise that you are confused.) Promote implies (stronglyimplies) that a great, central tenet of evolutionary theory is survival. It doesn't. Evolutionary theory merely uses, as has been noted above, the word survival as a convenient short hand for a suite of processes. You are conflating wholly different meanings of the words promote and survival to posit a set of beliefs that scientists do not actually hold.

 

Rather than putting energy into attacking an imagined, but wholly ephemeral 'supernatural' twist to evolutionary theory, you would better occupied in learning how the English works. It has a rich heritage of using metaphor that has survived since the days of Shakespeare and even thoseof Chaucer.

 

(This looks as though you are working toward getting me banned. You will succeed, if not now, then probably quite soon, if you are not a moderator already. Nevertheless, I will politely respond.)

 

It is no contrived technical artifact or coincidence that the term "survival", in its ordinary usage, has been tagged to the descriptions of the inanimate chemical reactions and physical positions of the anthropomorphised chemicals we care to call "genes".

 

Why is this? The "survival" metaphor was needed to serve a popular predeliction for using the facts of science to make some moral stand, in this case a stand on life and its forms. Thus, an antidote to the selfish behaviour that evolutionists believe attended any object that "survives" was offered in Dawkinian "altruism".

 

Such imaginative moral ventures fall at the very point at which they appear to be justified. For example, an evolutionary antidote for selfish behaviour is only necessary if an object adjusts its behaviour to survive its own death. Such behaviour evolutionists call "passing on" or similar. Yet, it is clear that genes, life-forms, or more generally "survival-objects", do not survive their own deaths in the chemicals (genes, etc) that they produce, nor can be expected to. These are consequences of their being physical, chemical facts.

 

It was for moral reasons that the "selfish" evolutionary "metaphor" was invented. This invention has been passed off as a technical ellipsis, or as "art-literary" metaphor. And its invention is also illustrative of a need that even scientists have - transcendence; in this case to construct a system where death appears to be transcended, or at least a contortion of it. These needs have tainted the language of the physical study of evolution. It is regrettable that such careless, extravagent, moral ventures for the most part go unnoticed, and even more regrettable that they are promoted when they are noticed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

(This looks as though you are working toward getting me banned. You will succeed, if not now, then probably quite soon, if you are not a moderator already. Nevertheless, I will politely respond.)

 

We do not arbitrarily ban people when we disagree with them. We ban people when they violate our clearly spelled-out rules, which you are free to read.

[swansont]

 

That was what my post was about. I am NOT arguing against the facts of evolution. I am arguing against the value-ridden, anthropomorphic, animistic, supernatural interpretations we place on those facts. Perhaps you see these interpretations as essential to the theory.

 

These "interpretations" are manufactured.

 

Regarding premise #1: Evolution does not say '"copying" is the key to survival.' A much more accurate summary is that those with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass along their genes, and as a result, those traits will tend to persist in a population. The argument about survival is a strawman.

 

Regarding premise #2: This is equivocation. Animals are not machines. This sounds like a skewed interpretation of saying that evolution does not have a goal, in the sense that it is not directed by anything but the current selection pressure. With maybe a bit of acknowledging that evolution is a feedback process sprinkled in.

[Ophiolite]

(This looks as though you are working toward getting me banned. ........ Nevertheless, I will politely respond.)

I am not a moderator. I have no reason, at present to wish to see you banned. I am at a loss to understand why you would think this. I am also puzzled as to why you have decided to politely respond. You imply I have given you cause not to respond politely. Perhaps you could point out where I have been offensive. I have attacked your argument and your abuse of semantics, since objectively your arguments and your semantics are extremely weak. That's what happens in a discussion forum: we attack weak arguments - hell we attack strong arguments. The strong arguments stand up, the weak ones fall down.

 

It is no contrived technical artifact or coincidence that the term "survival", in its ordinary usage, has been tagged to the descriptions of the inanimate chemical reactions and physical positions of the anthropomorphised chemicals we care to call "genes".

I never said it was a contrived technical artifact or coincidence that survival was used as it is: I clearly stated that it was deliberate metphorical usage designed as convenient shorthand. I have no trouble, and no scientist I know of has any trouble, recognising that this usage, and the anthropomorphic metaphors surrounding genes, are nothing more than convenient metaphors. You seem to have a literalism hang up that is distorting your view of reality.

 

Why is this? The "survival" metaphor was needed to serve a popular predeliction for using the facts of science to make some moral stand, in this case a stand on life and its forms.

Science does not use the facts of science to make moral stands. Science is amoral. Science, as noted, uses the metaphor to simplify discussion. If others choose to abuse the findings and language of science to make some moral stand that should be taken up with those individuals and groups, not with science.

 

 

Thus, an antidote to the selfish behaviour that evolutionists believe attended any object that "survives" was offered in Dawkinian "altruism".

I do not have the faintest idea what you mean by this sentence. If it is important to your argument please clarify.

 

 

Yet, it is clear that genes, life-forms, or more generally "survival-objects", do not survive their own deaths in the chemicals (genes, etc) that they produce, nor can be expected to. These are consequences of their being physical, chemical facts.

Exactly so. No one is arguing against this. You are assigning a meaning to survive that is not applicable to its usage in the context of gene transmission. It's a strawman argument of zero value and even less interest.

 

It was for moral reasons that the "selfish" evolutionary "metaphor" was invented. This invention has been passed off as a technical ellipsis, or as "art-literary" metaphor. And its invention is also illustrative of a need that even scientists have - transcendence; in this case to construct a system where death appears to be transcended, or at least a contortion of it. These needs have tainted the language of the physical study of evolution. It is regrettable that such careless, extravagent, moral ventures for the most part go unnoticed, and even more regrettable that they are promoted when they are noticed.

If you are trying to say Dawkins is a bit of prat you will get no argument from me. If you are trying to conflate Dawkins' views with those of all evolutionary biologists then I shall argue until the bovines are domiciled.

 

Edited for a plethora of typographical errors.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Ophiolite

[John Jones]

We do not arbitrarily ban people when we disagree with them. We ban people when they violate our clearly spelled-out rules, which you are free to read.

 

You make a threat.

 

I am not a moderator. I have no reason, at present to wish to see you banned. I am at a loss to understand why you would think this. I am also puzzled as to why you have decided to politely respond. You imply I have given you cause not to respond politely. Perhaps you could point out where I have been offensive. I have attacked your argument and your abuse of semantics, since objectively your arguments and your semantics are extremely weak.

 

I am sorry. There is no point of equivalence here.

 

These "interpretations" are manufactured.

 

Regarding premise #1: Evolution does not say '"copying" is the key to survival.' A much more accurate summary is that those with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass along their genes, and as a result, those traits will tend to persist in a population. The argument about survival is a strawman.

 

Regarding premise #2: This is equivocation. Animals are not machines. This sounds like a skewed interpretation of saying that evolution does not have a goal, in the sense that it is not directed by anything but the current selection pressure. With maybe a bit of acknowledging that evolution is a feedback process sprinkled in.

 

 

But in premise #1. you use the word "advantageous". My question is, "advantageous to what"?

 

Regarding premise #2, I never said that animals were machines.

 

Also, a machine is only called a machine by virtue of the goals we see it perform for us. Where there is a machine, there is, necessarily, life and purpose.

Edited October 20, 2010 by John Jones

[Ophiolite]

You make a threat.

He gives you friendly advice. You appear to have come her with the express view of getting yourself banned as some weird way of justifying the notion that your ideas are being unfairly condemned.

 

I am sorry. There is no point of equivalence here.

I am sorry. I don't know what you mean. I suspect you mean you disagree with me strongly. If so please address at least some of my points in detail. I have shown you the respect of taking considerable time to examine and critique your views. The least you can do is accord me similar respect and address some of the counterpoints I have raised.

 

The points i have made might be invalid - clearly I think not - but if you close your eyes to them how do you expect to advance your case? There are four principle reasons you may have come here:

1. To convince others of your thesis.

2. To explore weaknesses in your thesis.

3. To await the applause of people agreeing with you.

4. To seek self confirmation of prejudice by being pilloried.

 

Reasons 1. and 2. are honourable. If either is your reason you will respond to my points. If 3. or 4. are your goals, you will ignore me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You make a threat.

No, I do not. Everyone is subject to the same rules, which you are free to read. You are not in violation of any that I know of.

[swansont]

 

But in premise #1. you use the word "advantageous". My question is, "advantageous to what"?

 

Surviving to reproduce. There are traits which increase the probability this will occur.

 

Regarding premise #2, I never said that animals were machines.

 

 

 

I guess I was misled by "We are also occasionally told that life forms are blind machines." How should I have interpreted that statement?

[Edtharan]

Is modern evolution theory, by promoting survival, promoting supernaturalism?

 

I am a hard-nosed scientist and analytic philosopher. I have noticed that evolution theory denies yet promotes supernaturalism. It is this two-facedness that I object to.

 

1) I am told that "copying" is the key to survival. Surely, this is nonsense. If I make a copy of myself do I survive if I, the original, dies? Of course not. Neither do my genes survive. New ones might have been made along the way but that is not "survival" of anything.

Ok, the main mistake you have made is in thinking it is about "survival". Evolution is not about survival as such.

 

Survival is used as a shorthand for saying that a replicator (like an organism) lasts long enough to make copies of itself before it is destroyed by some other process (entropy or a predator).

 

So copying is not about survival, but about a process persisting or stopping.

 

But, I hear the objection, it isn't the physical form that survives death, it is the pattern of the physical form that survives. Well, no. No - unless we want to promote animism by saying that patterns survive, like souls, across the boundary of death.

 

So is modern evolution theory, by promoting survival, promoting supernaturalism? Yes.

This is the second mistake, it is not pattern, but process that is important. A Pattern is like a snapshot of a process, it is static and can no0t change (if it changes it is no longer the same pattern). However a process is a dynamic entity and it is able to change and stillbe considdered the same entity (as processes are adynamic system, then they have to have this property or they could not be dynamic).

 

2) We are also occasionally told that life forms are blind machines. But this is animism if it isn't just a plain contradiction. A machine is a humanly-defined set of objects employed for a particular task. The very fact that there is a machine/task indicates a non-material agency that defines the physical limits of a machine.

This is touching on a belief that Life has an Elan Vital (living force), and has long been disproved. A computer is a blind machine, but we don't think of it as alive. But, what about that Tamagotchi craze that swept the world years ago. Many people though of these "computers" as almost alive, and even worried about them "dying" to the point it interfered with daily activities (with children it disrupted calsses in schools).

 

When people talk about life being a Machine, they are really talking about ho it does not have any "Elan Vital" and operates by a set of rules. But, if you think about it, what does a machine do?

 

It performs a process.

 

As I explained above, life and evolution are about process, not patterns. The only way a pattern can be dynamic is if it possesses an elan vital, that is some external existance and force that retains its idenity even though the pattern itself changes, but then you are not talking aobut a pattern as the entity, but the external force that is represented by the pattern.

 

A process does not need to be an animistic force. Think of a computer program. This exists within the computer and needs no supernatural explaination, but yet, it causes the hardware of the computer to perform a process.

 

Such it is with life and evolution. The chemicals that make up life are structured in a way as to cause themselves to perform a process. This process is what we call living and it is this processing that we use to define the difference between living things and non living things.

 

My conclusion? It looks to me as though much of modern evolution theory has mucked up the facts of evolution by giving them a religious gloss in its talk of selfishness, machines and "survival". As a scientist I find this two-faced and objectionable.

As your conclusions are based off of two false assumptions (that pattern is important, and that copying is the key to survival) you have, although followed a logical argument, come to a conclusion that is wrong.

 

If you re-work your reasoning, but starting with the correct initial assumptions, then you will come to a different (and if your reasoning is correct) but correct conclusion.

[Sayonara]

Now here's something we haven't seen before.

[awlaskov]

1) If you want to copy yourself you'd have to find a way to copy your memories and all the details of your body not determined by genetics.

 

can this be achievable? i mean i we copy our memory from the brain and somehow from the subconscience and put them on a super computer and then we clone ourself and paste the information into the clone brain then we can come back to life as who we are is there something that doesnt allow this theorie supposing we have the technological advancement to do it ???

Edited October 25, 2010 by swansont
fix quote tag

[Mr Skeptic]

Well it would piss off the religious folks; they might treat you as an abomination with no soul. But I don't know of any reason that it wouldn't work, other than that our technology has a long way to go before it could be done.