Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
So, in this "game", we have countervailing forces, which are, by their very nature unstable. And yet, life clearly demonstrates that isn't true. Somehow, or another, a "negative-feedback-loop" managed to get incorporated into what was a straightforward, albeit unstable model of a genome. Even without the crunching numbers, the optimal range for any such "negative-feedback-loop" would be vanishingly small; hence the conundrum. But, once you introduce a damping mechanism, the conundrum only deepens. Science has long eschewed Plato's fourth mode of causation: final causes. That's not possible, however once such a "damping mechanism" gets considered. Einstein's "spooky action, at a distance" has nothing on the "spookiness" of wondering who's really pulling the strings, and charting our genetic destiny. What do you think; do I have a point?
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
Basically I wanted to line up a card deck AC-2C-3C >>>>To JC-QC-KC . If I tried to do it by throwing the whole deck in the air every time I'd be at it a very long time.
But if AC would stick only to 2C and AC&2C would only stick to 3C and so on it would happen a bit faster.
I envision a primordal soup full of the amino acids but they will only stick in some sort of order. Some of the ways that they will stick will prove to be potentially alive eventually. At least it isn't just three card monte.
Yes, I think that you have a point. I don't know how to do anything with it though.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
Part of that behavior may have evolved as well. An animal might instinctively avoid incest while doing behaviors or having traits that keep its genes in its species or subspecies.
For the relatively few times the balance has been found, many times it has not. Most species have gone extinct, many creatures die before reproducing, and most planets/moons might not have life.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
You are, of course right. And, that's exactly where Creationists play their own, particular shell game, with science. They're just waiting for some unwary Materialist to argue that, given an eternity, whatever's possible must become actual, an infinite number of times. The counterargument is yes, this assertion is true, because, well... it's a tautology. And, by the nature of tautologies, nothing non-trivial can be deduced, from them. Therefore, those "typewriting monkeys who'll eventually churn out the complete Works of Shakespeare" can never exist.Basically I wanted to line up a card deck AC-2C-3C >>>>To JC-QC-KC . If I tried to do it by throwing the whole deck in the air every time I'd be at it a very long time.
Your proposal is, of course the correct one: there must be an affinity, between possibilities, thereby generating order from randomness. The question now becomes: "Whence this "affinity"? The Creationist/"Intelligent Design" advocate calls it God; whereas, the Materialist calls in nature. It's therefore incumbent upon both to proffer sufficient evidence to discredit the other. But, that's a whole other post. Back to this "affinity" thing, my point is that we've got to take seriously the need for such a, well..., gimmick, as "affinities" frankly are.
Without the "gimmick", though we're left with the most unstable scenario, possible: simple, diametrically opposed forces. And, as I've previously argued, the relative stability, of life belies being described by such a simplistic model. Ok; let's be honest about what Materialism is up to. It's essentially promoting a self-generating, universal order. This is something which we know to be possible, even pedestrian (at least on a limited scale). So, is it too much to speculate that our ostensibly problematical "affinities" might actually come from such "universal order"? To me, this just seems more credible, maybe even more reverential, than Jehovah intoning Fiat lux! (Let there be light!)
-- Updated September 19th, 2014, 11:39 am to add the following --
As you say, the problem comes down to "[a] sufficient amount of diversity, [within] a narrow spectrum...". But, my point was that this is an inherently unstable scenario. "Unstable", and yet the meticulous balance between genetic "diversity", and genetic "fidelity" somehow maintains itself. 'Diversity", and "spectrums" just don't explain how that can be so.Scott wrote:I think that what we see is that there is a sufficient amount of diversity in a narrow enough spectrum of consistency. For instance, a human baby might pop out with blue eyes or brown eyes or even with some weird hazel mutation-colored eyes that nobody has seen before, but the baby still pops out human (which is saying a lot since it only takes much less than 1% genetic difference to turn a human into a different species like a chimp.
Part of that behavior may have evolved as well. An animal might instinctively avoid incest while doing behaviors or having traits that keep its genes in its species or subspecies.
For the relatively few times the balance has been found, many times it has not. Most species have gone extinct, many creatures die before reproducing, and most planets/moons might not have life.
I appreciate your insight into the important distinction, between "primary", and "secondary" characteristics. You're right: a change in something's "primary" characteristics will fundamentally change it; whereas, no change in it's "secondary" characteristics need have "fundamental" consequences. But, how does this (interesting) observation explain the dilemma of life being stable, when it ought not to be?
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
For whatever reason we find ourselves in a universe that permits positive and negative feedback. Rather than viewing evolution as a mechanism that applies to atoms, molecules, cells and organisms; we can view it as a process that applies to combinations of negative and positive feedback.
Evolution then selects for optimum sets of feedback systems. These sets must include some counter to stability. We know that the ability to adapt to new conditions is an essential part of the process of evolution. Being overly stable leaves an organism vulnerable to a change in environment. Yet, obviously, falling apart into chaos isn't very effective (from the point of view of an organism).
The exact balance of feedback mechanisms varies, of course. Parasites generally need to adapt faster than their hosts defence mechanism, for example.
However, overall, it should be no surprise that evolution involves both positive and negative feedback systems. Without a negative feedback system you would never stop eating, or sleeping, or running from the predator...
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
But then, you really don't believe this the root issue, do you? That is, while I'm sure the problem is interesting to you, there is underlying this the assumption that science will find things out. And so what if there is some yet undiscovered priniciple of integration working within the nature of things, it does not in the least suggest a creator God--it merely suggests another principle (notwithstanding the vacuous conversational plus that will arise for creationists politically).I appreciate your insight into the important distinction, between "primary", and "secondary" characteristics. You're right: a change in something's "primary" characteristics will fundamentally change it; whereas, no change in it's "secondary" characteristics need have "fundamental" consequences. But, how does this (interesting) observation explain the dilemma of life being stable, when it ought not to be?
the point at which things get really interesting is when forces (and physicists have no idea what a force is; it's just another pragmatic term used because, well, language must have its symbols), after 13 billion years or so, manifest value. That is when the equation becomes simply ineffable since value does not show up in our observational data. We treat value as if it does because science is absolutely silent on this-- it has nothing to say because there is nothing to observe. Thus falling in love, say, is treated as just another phenomenon. We watch the mating habits, social phenomena; the heartbeat rises,palms sweat; we talk about how love is conducive to survival and reproduction and so forth. But the question of the nature of value, love. joy, suffering, etc. is as mysterious as Being itself.
How does a force, any force, possess the predisposition for profound suffering? How is it that 13 and a half years ago Being was thrust into existence (in a manner of speaking), the same stuff of your genetic inquiries and produces the rapture of love and art and music; and the horror of torturous pain? THIS is where the real religious issues, that is, existentially significant issues (not the ones manufactured out of some medieval mentality, like the existence of God the creator. Pure fabrication.), arise.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
But IMO only a fool would think that genetic drift and natural selection alone are a sufficient explanation for all we see in life.
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
That's essentially my point; and, hence the dilemma of genomic stability.
--
- Grotto19
- Posts: 866
- Joined: July 26th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Niagara Falls, N.Y. USA
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
Truth be told we cannot even attempt to comprehend what that amount of time could reasonably allow for. The very brief time we have been scientifically measuring such things is so insignificant all speculation is simply that. The best evidence we have are the bones we have found, and those show a pattern which for at least the time being seems relatively consistent. We really have little else to go on because evolutionarily our recordings are but a second reflecting on a millennia.
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
-- Updated September 25th, 2014, 8:45 am to add the following --
Why are we not allowed to delete our own posts? Why so fascist?
- Nysorquaemtas
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: September 29th, 2014, 4:31 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
That is why there is no evidence for it. That is why Dawkins talks about chances but doesn't really calculate any change. Because if he did, he would find out evolution is untrue, and, even worse, impossible.
It was ment to keep us away from anything spiritual. No, I am not a creationist, but I must say that creationists have some very good arguments against Darwinian evolution.
It is a piece of a very big puzzle.
But yes, it is a hoax.
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
So easily you breeze through it. You need to say a bit more.NysorquaemtasIt was ment to keep us away from anything spiritual. No, I am not a creationist, but I must say that creationists have some very good arguments against Darwinian evolution.
It is a piece of a very big puzzle.
But yes, it is a hoax.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?
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