The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pm

PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:05 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:51 am
So, if I understand you correctly, you "don't doubt evolution occurs", but you "think natural selection is a flawed theory". Fair enough; do you have abetter one?
No I don't. I have some ideas, but which might work for beings with external fecundation and less complex ones only, not for those with internal fecundation, but it's an essay only.
I think if we could settle this one issue, we might be able to make some progress. Ignoring the science for the moment, the philosophical issue that you haven't made clear, is whether you think natural selection is a flawed theory, because you don't believe it is a natural process.
So for clarity:
1. Do you think that biological cells could have come into being, without the intervention of some god?
I ask this, because having re-read your posts, this seems to be implied by some of your earlier posts.
2. Do you believe that evolution could have happened without the intervention of a god?
I ask that for the simple reason that the most obvious, perhaps only, alternative to natural selection, is supernatural selection.

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by bobevenson » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:47 pm

Blah, blah, blah, it's not a theory, it's a law except for the pathetically ignorant.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:01 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pm
PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:05 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:51 am
So, if I understand you correctly, you "don't doubt evolution occurs", but you "think natural selection is a flawed theory". Fair enough; do you have abetter one?
No I don't. I have some ideas, but which might work for beings with external fecundation and less complex ones only, not for those with internal fecundation, but it's an essay only.
I think if we could settle this one issue, we might be able to make some progress. Ignoring the science for the moment, the philosophical issue that you haven't made clear, is whether you think natural selection is a flawed theory, because you don't believe it is a natural process.
So for clarity:
1. Do you think that biological cells could have come into being, without the intervention of some god?
I ask this, because having re-read your posts, this seems to be implied by some of your earlier posts.
2. Do you believe that evolution could have happened without the intervention of a god?
I ask that for the simple reason that the most obvious, perhaps only, alternative to natural selection, is supernatural selection.
.




1. Yes, I do think that biological cells and evolution could have occurred without God intervention and absolutely NOTHING in every post I have written so far allows you purport that to be implied!

2. This is not a philosophical discussion any longer, if it ever was. One is borne to the task of demonstrating that they absolutely believe in whatever is related to Darwinian evolution for not to be called creationist.

3. All that I have written here and offered for discussion doesn't imply the existence of whatever immaterial thing that you can imagine (and imagination is quite fertile here). Yet, they have all, with very few exceptions, been answered with such a variety of informal fallacies that they could serve to write a treaty on fallacies from this thread.

3. This is my last post in this thread. Have a nice discussion continuing it.




.

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:02 pm

PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:01 pm
1. Yes, I do think that biological cells and evolution could have occurred without God intervention and absolutely NOTHING in every post I have written so far allows you purport that to be implied!
Well, there's this:
PauloL wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:02 pm
You don't just need any cell, but a cell complex enough for lifelong autonomy and to replicate without any errors. And yet, perhaps, it must allow for diversification so that in the end you don't have one cell, but many different complex cells that can replicate without errors.

If you have an answer, please let me know and we'll win a Nobel prize if you wish to share.

It's funny how one person can explain a priori how you have complex life on earth in the 19th century based on some empirical observations by traveling to exotic locations and yet you can't explain the birth of the very first cell in the 21st century.
Maybe it's lost in translation, but in English that reads as, at best irony, if not outright sarcasm.
PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:01 pm
2. This is not a philosophical discussion any longer, if it ever was. One is borne to the task of demonstrating that they absolutely believe in whatever is related to Darwinian evolution for not to be called creationist.
Not really; it would be enough to distinguish between whatever mechanism that Darwin proposed for evolution, and the general proposition that it is a natural process. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Darwin's ideas about any mechanism are still taken seriously.
PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:01 pm
3. All that I have written here and offered for discussion doesn't imply the existence of whatever immaterial thing that you can imagine (and imagination is quite fertile here). Yet, they have all, with very few exceptions, been answered with such a variety of informal fallacies that they could serve to write a treaty on fallacies from this thread.
Perhaps not, but by insisting that natural selection is a flawed theory, the obvious conclusion is that you think supernatural selection, or design, is a better theory.
PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:01 pm
3. This is my last post in this thread. Have a nice discussion continuing it.
Thank you.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:17 pm

PauloL wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:01 pm
Yet, they have all, with very few exceptions, been answered with such a variety of informal fallacies that they could serve to write a treaty on fallacies from this thread.
Image
Treaty on Fallacies, depicted above

TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY
Dumb Shits and Rational People Sign Treaty on Fallacies

PHILSOPHYNOW (Internet News Service) — Dumb shits and rational people signed a treaty on fallacies on Monday, according to informed sources.

Under terms of the treaty, dumb shits will quit saying that the theory of evolution is circular even after they have been shown why it is not, will quit whining about the complexity of cells, and in general will stop babbling about stuff whereof they know not. In exchange, rational people will stop pointing and laughing at dumb shits.

“It’s a win-win,” E. Mota Kahn, a message-board analyst with the RAND corporation, said in a telephone interview. “From now on dumb shits will confine their dumbshittery to the privacy of their own homes, while rational people won’t have to waste time responding to dumb shits. Everyone wins.”

At press time, despite the inking of the treaty, skirmishes between dumb shits and rational people continued. God botherers, Jesus freaks, New Age numb nuts, disciples of Deepak Chopra, and followers of Oprah were roaming over the land and staging guerrilla attacks on people with brains. Analysts said these pockets of resistance would take forever to root out.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:59 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:05 pm
If you focus, the reasoning may, just may, cease to zoom over the noggin, Einstein.

But you are beginning to see the light.

I'll venture a prediction: "What reasoning?"

:lol:
What doubts of Darwin were you referring to?

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:37 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:59 pm
What doubts of Darwin were you referring to?
The only doubts Darwin had was if evidence of his theory would be seen in his lifetime.

Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Melchior » Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:45 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 am
While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.

Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).

Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.

What do you think about this?

PhilX
Huh?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:58 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:... From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. ...
I thought Henkel's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" had been largely discredited by modern Biology?

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:13 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:58 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:... From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. ...
I thought Henkel's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" had been largely discredited by modern Biology?
It has.

The rest of that is just ....ermmm never mind. :?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:03 pm

davidm wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:49 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:53 am
davidm wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:59 pm
It's more than that, though. At the molecular level evolution appears to be dominated not be selection but by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral: Neither beneficial nor deleterious.
Failure to understand that negative behaviours, and traits can even be preserved in the genome just so long as the host organism produces viable progeny: a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. Modern Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1); that this inference is invalid (in fact it's what philosophers call an 'intensional fallacy'); and that there is no way to repair the damage consonant with commitment to naturalism, which (Fodor and Palimanteri) take to be common ground.
The obsession with evolutionary theory to offer an explanation for every single aspect of life as if it have to have a positive outcome for selection is an embarrassment to the entire field.
Were this NOT the case I think more people would understand evolution and not think there is some kind of god in the mix.
Evolution is not a force that selects genes in any sense.
I can't quite tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. :)

Neutral evolution suggests that most evolution is non-adaptationist.
neutral evolution is probably meaningless. Evolution is not a force of nature, but a consequence of change. It is not a cause, but an effect.

Change happens all the time. Evolution is a humanly perceived process in which a progression of traits is taken to offer a species an effective response to changing environment.
My objection to this is the obsession with which evolutionary psychologists attempt to unpack ALL humans traits and behaviours as if they had some advantage. The absurdity of this tends to imply a teleology which is not warrantable, as 99% of all traits and behaviours might not offer any specific advantage or could even be negative as the only rubric for survival is the reproduction of viable progeny.
Case in point.
My dog is only five years old but has hip dysplasia which means she can no longer run. Were she living in a natural environment she may already have had 4 litters of puppies and so the genes that gave her bad hips would have happily passed to the next generation. Evolution does not care!. There is no pressure on that trait to exit the gene pool.

Diseases are not a special case exception though, but an extreme example. Her floppy ears and many other traits confer no special advantage.

Autistic theorists such as Richard Dawkins, and Steve Pinker who make careers out of empty-headed arguments and academic papers are obsessed with finding the positive on all traits.

Let's take a look at the two points from "What Darwin Got Wrong"
(1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected
(2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

Claim 2 has to be false as "evolution" would have to know what a trait is "FOR". "For" implies an intentionality, or teleology. This is effectively intelligent design.

Claim 1 makes more sense as creatures within species with good traits are more likely to survive. But would carry along with them a range of genes traits and behaviours which had very little bearing on their survival and evolution.

However evolutionary theorists are constantly guilty of making claim 1, usually with poor or lazy language.

My claim is that if they were more careful they would be better equipped to counter the claims of the kooks of ID, and creationists who find design in nature; (There is none).

I hope that clears up my position.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:07 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:58 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:... From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. ...
I thought Henkel's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" had been largely discredited by modern Biology?
Is there any point?

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:13 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:03 pm
neutral evolution is probably meaningless.


Well, based on everything else you wrote in this post, it sounds like you do subscribe to neutral evolution, which holds that random genetic drift is more important than natural selection. Bear in mind that evolutionary psychology is NOT accepted by a majority of biologists.

Assuming I correctly understood what you wrote in the balance of your post, which I have excised for brevity, I think I agree with you.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:16 pm

davidm wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:13 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:03 pm
neutral evolution is probably meaningless.


Well, based on everything else you wrote in this post, it sounds like you do subscribe to neutral evolution, which holds that random genetic drift is more important than natural selection. Bear in mind that evolutionary psychology is NOT accepted by a majority of biologists.

Assuming I correctly understood what you wrote in the balance of your post, which I have excised for brevity, I think I agree with you.
Neutral evolution is semantically absurd. It's like motionless speed. But, otherwise we are in agreement I think.

Evolutionary psychology is an apparently valid discipline. I've never heard Dawkins dis Pinker, for example.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:47 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:16 pm
davidm wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:13 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:03 pm
neutral evolution is probably meaningless.


Well, based on everything else you wrote in this post, it sounds like you do subscribe to neutral evolution, which holds that random genetic drift is more important than natural selection. Bear in mind that evolutionary psychology is NOT accepted by a majority of biologists.

Assuming I correctly understood what you wrote in the balance of your post, which I have excised for brevity, I think I agree with you.
Neutral evolution is semantically absurd. It's like motionless speed. But, otherwise we are in agreement I think.

Evolutionary psychology is an apparently valid discipline. I've never heard Dawkins dis Pinker, for example.
Neutral evolution is the thesis that at the molecular level most mutation is caused by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. "Neutral" in this context means mutations that don't affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; i.e., the mutations are neither beneficial nor deleterious.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest