Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:04 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
I am sorry you are done with the thread, because I must have missed or forgotten what you explained about whether or not mutations of genes is uncaused. The thread has not interested me greatly as philosophy, because natural selection is such a main theory. No thinker disputes it. And natural selection is backed by sufficient evidence that is available to everyone. My query is also a simple empirical question which I hope can be answered briefly. My question is not, what Paulol said , a hard question.davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:06 pmBut I've already addressed this -- and everything else here to a fare-thee-well. Did you read my post on mutations uncorrelated to the environment, or to the adaptive needs of organisms? THAT is what is meant by the "random" part of evolution.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:38 pm Paulol wrote:
This puzzles me. Are the mutations undergone by genes truly random(uncaused) or are they 'random' (inexplicable) ? Can anybody recommend a decent website with this information, please?What I mean is whether natural selection acts on beings or not. If it does how on earth can it be non-random? If it's random how could it produce hemoglobin chain DNA?
As to PauloL's latest drivel, first: Natural selection does not act on beings. It acts on populations. Natural selection acting on mutations uncorrelated with the environment is the very definition of a non-random process. This has been explained to you so many times, in great detail. I'm well and truly done with this idiotic thread.
That is a very difficult sentence to construe! I honestly cannot tell what you are saying.
Do you not see, words like 'fantastic' have no place here? Why is any one aspect of nature more 'fantastic' than another? There is probably no DNA on Pluto. Does that make Pluto less 'fantastic' than Earth? It implies that there is a sort of ranking in physics; 'gravity' is less fantastic than 'electricity', birds more fantastic than fish, solids more fantastic than vacuums... That isn't science.Yes, DNA is the most fantastic molecule in universe. Without it, how could there be self-replication?
Once again, by 'natural selection' we are not describing an agency, something 'doing things' to individuals or populations.Whether natural selection applies to individuals or populations, it doesn't change much. Individuals are within populations and they're affected or contribute to natural selection.
Determinism relates to this universe, the one we are in, the one we describe through science. Science does not deal with 'possible universes'. It does not say these cannot exist, but whether they do or not is outside science.Determinism is quite a philosophical puzzle, a typical question without answer.
How could you answer that? I can't devise a way. The only thing that happens to me is multiverse theory. According to this theory it's possible that there's an infinite number of universes in which everything that's possible to happen, however improbable it is, will happen an infinite number of times. In this sense, our reality might be called deterministic, but even in this case I have doubts.
What is it that causes you to have doubts? What is an example of something which we cannot explain through determinism?our reality might be called deterministic, but even in this case I have doubts'
I'm not a creationist and you can't substantiate that. The first requisite of science is falsifiability and so any theory can and should be questioned.
I didn't write that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:02 pmThat is a very difficult sentence to construe! I honestly cannot tell what you are saying.
DNA is a very complicated and delicate chemical. If you expose DNA to radiation, other chemicals etc. it will react and change, just like anything else. There is a mechanism to repair or replace changed DNA, but that too can be affected by external factors so it may not work properly. Sometimes these changes occur in cells in a way that they can be inherited by our offspring.
I beg your pardon, that quote was from davidm. Just a mistake with the editing of my post.
Unfortunately, the 'theory of evolution' is scientific and science describes a deterministic universe, so you would have no choice.For the rest, whether you understand it or not, I'm not interested in discussing determinism, as I told you it's a question without answer and we may ignore that for discussion purposes.
I said determinism is an unanswered question and no one is obliged to accept it.
Do you mean it is an unanswered question because the universe does not appear deterministic? Do you see the universe as unpredictable i.e. that sometimes water boils at 100 degrees, sometimes it freezes, sometimes it turns into gold? That we cannot predict what it will do?
You are right, determinism is not scientific in the sense of being an object within science.That's new to me that determinism is scientific. Recently, an article on determinism was published in Scientific American, and scientists didn't have an answer for that, just opinions (same as philosophers). Yet, you have certainties...
I am sorry I missed this from you that you are not a creationist. Of course I believe you if only because there is no reason for you to tell a lie about it.You wrote "There's no way environment may produce a "convenient" mutation." and this is certainly not the claim of a creationist.PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:10 pmI'm not a creationist and you can't substantiate that. The first requisite of science is falsifiability and so any theory can and should be questioned.
As for mutations, of course they are random within the theory of natural selection. There's no way environment may produce a "convenient" mutation.
How random they are is the hard question. If you study Mycobacterium tuberculosis, something I've discussed before, there are mutations that allow for antibiotic resistance and multi-resistance. But after you study that, you realize there's a wild strain and mutations are predictable. They allow for antibiotic resistance, but the agent loses virulence (multi-resistance strains attack immune-suppressed people), so wild strain will prevail as long as environment allows.
Also, a psychogenic trait acquired by male rats could be transmitted several generations after that, and this was published in Nature. That isn't allowed by natural selection, or at least it's highly attacked as it is in accord with Lamarck.
This is why I call it a hard question. You may think question is not so hard, but answers are quite difficult indeed.
Indeed as you explain, Londoner, there's no mystery , and mutations of genes are effects which are determined by causes albeit complex causes. I accept that gene mutation is random (aleatorio but not nao causado.(Port.))Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:25 pmDNA is a very complicated and delicate chemical. If you expose DNA to radiation, other chemicals etc. it will react and change, just like anything else. There is a mechanism to repair or replace changed DNA, but that too can be affected by external factors so it may not work properly. Sometimes these changes occur in cells in a way that they can be inherited by our offspring.
It is the same process that makes us grow wrinkly and die.
I do not see that there is any mystery in this.
Thanks for your words. As random I always mean "aleatório" for which there is an equivalent word in English, aleatory. A lottery is random to me in this sense.