Why does the evolutionary process exist?

The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. ...
We are survival machines -- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the robot vehicle the genes created have developed a sense of 'I'

How enslaved are we by our genes?

Are we better for being enslaved or worse?

So back to my first questions in this and other thread, WHY do the genes desire to 'survive' to preserve themselves through propogation.

The answer keeps coming back 'they don't want to they just do'

Are you really all genuinely satisfied with that answer?

Dawkins is of that view, which you in the majority share

"His selfish gene concept does not presuppose that genes are imbued with intentionality; he does not believe for a moment that genes want to replicate. "

This to me seems contradictory to everything his entire book is about, if there is no intention, and replication is merely a 'result' then the gene is not selfish. Selfishness is an act pertaining to 'self' if the gene has no sense of 'self' then it is not selfish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. Genes do not desire anything. They are just pieces of the replication machinery. They get copied. Sometimes the copies end up in new organisms in new combinations. Often they don't.

The gene is not aware. The gene doesn't care. The gene is turned on by a mechanistic process. It is turned off by a mechanistic process. The gene can't replicate by itself. The gene is just a part of the whole. The gene determines a part of the whole.

The gene doesn't love. The gene doesn't cry. The gene doesn't desire. The gene is smarter than ToR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The main point of this thread is probably some savage creationist ploy.

 

yes. I think the lack of opposing force in this thread has made the 'creator' of this thread think that there was some merit to the ideas that were presented.

The truth is more down to earth I'm afraid. Nobody could be bothered to respond.

 

I am neither religious or creationist so you are wrong, sorry to disappoint.

there have been substantial responses if you care to read the thread that tell you what it is about, quite simply, the origin of life.

Nobody has the answer, so I am speculating.

Is the reason we can't figure out how life began because here on Earth we are missing a vital component, so while the seed was able to take root here it may not have originated here.

 

So, you're an atheist?

 

Are labels so important for you Q, does it help you to discriminate?

you were the first person to tell me I was a theist even when I made the above clear to you, now you are telling me I am an atheist, make up your mind.


I believe there is an 'interfering' force in life, I refer to this force rightly or wrongly as God. I do not attribute any characteristics to this force other than it interferes. It may be that the collective consciousness is what interferes, we know so little of it.

So what am I Q? (aside from woo woo)

 

Then you are a theist in denial.

 

Theism is the belief in one or more personal deities. Therefore, you are a theist. Maybe no a creationist, but you are a theist.

 

Karma may be thought of as a force that interferes; god not required.

--- Ron.

 

But she labels it god.

 

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;"

 

It is still theism.

 

So?

Creationism was the issue.

--- Ron.

 

so I'm told and since my first 'discussion' with Q on this months ago, I don't disagree.

Unless of course the 'interefering force' is other than a diety as Ron suggests..Karma. I shall look into that.

Meanwhile I don't really care how you label it the labels are for your benefit not mine.

 

You don't read to well, do you. I ASKED if you were an atheist since you claimed to have NO religion.

By definition, a theist. You have a religion.

 

Ron, isn't it the effects of a persons actions that determine their destiny in their next incarnation considered "Karma" and not some external force?

 

You have your own version of religion, just like everyone else. Call it what you will.

How about, "ToRism"? Or, "WooWooism"?

 

so you are defining observing life as 'religion' well I guess that makes you religious too then. Tell me something new.