The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Lev Muishkin]

And Gods who do this sort of stuff.

I think not.

They don't?

WHo are "they", where are 'They"?

[Ginkgo]

WHo are "they", where are 'They"?

From the Gods of Mt. Olympus, who continually meddled in human affairs to the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God of today.

[Lev Muishkin]

WHo are "they", where are 'They"?

From the Gods of Mt. Olympus, who continually meddled in human affairs to the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God of today.

A god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent has no need to meddle; by definition he has already figured everything out since the dawn of time.
As for Olympus - I've been there, seen that, and there ain't no one there.


See!

[Wyman]

I thought Newton was famous for the notion that God wound the clock and let it proceed without meddling. I imagine Him blowing a handful of fairy dust in the form of hydrogen atoms out into empty space and saying something like 'let there be gravity!' (and a few other weird forces).

[Lev Muishkin]

I thought Newton was famous for the notion that God wound the clock and let it proceed without meddling. I imagine Him blowing a handful of fairy dust in the form of hydrogen atoms out into empty space and saying something like 'let there be gravity!' (and a few other weird forces).

The big question; was Newton a Deist?

As I recall. Leibniz, his main protagonist thought that god created a perfect world from the start (at least the best of the best of all possible worlds), but chided Newton for insisting that He had to wind up the watch from time to time and tweek things here and there to stop them bumping into one another.


The Lisbon earthquake pretty much put the mockers on Liebniz's theodicy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Many sciences are not yet complete in their quest for truth. And surely not Darwin's theory of evolution. I do agree with some of it, but also see other new things, that he in his time were incapable of seeing, that changes some of his ideas. Epigenetics being one such thing.

[Lev Muishkin]

Epigenetics, is an addition to the idea of natural selection (NS), and like a range of new findings still has to comply with that mechanism.
The role and relevance of the emergent sciences that have been stimulated by Darwin are mis-understood by the public.
Darwin predicted the discovery of genes, but their discovery has led to a tendency to use their discovery to destroy the perfection of NS by positing the genes as a unit of selection rather than as a unit of inheritability which the theory of NS predicts. Doing this has led to a series of risible and overwrought interpretations which an un-critical mind can use to make NS look ridiculously teleological.
SImply enough NS acts on the differential reproductive success of individuals and does not select genes, as such, though many workings of the speculative science of NS ask the wrong question by focussing on traits and behaviours through the genes which generate then, rather than on the holistic success of the organism within its environment.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Epigenetics, is an addition to the idea of natural selection (NS), and like a range of new findings still has to comply with that mechanism.
The role and relevance of the emergent sciences that have been stimulated by Darwin are mis-understood by the public.
Darwin predicted the discovery of genes, but their discovery has made led to a tendency to use their discovery to destroy the perfection of NS by positing the genes as a unit of selection rather than as a unit of inheritability which the theory of NS predicts. Doing this has led to a series of risible and overwrought interpretations which an un-critical mind can use to make NS look ridiculously teleological.
SImply enough NS acts on the differential reproductive success of individuals and does not select genes, as such, though many workings of the speculative science of NS ask the wrong question by focussing on traits and behaviours through the genes which generate then, rather than on the holistic success of the organism within its environment.

"Has made led," what is that supposed to mean?

[Lev Muishkin]

Epigenetics, is an addition to the idea of natural selection (NS), and like a range of new findings still has to comply with that mechanism.
The role and relevance of the emergent sciences that have been stimulated by Darwin are mis-understood by the public.
Darwin predicted the discovery of genes, but their discovery has made led to a tendency to use their discovery to destroy the perfection of NS by positing the genes as a unit of selection rather than as a unit of inheritability which the theory of NS predicts. Doing this has led to a series of risible and overwrought interpretations which an un-critical mind can use to make NS look ridiculously teleological.
SImply enough NS acts on the differential reproductive success of individuals and does not select genes, as such, though many workings of the speculative science of NS ask the wrong question by focussing on traits and behaviours through the genes which generate then, rather than on the holistic success of the organism within its environment.

"Has made led," what is that supposed to mean?

"... has led..."

[SpheresOfBalance]

Epigenetics, is an addition to the idea of natural selection (NS), and like a range of new findings still has to comply with that mechanism.
Actually truth doesn't necessarily have to comply with any particular theory along the path to it's understanding. What? Out of respect, science should bend it's resolve? I think not! To carry a torch for anyone is foolish. They only deserve respect for the particular "step" they supplied.

The role and relevance of the emergent sciences that have been stimulated by Darwin are mis-understood by the public.
Far too wide a net you have cast, as if you could possibly know this to be true. The truth is, you can't qualify the statement.

Darwin predicted the discovery of genes, but their discovery has led to a tendency to use their discovery to destroy the perfection of NS by positing the genes as a unit of selection rather than as a unit of inheritability which the theory of NS predicts.
My problem with NS is that it's said that the variations in the genome are due to "random mutations," epigenetics aims to eventually pair them up. That man has not yet paired the causal's to the effects, does not speak of randomness, rather his ignorance, while epigenetics should show a specific/set of causal/s for each effect. Also mutation speaks of from, "the norm" or "what is usual." This is also incorrect, as it's been that way since day one, such that constant change has always been the norm, that which is usual. That it's only true that we can only see our "very small" part of the time line, so as to err in that way.

Doing this has led to a series of risible and overwrought interpretations which an un-critical mind can use to make NS look ridiculously teleological.
Thanks again for your opinion, but I would not know of such things, and I doubt you do either; but I'm sure it makes you feel good.
If anything, I'm agnostic. I sometimes theorize in both directions, however they always seem to converge.

SImply enough NS acts on the differential reproductive success of individuals and does not select genes,
It changes genes, destroys them and creates new ones, thus they are probably not "mindfully" selected, unless of course the universe is in fact a mindful entity; as it may be, or maybe not.

as such, though many workings of the speculative science of NS ask the wrong question by focussing on traits and behaviours through the genes which generate then, rather than on the holistic success of the organism within its environment.
I don't see success, by any particular organisms measure, as necessarily part of the equation. Though the mind of the organism, surely is part of the equation, however, the resultant of it's affects might manifest.

[Lev Muishkin]

Epigenetics, is an addition to the idea of natural selection (NS), and like a range of new findings still has to comply with that mechanism.
Actually truth doesn't necessarily have to comply with any particular theory along the path to it's understanding. What? Out of respect, science should bend it's resolve? I think not! To carry a torch for anyone is foolish. They only deserve respect for the particular "step" they supplied.

The role and relevance of the emergent sciences that have been stimulated by Darwin are mis-understood by the public.
Far too wide a net you have cast, as if you could possibly know this to be true. The truth is, you can't qualify the statement.

Darwin predicted the discovery of genes, but their discovery has led to a tendency to use their discovery to destroy the perfection of NS by positing the genes as a unit of selection rather than as a unit of inheritability which the theory of NS predicts.
My problem with NS is that it's said that the variations in the genome are due to "random mutations," epigenetics aims to eventually pair them up. That man has not yet paired the causal's to the effects, does not speak of randomness, rather his ignorance, while epigenetics should show a specific/set of causal/s for each effect. Also mutation speaks of from, "the norm" or "what is usual." This is also incorrect, as it's been that way since day one, such that constant change has always been the norm, that which is usual. That it's only true that we can only see our "very small" part of the time line, so as to err in that way.

Doing this has led to a series of risible and overwrought interpretations which an un-critical mind can use to make NS look ridiculously teleological.
Thanks again for your opinion, but I would not know of such things, and I doubt you do either; but I'm sure it makes you feel good.
If anything, I'm agnostic. I sometimes theorize in both directions, however they always seem to converge.

SImply enough NS acts on the differential reproductive success of individuals and does not select genes,
It changes genes, destroys them and creates new ones, thus they are probably not "mindfully" selected, unless of course the universe is in fact a mindful entity; as it may be, or maybe not.

as such, though many workings of the speculative science of NS ask the wrong question by focussing on traits and behaviours through the genes which generate then, rather than on the holistic success of the organism within its environment.
I don't see success, by any particular organisms measure, as necessarily part of the equation. Though the mind of the organism, surely is part of the equation, however, the resultant of it's affects might manifest.

I said epigenetics has to comply with NS., I don't know why you are taking this odd tack in your first response.

Epigenetic does not change the fact that variation is ultimately the result of mutation and recombination. Like I said this stuff is widely misunderstood. And the results of both genetic and epigenetic change have to comply with NS.

You have misunderstood what I was saying about overwrought interpretations.
Spin off disciplines such are evolutionary psychology tends to see everything in terms of NS. That is to say that every trait or behaviour is to be seen as conferring an advantage; this cannot be the case.
This is immediately risible, as is your comment that NS destroys genes, and crates new ones. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps you would like to tell me how it creates new one? This is the crux of your personal misunderstanding. and as soon as you try to answer that question directly for yourself you will see how wrong it is.

Before you go off half cocked read on.

Natural Selection cannot negatively or positively select a gene, nor does it create or destroy one. Natural Selection is not a cause of change, it is the consequence of change. It is the result of differential reproductive success upon individual organisms; whole organisms, NOT their genes. Selection only acts on genes in as much as they are carried by successful organisms more than less successful organism.
But the only rubric is the continuation of an whole organism that is capable of having viable progeny. For each surviving organism comes replete with selectively position, and neutral traits genes and behaviours, but also with selectively negative genes traits and behaviours - just so long as those are not negative to the degree that there are no viable progeny.

Thus whilst most (overwrought) interpretations tend towards a claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits, genes and behaviours.

In fact the truth is that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits, genes and behaviours are selected.

You simply cannot infer the first from the second, and assumes an intensionalist fallacy. This characterises evolutionary psychology.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I said epigenetics has to comply with NS., I don't know why you are taking this odd tack in your first response.
I'm saying that NS is just a theory, as is evolution. And that as such the science of epigenetics does not have to comply with any theories, whatsoever. It may comply, but it may completely disagree, and thus rip NS to shreds, only time shall tell. If NS has thus far been altered from it's 'original' incarnation, then it's already happened. I wouldn't know, I don't currently have a copy of the original NS theory, do you?


Epigenetic does not change the fact that variation is ultimately the result of mutation and recombination. Like I said this stuff is widely misunderstood. And the results of both genetic and epigenetic change have to comply with NS.
Again, no they don't, as if NS, in it's original form, was conclusive. FYI, 'everything' is subject to change.


You have misunderstood what I was saying about overwrought interpretations.
Spin off disciplines such are evolutionary psychology tends to see everything in terms of NS. That is to say that every trait or behaviour is to be seen as conferring an advantage; this cannot be the case.
This is immediately risible, as is your comment that NS destroys genes, and crates new ones. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I may have not conveyed my full meaning. I know that in fact the variations in life on earth are due to the environment, which is 'natural,' thus 'nature' 'selects' the variations, changes, in life on earth. But NS states that "Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. " --wikipedia--
And I'm saying that they are not 'random,' nor do I prefer 'mutations.' They are in fact calculable, which epigenetics should eventually bear out.


Perhaps you would like to tell me how it creates new one? This is the crux of your personal misunderstanding. and as soon as you try to answer that question directly for yourself you will see how wrong it is.
So I take it you believe that in fact any particular single celled organism on planet earth, including the original life form, have the exact same genes as the most complex life-form of today? Some have been destroyed, and some have been created, just like the first. In the beginning there were no genes whatsoever, they were created, by a specific, not random, combination of environmental constituents. Sure the constituents were randomly scattered across this metamorphic elemental, earth. but those constituents that gave rise to life were not random, they were specific. Those that no longer exist, were destroyed. This was all due to nature selecting via elements and electromagnetic energy. Was not Madam Currie's genes destroyed by electromagnetic energy? In fact, they were. That was the environment, not random mutation. And such was done over a much longer period, gradually, due to any particular specific set of environmental conditions, of any specific particular exposure.

Sure, from any particular organisms perspective, they may have 'randomly' roamed to a different environment, but they stayed in any particular environment, due to specific needed resources, of course there was more there than met their eyes. What was there was put there randomly, but a specific individual/set of constituent/s gave rise to a specific change, not mutation. Life is not set in stone, thus mutating from some norm, rather it only ever changes, as that is it's nature, to grow and change, slowly becoming stronger and more complex.

I also see that the transition from singular to multicellular, was not random, rather planned, the mindful understanding of group think, safety in numbers, like a shoal of fish, eventually becoming one, then of specialized constituents, not random, rather specific, not mutation, rather logical change.

Once life could choose between food and poison, which was in the beginning, there was thinking capability, though on a much smaller scale. A primitive sort of thinking, which, like everything else, has changed, specifically becoming more complex.


Before you go off half cocked read on.

Natural Selection cannot negatively or positively select a gene, nor does it create or destroy one.
I have realized from the very beginning that it has been a process, not an actor, but do you?

I believe that it's name is misleading, incorrect! And probably has given rise to this misconception that you posit affects many people. "Natural" is fine. But "Selection" is misleading, as if in the past there has been a choice. Sure the future shall give rise to "Natural Selection," as we choose natural environmental's to purposely affect change, unless of course it's currently being done. But then that may seem artificial to some. It would be better labeled as "Natural Change" or "Natural Evolution." There has thus far been no 'largely' purposeful selection. Sure maybe some, "I don't want to live at the waters edge, due to flooding potential, so gills aren't being reintroduced, but no consideration of the geologic's on top of the hill, far above the waters edge, where it might just be the case that radium is in abundance, or it's below a hole in the ionosphere, allowing certain cosmic radiation to reach the ground, or many others, let alone combinations. So there hasn't really been that much selection, where selection is more affected by selecting environment rather than reproductive success.

Natural Selection is not a cause of change,
Though it could be, at least my version of "Natural Change."

it is the consequence of change.
Or so it has been.

It is the result of differential reproductive success upon individual organisms; whole organisms, NOT their genes. Selection only acts on genes in as much as they are carried by successful organisms more than less successful organism.
But the only rubric is the continuation of an whole organism that is capable of having viable progeny. For each surviving organism comes replete with selectively position, and neutral traits genes and behaviours, but also with selectively negative genes traits and behaviours - just so long as those are not negative to the degree that there are no viable progeny.

Thus whilst most (overwrought) interpretations tend towards a claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits, genes and behaviours.
This is believed purely because one can only see the cart, to them the horse is invisible. They are oblivious, to the causal's of the effects they've witnessed. But epigenetics shall make the horse's visible, so the causal's are in fact known.


In fact the truth is that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits, genes and behaviours are selected.
Nope, it's just a testament to our current stage of understanding, or rather, lack thereof, as to the causal's of genetic expression.



You simply cannot infer the first from the second, and assumes an intensionalist fallacy. This characterises evolutionary psychology.
I don't really care about what classification anyone wants to dub anything, all I care about is the truth of things, which is why I chose philosophy; To find the absolute truth of things, as eventually it 'shall' be the case. That is if we don't ignorantly or stupidly kill ourselves off first.

Or so I truly believe it to be true!

[Lev Muishkin]

i think this says it all.
SoB and the other drongos of the thread are right down there with the pond yeast and other Turkeys.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 29204.html

[Lev Muishkin]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... on_big.jpg

[Arising_uk]

I wouldn't know, I don't currently have a copy of the original NS theory, do you? [/color]

No problem, you can buy it for a few dollars at any chain bookstore or online, its called 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin. Looking at it on my shelf right now.