Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwinism?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
I also pointed out that if you do have knowledge of a topic then you can contribute to a topic. I am not sure why you assume that I believe you have no knowledge? You have not said anything which I particularly object to before my first post so I'm not sure why you think I am or was targeting you?
Also there is a big difference between having one incorrect or unreasonable opinion and being stupid. I would say everyone in the world has some unreasonable beliefs, but I don't believe everyone in the world is stupid. Again I am not sure why you think I think you are stupid?
Also I do apply this logic to myself. If I wish to learn how targeted cancer therapy works then I read literature from those who can and do do such things. If they tell me that evolution underpins their work then I (a non expert) am inclined to take their word for it. This is on the assumption that there is nothing to counter their claims. For example cancer life expectancy is slowly but surely rising. If this was not true then I might question the medical profession. But in order to do effectively I would need to avail myself of current scientific knowledge, then I could effectively diagnose and fix any issues. Otherwise it's pure conjecture on my part, maybe right maybe wrong but no way to tell.
Again a scientific consensus is not the same thing as a consensus. It requires empirical evidence, it requires independent verification, it requires expert opinion.
Also I am not sure where in what I have written it is necessary to be say as intelligent as Einstein in order to contribute to physics, much less to contribute in many and other various ways. Physicists may work their entire life and slowly chip away at theories progressing physics, maybe not as flashy as Einstein but still more than worthy. Hell even the sincere attempt would be more than worthy. Also Einstein may have been a great physicist but there is more to life than that.
So in short I am not sure where you are drawing any of your conclusions from as none of them seem to follow from anything I have written?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
Never ever am I going to take issues with your thoughts. You are what in my opinion is a ... well, I had better not say it.
You are a noperson to me. You earned it with being completely relying on an ad hominem argument and drawing invalid inferences from it.
Period.
No more.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
It must be conceded that humanity is one result of the evolutionary process but in developing genetic engineering humans have added a new element into evolutionary forces. Natural evolution creates major changes very slowly but genetic control can accomplish in a very short time what might take thousands or millions of years to accomplish naturally. Instead of adapting other planets to current people it might be possible to transform people to live on other planets which would permit life to prosper in quite strange environments. Hopefully humanity might survive to do that.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
A common, but completely subjective and unfounded statement, which I strongly oppose.Jan Sand wrote:Natural forces in general are not teleological. They have no goal....
I would argue that life on Earth serves a cosmic function/purpose, and is modified at the macro level in order to fulfill this function. 'No goal' is merely assumed because any question of what the goal/purpose/function is lies outside the boundaries of science, and scientists don't like to think about things outside of their discipline, i.e. they don't like to philosophize about things 'on the side', so to speak. So if some idea, like the one I just posited, cannot be put into a theory and verified or disproved, the tendency of the modern scientist is to dismiss it out of hand, and assert it's falsity, before actually examining it and giving it its rightful due examination and analysis.
I think the idea that life on Earth was created to serve a cosmic function is infinitely more sensible at first glance than the idea that such a complex and apparently consequential phenomenon was all just a 'Big Accident'....
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
-- Updated Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:29 am to add the following --
Similar to the idea that it's perfectly possible that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago in such a way that it looks like it's 4.5 billion years old. Some people think that.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
- JamesOfSeattle
- Premium Member
- Posts: 509
- Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
Interestingly, it looks more and more like the the drive to entropy is what provides the impetus to natural selection. And natural selection provides the impetus for the development of intelligence and goals. And the development of intelligence and goals will, I conjecture, drive the development of genetic engineering, but more importantly, will also drive the development of artificial intelligence and life. Continuing on, artificial life and intelligence will drive the colonization of the galaxy.
So to take the intentional stance, the goal of life is to hasten the heat death of the universe.
*
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
Really? I hope we exchanged insurance details with that other universe.I have read that one of the ideas that account for this would be that some other universe bumped into ours to make it leak away the energy content it should possess.
I think one of the defining features of a "goal" is forward planning. Most of the natural world looks as though it doesn't indulge in forward planning.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
Not at all. Those are not goals. Survival and reproduction merely maintain life so that it can continue to fulfill its function/purpose, i.e.exist. Mere existence, in and of itself, cannot be said to be a goal. It's a state of being, nothing more. Things do not exist to exist.Jan Sand wrote:To propose that natural forces aside from evolution are teleological it seems to me necessary to have some concept of what that goal might be and why it is indisputable. The obvious goals of life are survival and reproduction.The second law of thermodynamics seems to indicate the heat death of the universe. Do you consider that a goal?
Death is also not a goal because it's inevitable. Stopping inevitable things cannot be said to be a goal.
My view is that not all 'life' in the Universe is recognized or known, particularly the kind of entities that are behind the general causation of life on Earth...JamesOfSeattle wrote:I agree with Jan, I think. I think it is a mistake to apply the term "goal" to what nature does because a goal is something that requires conceptualization, and conceptualization didn't appear until (at least somewhat) intelligent animals appeared. "Natural forces" is a better term, because we can see these acting as a pressure that moves things (literally or figuratively) in a general direction. So gravity is an obvious one, and the second law of thermodynamics is another. Because we are used to creating goals which act on us as a pressure in a general direction (say, up a tree to get that apple), and we are naturally inclined to take the intentional stance towards things in the environment, it is easy for us to assign the goal of the roundish rock as reaching the bottom of the hill.
Interestingly, it looks more and more like the the drive to entropy is what provides the impetus to natural selection. And natural selection provides the impetus for the development of intelligence and goals. And the development of intelligence and goals will, I conjecture, drive the development of genetic engineering, but more importantly, will also drive the development of artificial intelligence and life. Continuing on, artificial life and intelligence will drive the colonization of the galaxy.
So to take the intentional stance, the goal of life is to hasten the heat death of the universe.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwinism?
I really don’t know what neo-darwinism means.
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Is Genetic Engineering a spit in the face of Neo-Darwini
Mutations are indeed random. Just look it up in wikipedia. Commonly caused by errors during dna replication or radiation. Radiation is most likely to cause cancer, a bad mutation-1- wrote: ↑June 21st, 2017, 6:46 pmAppardon.Atreyu wrote:We don't see random mutations in nature leading to any new functionality in any species, and that is a fact.
All mutations are random. Good ones and bad ones.
And the good ones are, by definition, the ones that help an individual of a species (new or old) survive. The bad ones decrease the chances of survival.
There are no directed mutations. They are too complex for any living being to psyche out, and anyway, no living being is in control how his offspring's (or his own while an embrio) DNA ought to change.
Except from now on it is not impossible.
I think renee has something there.
Here you will some weird plants that have mutated
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 11188.html
There are mutations that survive for other reasons than survival. All people with blue eyes have a common ancestor: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 11188.html
The fact that we have much smaller jaws than ancestors like homo erectus was also caused by a mutation. They had huge jaws, attached to huge muscles. They were so large that they prevented our brain from growing. A scientist found a really damaged gene that we all share, the scientist included. He was so surprised that he had to test his own genes after having found the same defect on several people.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023