Are you saying there was a guiding hand that lead the bird to it's unorthodox and deceptive niche? Or are you saying that because the niche is unorthodox, your are justified in mounting an argument from ignorance? You are implying an argument from ignorance.Flann wrote:You may say, it just happened to work so they survived but I think there is something more to it than that, and the natural world is full of such things.
You cannot imply an argument without also making it, Flann. And this argument fails the test of method. I know you'll not believe me or think I'm mistaken or find some other way to hold onto your fallacious reasoning, just as you did in the other thread. This harkens back to what I said a few posts ago. The difference between you and a man like Carrier is that Carrier will correct his beliefs when he breaks from method, but you will not. Sorry if this is combative, but every conversation seems to hold the same formula.
I see the apparent purpose you're referring to. Only an idiot would deny it. I am also versed on the mechanisms behind the co-evolution of host/parasite/symbiote. The mechanisms paint a clear picture, and the picture is that any appearance of purpose is illusory. It's strange, seeing what appears to be purpose, yet Knowing that it is not.One could say it looks very intelligently designed!
This is the rift between ID advocates and the majority of evolutionary biologists. The ID advocates trust the illusion over their understanding of the mechanisms. This mistaken prioritization is why they are often mocked, and are a small minority. They simply can't see through the illusion. Or perhaps they don't want to, discarding proper method to believe the illusion that is more comforting.
It's like a kid at disneyland seeing the image of mickey mouse in a cloud of steam, drawn by lasers. The image is so real, the kid believes that's the case. The adult knows the mechanisms and interplay of light and steam, so knows intellectually that it is an illusion, even though his eyes tell him it is real.
Once you have an understanding of the mechanisms, there is no room for doubt. Not just an understanding of the words that point to the mechanisms, but actual spatio-mechanical reasoning, like imagining how gears turn in series.
This gets into nuts and bolts: http://www.academia.edu/1297130/The_ill ... erspective
While it seems that they imply agency, they both offer disclaimers that this isn't the case, and should not be inferred from what they write.It's refreshing Interbane to see that you disagree with Dawkins and Dennett since they are the ones implying agency to memes in their use of Darwinian imagery of competing, surviving and having a programmed "purpose" to replicate themselves.
The nature of viruses and their hosts is well known, and is a process called evolution. It has been proven, and maintaining the illusion that there is intelligence or purpose in the mix is to turn a blind eye to method, reveling in motivated reasoning without any checks or balances.I would say the extreme complexity and coordination of activity in the battle of virus and body points to intelligence.
This is all old, well-beaten ground.
The viral analogy is definitely inflammatory. I think people reject the meme model because of that more than anything else.geo wrote: I'd say if it bothers you enough, ignore Carrier's comments about religion and think instead about the viral quality or sticky quality of political ideas or the way language evolves over time.