The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1997
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice » June 25th, 2010, 11:28 am

Alun-You are wrong. Evolution (Darwinism and neo-Darwinism) emphatically states that all life started from a single organism which created, through a process of natural selection all life on earth, and that this process is "undirected" (random mutations and natural selection) and "random", occurring over a long, finite, amount of time. This amount of time is theorized to be about 4.5 billion years. This process also gives the "appearance" of "design". (But, is not).

If we consider that multiple coordination is necessary to effect beneficial functionality of a specific mutable organ in a complex biological organism, such as the evolution of the eye and the interpretive ability of the brain, or the oxygen carrying ability of a red blood cell from the lungs, or the ability of an organism to turn in the direction of the sun to attain UV benefits, and assess these processes against random mutability and natural selection then ask if that level of organizational coordination is possible considering that effects of a mutation are unknown and unpredictable and often deleterious without a directed mechanism assuring continued functionality throughout the process then we must ask if what we see is a complex organizational hierarchy of determined mutable functionality, or a random, unpredictable, possible hit or miss effects of theorized effective mutable functionality?

In order to create functional mutations which assure survival we need;

1. Organization
2. Coordination
3. Hierarchal imperatives
4. Continued (assured) functionality
5. Specificity??
6. Predictability??

Simply, for the Darwinian evolutionist (who wants it both ways) mutations occur out of necessity. This necessity is driven by the need for an organism to survive due to various changes, flux, to its environment, unpredicted forces which then drive the organism to create random, unpredictable and new information, which assist in, effective, functional, biologic change.

I continue to ask the question how, as a result of random mutation and natural selection, sex and gender distinctions, the appearance of male and female organisms, could have appeared naturally by the process of neo-Darwinian evolution, precisely due to hierarchal functionality. No one has yet attempted to explain to me how, or at what point, did the organism mutate into what amounts to two separate "species", male and female, without coordinated evolution resulting in effective, assured, mutual reproduction.

As Meleagar points out Alun you have not explained or demonstrated, you have simply asserted.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

User avatar
Unrealist42
Posts: 343
Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post by Unrealist42 » June 25th, 2010, 7:40 pm

Juice wrote:Unrealist42-So evolution is based on "incomplete" knowledge which is presented as fact?
The way you ask seems to impute that the theory of evolution is somehow wrong because all the facts are not known. The theory of evolution does not claim to have all the facts, does not claim to know the unknown. Its only claim is that because of the preponderance of available evidence certain things that are yet unknown can be predicted to be more likely. That many of these predictions have been confirmed and none yet dis-proven over the last 150 years or so makes the theory of evolution even more likely.
I suggest you take a more careful read of my post.

Chirality, point mutations and racemization are very much science.

If you do not know what caused X, even though you know x occurred then either nothing is true or u,v,w,x,y or z may possibly be true!!! Yet the evolutionist will make concrete assessments from, as you suggest, very little evidence. Yet want to tell me that it is impossible that the process is "undirected" from the same limited set of "facts".

It is not necessary to know what caused x to observe that x causes y. Also, you are making a gross mis-characterization of my words to claim that I said, or even suggested, that there is very little evidence of evolution. All I said was that the body of evidence, while quite large, is incomplete.

I agree, it is impossible that such a process as evolution be undirected. In fact, it is observably directed by the natural environment.
GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!
OK, pick a leg.
It may interest you to know that Sir Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA compared his discovery to computer coding except he added that the coding in DNA was far more advanced and sophisticated than any computer language.
It still is but that has more to do with our still primitive ignorance than DNA's sophistication.
I bring up the precision necessary for complex strings of nucleotides to function and that is scoffed at as part of an "hypothesis of ignorance" because I assess that type of complexity as necessarily directed since no amount of undirected sophistication exists nor can it exist in any material reality no matter how much time an evolutionists can attach for a mutation to occur.
Your mistake is that you assume nature to be unsophisticated chaos rather than a well ordered sophisticated system that we are only beginning to understand. It is far easier to understand something as unordered chaos when it's order is not apparent. This happened with the understanding of many natural pehnomena before the discovery of fractal mathematics. then they became very simple to understand.
Tell me what caused the mutation that started all the multi-billion micro-mutations towards the development of the eye. Tell me how long did the condition which caused that initial mutation last? Was the same condition necessary to allow all the other, subsequent, mutations to occur?
You would have to ask the people researching that. I am not one of them so I cannot say.
You don't even ask the question of how an organism gained the ability to have successive, successful, mutations necessary to advance an organism. Instead answer, "just because we don't know doesn't mean that God did it". What is this Li'l Abner. You hide behind God more than a creationist does.
I can make observations to figure that out. There is no guesswork involved, no divine intervention necessary. You are barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me, a godless anarchist of needing to call on god for anything.
The question that I have asked is how could we possibly know the functionality of a mutation without knowing the functional effect of that mutation being asserted. If it is not directed then there is no way of knowing which specific mutation caused an effect or if that mutation may have caused numerous effects or have no effect at all, and what are the chances and frequencies of having one or the other or all three occur or not occur.
All we know is that mutations occur and nature seems to sort them out. That is all we can discern from observation. The hypothesis that the effect of mutation can be discerned in advance is not something that is in accordance with observed phenomena.
The problem here is that natural selection is grossly inefficient and ineffective. As Meleagar has pointed out on several occasions, natural selection does not explain how new functional information can be produced by random, undirected mutations.
Grossly inefficient and ineffective? Compared to what?
Mutation is the inception of new information, a somewhat random process but a producer of new information nonetheless. The functionality of this new information, its effect, can be determined by survival in the natural environment.

This is observable.
Calling a theory which suggests, by reason and observation, that the mutation process that produces functionality must be directed, ignorant hypothesizing, is just a way evolutionist bury their heads in the sand against design probabilities.
You seem to be saying that the observation of natural phenomena is not enough to discount the probability of outside direction, that science is irrelevant.
If we consider the question of what came first we can then postulate organizational hierarchy. When we use these terms in relation to biology and specifically evolution then comes that question of how a sophisticated organism came to be wholly functional when complete integration is necessary for functionality.
What?
You can postulate organizational hierarchy into biological evolution but that is an exponent for the accretion of increasing sophistication in biological function. There is no need for fully functional new organisms to arise spontaneously in a hierarchical evolutionary scheme.
In other words what does it take to coordinate functional mutations with all the other functional mutations.
Nature, nature sorts it all out. Coordination is impossible, a ridiculous notion.
For example; assume an amphibious animal ascended from a sea with eyes, digestive and nervous systems adapted to its water environment, the question then becomes what force is necessary to integrate mutations that spontaneously affect not only sight and brain but adjust the digestive system and nervous at the same time so that the animal can survive long enough to effect these changes through its reproductive abilities? Another question is; was it the same forces which motivated that animal to become what it ultimately became before leaving the water the same forces which adapted it to land?


You are assuming that this hypothetical creature crawled out of the water after having spontaneously acquired these attributes all at once. The fossil record and observations of the attributes of various extant fish and amphibians disagrees with your assumption.
Evolutionists need to start thinking out of the box, Man. You guys are still stuck in the 1800's.
Anti-evolutionists need to start thinking. Anti-evolutionary theory has not changed since the 1800s. It has been given a new set of clothes and a new ID and paraded about but underneath the shiny new clothes and the new ID is the same old tired creature. A creature that cannot accept the observations of people curious about nature.
Meleagar wrote: The disconnect is astounding when people just assume that "if X can produce A-B, it can produce A-Z".
This is a gross mis-characterization of science in general. Science does not assume anything. Science says that if X can produce A-B then maybe it can produce A-Z but before we can say that X can produce A-Z we must find out if this original hypothesis of A-Z is likely or not. Science does this with empirical research.

Along the way to finding out if the original hypothesis of A-Z is likely scientists will make predictions based on the the hypothesis, the idea, that A-Z may be most likely. If their predictions are born out by empirical research then the hypothesis seems more likely. If a great many of these predictions are confirmed the original hypothesis is elevated to the status of a theory. The theory of evolutions predictions have been empirically tested for over 150 years and as yet there is no empirical evidence to contradict it.

What is astounding is that some people assume that because there are still many unconfirmed but not contra-indicated hypothesis concerning evolution that this somehow invalidates the entire theory.

User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun » June 26th, 2010, 3:15 am

Meleagar,
Meleagar wrote:
Alun wrote:I am very confused. The straightforward answers to your questions in this quote and in the rest of your post are all explained in my original post starting this thread, so what are you really asking?
No, you just asserted that an A to B mutation (the kind we have observed empirically is categorically the same as going from A to Z, that the process is only one of aggregation within the category, which is a fallacy of composition.
Juice is not asking the same questions as you are. I've already told you, my only conclusion with respect to your argument is that the two categories could be the same throughout all of history. As far as concepts go, they are; but there is plenty of room for empirical evidence to contradict the exclusive involvement of natural selection: Nearly every one of the premises of my argument in the OP is a point at which the theory of evolution by natural selection needs to be challenged by experimental inquiry--not just once, but for every species that is supposed to be fully explained. Your repeated claims that I am saying things other than what I am saying are very tiring, and very perplexing.
Juice wrote:You are wrong. Evolution (Darwinism and neo-Darwinism) emphatically states that all life started from a single organism which created, through a process of natural selection all life on earth, and that this process is "undirected" (random mutations and natural selection) and "random", occurring over a long, finite, amount of time. This amount of time is theorized to be about 4.5 billion years. This process also gives the "appearance" of "design". (But, is not).
Unbelievable! Are you so attached to your strawman that you're going to argue with me what it is that I'm thinking?

From Wikipedia - Natural Selection: "Natural selection is the process by which certain heritable traits—those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce —become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

From Wikipedia - Evolution:" "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

From dictionary.com - natural selection: "–noun
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations."

From dictionary.com - evolution: "Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

Only when you get to complete theories of 'the history of life' do you get mention of your claims--but these are only theories which use theories of evolution:

Wikipedia - Evolutionary history of life: "The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved. It stretches from the origin of life on Earth, thought to be over 3,500 million years ago, to the present day. The similarities between all present day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution."

I don't care to talk about whatever you think is constitutive of 'Darwinism;' this is a thread in which we are talking about one scientific theory, to which you've made a lot of objections to. Stop distracting from your own criticisms by discussing other theories.
Juice wrote:As Meleagar points out Alun you have not explained or demonstrated, you have simply asserted.
I'm sorry, Juice, but that's totally unfair, especially coming from you. You have yet to indicate that you've even read the opening post of this thread--if that post is simple assertion, then I'd hate to see how long it takes to explain.
Juice wrote:No one has yet attempted to explain to me how, or at what point, did the organism mutate into what amounts to two separate "species", male and female, without coordinated evolution resulting in effective, assured, mutual reproduction.
... Are you just dropping your previous problems, or did you go back and read the OP to have your questions answered? I'd much prefer that we actually follow through on an issue that you bring up, rather than shifting topics without getting anywhere. I'm sorry to be curt, but giving you a serious answer to an empirical question like this would require some serious time, whereas in the past you have not been very serious about your questions of me.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1997
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice » June 26th, 2010, 11:48 am

Alun-I take into consideration the ongoing debate presented in all the posts pertaining to this subject presented on this site. And, yes Alun I have read the opening post several times. What I can't overcome is the suggestion of the simplicity of the process.
Obviously there's a lot more to explain; specific events that are shown by the fossil record still need to be explained. For example, why is it that change seems to occur sporadically, instead of all the time?
We all need to ask questions. I just have more than my fair share!!!! Plus a healthy dose of skepticism.

Once again this is the problem with any discussion pertaining to the successive appearance of life on earth. When we use terms such as natural selection in conjunction with evolution then I must ask "evolution" from what? By this measurement I must ask, is natural selection the, "reasoned", mechanism for all evolutionary changes, and speciation, currently understood? For this reason I do not intend to remain in a box, or painted corner of general acceptance, since as stated the theories are themselves "evolving".

Natural Selection forms the basis of Evolution. A term formulated by Charles Darwin. Natural Selection involves numerous concepts from mutation, chemistry, molecular biology to the possibility of "Design".

Natural selection is a theory centered on "adaptability". The ability of an organism to adapt to changing environments. And, I only question whether or not this can be a "mindless" process. Then ask if a mindless process can be constructed and processed in an empirical sense as is being attempted here. In that sense is natural selection a known "conceptual" explanation being presented as orthodoxy or are there alternative "concepts" which can be considered.

We are not asking ourselves whether grape or strawberry jelly is better with peanutbutter here!! We are asking ourselves and attempting to answer the basis for the existence of all life. And, in that respect, for me at least, we had better get it right, dot every "i", cross every "t", tighten every nut and bolt, since the consequences of getting it right or wrong have far meaning consequences. So forgive me my well founded skepticism.

What is being attempted here is that we are taking natural selection at face value and applying it to speciation when what is observed is diversity within species. What can be said is that adaptability is an "inherent" design within an organism and cannot be suggested as part of the process towards speciation, as a result. The evidence suggests that small variations occur within a population. So we must ask ourselves, is natural selection a viable mechanism for the progression of all life from a single prokaryote to Man, given what is known today?

If you are going to tell me that an organism adapts to environmental flux then this does not sound to me to be random and is either a mechanism which evolved or an inherent ability built into the biologic design on a molecular level.

Unrealist42
I agree, it is impossible that such a process as evolution be undirected. In fact, it is observably directed by the natural environment.
If you are going to tell me that it took 20,000,000 years to get slight variation due to a "slight" change in temperature, you're going to have to do better than "natural selection".
OK, pick a leg.
Yours.LOL :wink: :wink:
well ordered sophisticated system that we are only beginning to understand.
This from an anarchist?????
Grossly inefficient and ineffective? Compared to what?
Mutation is the inception of new information, a somewhat random process but a producer of new information nonetheless. The functionality of this new information, its effect, can be determined by survival in the natural environment.
The fact that the acquisition of new information, necessary, to the continued survival of the organism as suggested by the theory of natural selection leaves very little, if any, room, for randomization and/or chance this is further suggestive that clarity of the process be understood.
What?
You can postulate organizational hierarchy into biological evolution but that is an exponent for the accretion of increasing sophistication in biological function. There is no need for fully functional new organisms to arise spontaneously in a hierarchical evolutionary scheme.

Nature, nature sorts it all out. Coordination is impossible, a ridiculous notion.
Take the formation of bone for instance. Not only is it necessary for the bone to be constructed but also all of its necessary connective parts. Coordination, "impossible", seems to be inherent.

Organizational hierarchy is a necessary schema for any engineering endeavor, even biological, as put forth in the example above. A free floating structure such as "bone" would serve no purpose unless all of its necessary connective structures are also a consideration in its formation and development.
Anti-evolutionists need to start thinking. Anti-evolutionary theory has not changed since the 1800s. It has been given a new set of clothes and a new ID and paraded about but underneath the shiny new clothes and the new ID is the same old tired creature. A creature that cannot accept the observations of people curious about nature.
The observations are suggestive of "design" as clearly as evolutionist state that "there is only the appearance of design".

For me Darwinian theories break down at the point where I try to attribute it to the evolution of "sexual reproduction". I have searched and continue to search for an explanation of how the appearance of separate biological organisms coordinate selective processes for the purpose of continued survival through reproduction could have occurred by natural selection let alone evolution. Try as might I cannot formulate a process by which this could "naturally" occur. So any discussion centered around a natural process and explanation for the appearance and divergence of life draws me to that one paradigm. No matter how much segmented portions of naturalistic explanations may make sense when applied to that single concept of sexual reproduction it loses its validity in my view.

Saying "what" sexual reproduction does, does not answer the question of how it came to be.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda » June 27th, 2010, 3:58 am

A free floating structure such as "bone" would serve no purpose unless all of its necessary connective structures are also a consideration in its formation and development.


But the cartilaginous bones of a young animal
are better than no bones at all :!:Similarly, my old osteoporosis bones are better than no bones at all.
Then you may as well say that bones are no use unless they are attached to joints that can move in specific ways, and joint are no use unless they can be levered by muscles and muscles are no use unless they are worked by motor neurons and so on into infinity of existence itself.But in actual fact there are useless structures in existence which may have been of use at one time but are now vestigial, or have been adapted by learning to an alternative use. Thus, bats use their wings during daylight hours as wraps against the cold.

Bats' wings are multipurpose but bats' wings nor the bones of an Olympic athlete are useless against a mighty volcano. There is no purposive design in nature. Or if there were, a skilled human engineer more efficiently moves robots around than does nature with its living tissues.
Socialist

User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun » June 27th, 2010, 8:45 am

Juice wrote:Natural selection is a theory centered on "adaptability". The ability of an organism to adapt to changing environments. And, I only question whether or not this can be a "mindless" process. Then ask if a mindless process can be constructed and processed in an empirical sense as is being attempted here. In that sense is natural selection a known "conceptual" explanation being presented as orthodoxy or are there alternative "concepts" which can be considered.
Yes, there are alternative concepts to consider... but what do you think about the validity of this argument? Instead of just asking whether I've answered the question, can you criticize how I've answered it to test the answer's validity?
Juice wrote:What can be said is that adaptability is an "inherent" design within an organism and cannot be suggested as part of the process towards speciation, as a result.
What do you mean by 'adaptability'? What I am arguing is that mutations are a part of the process towards speciation, as has been observed in experiments, as well as the appearance of new traits in a population.
Juice wrote:If you are going to tell me that an organism adapts to environmental flux then this does not sound to me to be random and is either a mechanism which evolved or an inherent ability built into the biologic design on a molecular level.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by 'adapts': Are you talking about when a population changes on a genetic level over the course of several generations, or when a population changes its behavior after being stimulated by the environment? The former is pretty much the only relevant phenomena here (unless you want to talk about how the latter could've evolved), and that is exactly the sort of scenario which I tried to argue is explained by natural selection in the OP. The argument from natural selection is not that we just randomly change. The argument is that random mutations produce phenotypes that are in turn selected by reproductive success--which can include a better ability to survive and reproduce in a new environment.

If you're trying to say that the mechanism by which organisms evolve by natural selection is derived from machinery at a molecular level, then I agree. I also agree that we have very little hard evidence of where this molecular machinery, with its very amazing results, originated--or even exactly what its molecular ancestors looked like. We have some ideas of where it could've come from, but certainly nothing definitive and historical. As such, I am perfectly willing to admit that I cannot rule out the possibility that some unknown intelligence put 'living' macromolecules or bacteria on earth capable of evolving by natural selection, and that these eventually evolved into life as we know it. But this is not in contradiction to the theory of natural selection, which is only about how the changes to life on earth occurred.

Evolution by natural selection does not answer, nor does it hinge on the answer to, the question of where/how life originated. Whether life was put here by God, aliens, an asteroid, or random chemical reactions does not change the fact that somehow there were some bacteria here, then there were other sorts of bacteria, then there were simple multicellular organisms, etc. As such, if you want to discuss the most likely sources or nature of the first life on earth, we should do it in a different thread.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1997
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice » June 27th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Belinda-When we examine the process which is presented here, natural selection, to explain to its fullest ramification, by taking the most innocuous developments into consideration such as the appearances of ancillary, necessary, structures in any evolving organism then we cannot just examine that single structure without taking into consideration the development of all other structures in relation to that structure.

For instance, as I have previously presented, the development of the eye, which not only affected the structures necessary for the operation of the eye itself but also surrounding structures such as the supra-orbital ridge and hair itself not withstanding brain size.

In the same way that an engineer must take numerous considered effects into consideration when designing an office building such as parks, parking and access roads so must the physiology of a biological organism during its development.

What we see here in an organisms physiological biological development, according to evolution is "hierarchal coordination" and organization, which is suggestive of purposeful design.

Belinda your argument on vestigial organs is grossly out of date. Many structures, once thought to be of no use, have been found to have significant uses. Just as much as the evolutionist tells me there is still so much yet to be discovered and understood I recommend that the jury on vestigial-ism remain open as the science improves.

Alun I am sure we need not rehash micro and macro evolution in relation to what is observed since we have had considerable debate on whether what is actually observed is micro or macro evolution, or that microevolution presents as macroevolution through any considered observations.

As I have stated, that the jump to be made in order to consider "natural selection" as a mechanism for macroevolution fails, in my view, so therefore is no reasoned explanation for speciation.

As I have stated, given the level of orthodoxy given to natural selection and evolution, in all its considered manifestations and concepts, it serves no purpose to accept any theory unless it lends credibility to all aspects in considering the appearance of life.

In this respect "natural selection" fails, on too many levels, to explain, as I have stated, the development of Man from a simple prokaryote. Especially in regard to the evolutionary development of sex distinctions.

Granted, the definition of "natural selection", on its face, does not implicitly correlate to evolution but it is subjectively implied as a mechanism for an evolutionary process. In this respect using the term "natural selection" in conjunction with "evolution" is a misnomer.

What natural selection as a precursor of evolution "hinges" upon is its ability to correlate and explain the most necessary aspects of the appearance of the diversity of life currently observed and known to have existed. For this reason we must admit its faults and this is not done in lieu of presenting it as orthodoxy.

When we examine the statement, "descent", with modification", as coined by Darwin, we note the attempt to correlate natural selection with evolution. "Common Ancestry" is a reference to biological diversity formed from generational descent. So to deign natural selection as a separate process from evolutionary tracts is dishonest.

As I have stated, the greatest schism to natural selection and evolution is gender distinction and sexual reproduction. Neither natural selection or evolution as a purely undirected natural process to explain that paradigm must admittedly fail when we do not give credibility to a process of design and purposeful descent.

The ability to "adapt" as a mechanism for "descent" should be viewed from two perspectives; Purposeful and designed, or natural and undirected. This is where the argument proceeds, and as you suggest, that we do not know all there is to know then forcing one degree of orthodoxy over another view is scientific malfeasance leaving the question of the appearance of life philosophy conjoined with any and all available historicity and causation applicable to science.

The question, as I have stated, is oft presented as far to simplistic. "Where did we come from and why are we here". This has been the philosophical quest that man has endeavored to glimpse since his intellectual dawning. When we turn it into some kind of an axiomatic test of will where the question becomes mute due to ideological indifference then the science, no matter how topically persuasive, is nothing more than a lie.

Sorry Alun, but natural selection is not the end all be all of the quest. The answer is that we are here, either by will or by accident so the science should, in all its aspects be presented as possibilities of both, until such time we know for sure.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

User avatar
Unrealist42
Posts: 343
Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post by Unrealist42 » June 27th, 2010, 8:45 pm

Juice wrote:
For instance, as I have previously presented, the development of the eye, which not only affected the structures necessary for the operation of the eye itself but also surrounding structures such as the supra-orbital ridge and hair itself not withstanding brain size.
There are a whole slew of organisms around today that exhibit the intermediate steps from organisms with single light sensitive cells to organisms with advanced eyes and many more in the fossil records.
In the same way that an engineer must take numerous considered effects into consideration when designing an office building such as parks, parking and access roads so must the physiology of a biological organism during its development.

What we see here in an organisms physiological biological development, according to evolution is "hierarchal coordination" and organization, which is suggestive of purposeful design.
Evolution does not claim any hierarchical coordination or organization is present in the evolution of species. Survival is not a premeditated activity. Engineers plan ahead, nature does not. Your analogy is not valid.
The question, as I have stated, is oft presented as far to simplistic. "Where did we come from and why are we here". This has been the philosophical quest that man has endeavored to glimpse since his intellectual dawning. When we turn it into some kind of an axiomatic test of will where the question becomes mute due to ideological indifference then the science, no matter how topically persuasive, is nothing more than a lie.
You are using metaphysics to discount science, arguing that because we do not know some things everything we do know is not true.There are places to discuss metaphysics but this thread is not one of them.
Sorry Alun, but natural selection is not the end all be all of the quest. The answer is that we are here, either by will or by accident so the science should, in all its aspects be presented as possibilities of both, until such time we know for sure.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we are here by will, that nature is by premeditated design. No scientific evidence has been discovered since the pastor William Paley first hypothesized an intelligent designer in the early 18th century.

What you are proposing is that science present something as science for which no scientific evidence exists.

User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun » June 27th, 2010, 9:56 pm

Juice, I'm going to start from the end:
Juice wrote:The answer is that we are here, either by will or by accident so the science should, in all its aspects be presented as possibilities of both, until such time we know for sure.
I find this to be an extremely scary idea. You are saying that partial evidence for the truth of a proposition is no evidence for its truth. What exactly do you know for certain, Juice? I would argue nothing, not even our own definitions and 'immediate' perceptions. Thus, according to your logic, we ought to teach children that there is just as good a chance that 1 + 1 = 2 as 1 + 1 = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... Likewise, grass could just as easily be blue, green, orange, red, or purple--regardless of what color it looks like to you.

As I explicitly stated in the OP, every day we take it as a premise that:
Alun wrote:P1-0) The same phenomenon under the same observed conditions is usually caused by the same process in the world.
* This is the basic premise of empirical inductive reasoning, and is a key to the scientific method in general... you trust your lungs to breathe primarily due to P1-0.
Your refusal to accept this premise for this specific argument contradicts your day-to-day implicit trust in it.
Juice wrote:The ability to "adapt" as a mechanism for "descent" should be viewed from two perspectives; Purposeful and designed, or natural and undirected. This is where the argument proceeds, and as you suggest, that we do not know all there is to know then forcing one degree of orthodoxy over another view is scientific malfeasance leaving the question of the appearance of life philosophy conjoined with any and all available historicity and causation applicable to science.
No, that is not what I said at all! I said we did not know about the origin of life on earth, which is clearly different from the changes in life on earth over time.
Juice wrote:given the level of orthodoxy given to natural selection and evolution, in all its considered manifestations and concepts, it serves no purpose to accept any theory unless it lends credibility to all aspects in considering the appearance of life.
Why do you keep saying this? Natural selection is a theory which posits a mechanism for evolution, not for the 'appearance of life.' Explanations of these two concepts can and usually are totally distinct from one another. Natural selection never was intended to explain the appearance of life.
Juice wrote:the greatest schism to natural selection and evolution is gender distinction and sexual reproduction. Neither natural selection or evolution as a purely undirected natural process to explain that paradigm must admittedly fail when we do not give credibility to a process of design and purposeful descent.
You're all over the place, Juice. First there's no evidence of natural selection, now it all makes sense except for this one particular phenomenon? Which is it?
Juice wrote:Alun I am sure we need not rehash micro and macro evolution in relation to what is observed since we have had considerable debate on whether what is actually observed is micro or macro evolution, or that microevolution presents as macroevolution through any considered observations.

As I have stated, that the jump to be made in order to consider "natural selection" as a mechanism for macroevolution fails, in my view, so therefore is no reasoned explanation for speciation.
I disagree with your assumption. I recall listing some examples in direct contradiction to your claims, such as:
Alun wrote:P1-4) Reproduction itself is governed by the expression of DNA.
P2-4) Two populations of organisms that do not reproduce using one another's genetic material are of different species.
C1-4) Species can diverge due to the accumulation of gradual mutations.
* This has been explored on a genetic level for past eukaryotic species divergence events [11][12].
* This has been observed in the present tense for bacteria [13].
C2-4) Species can diverge due to reproductive pressure (from C1-3).
* This has been specifically observed in the present tense in many types of organism [14].
As a reminder, that final link (#14) is not just one source, but a review of multiple papers that are clear, easy to understand examples of speciation which we have observed in multicellular organisms in a laboratory setting. And we observed it happen by natural selection. (And no, the example with the corn is not polyploidy; only the first section involves polyploidy and hybridization.)

I've broken down the argument for you, now the ball is in your court to say exactly which premise(s) or logical step(s) you disagree with.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1997
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice » June 28th, 2010, 9:15 am

Let me clarify: When I use the term, "appearance of life", I am referring to the way life is observed to have come the way it is today, by whichever considered mechanism.

The appearance of life doesn't mean how did life come to be or its origin but how did life appear to be the it is observed to be, taking everything that could be considered as part of that dilemma as possible.

Lets take a look at what "natural selection" would have me believe. That a mechanism inherent in all organisms, allowing each to survive given certain environmental conditions will then stop in some organisms favoring one organism over another.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1997
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice » June 28th, 2010, 1:32 pm

When I say "appearance of life", I mean life as it is observed to exist and have developed to exist today. Sorry, but I don't mean "origin of life".

When speaking of hierarchal organization and coordination within biological systems and specifically self contained organisms termed "life" we are speaking of "morphology". More specifically the coordination observed and is necessary to determine evolution by natural selection, as a purely, considered, materialistic mechanism, considering mutation rates, mutation vitality, and gradualism.

Some seem to disagree with me that the totality of generational descent must be taken into consideration in order to formulate and understand the appearance of life understood and observed to date. While "origin of life" may not be considered as part of the discussion subsequent life processes proceeding from that event are, and consideration of whether or not natural selection was part of that initial chemical process should be considered, since understanding the development of a chemical process which may have produced a mechanism by which life appeared as currently observed can assist in further understanding a determined process versus a naturalistic process.

Considering whether or not natural selection was part of that initial chemical process as an inherent aspect determining generational descent begs the question of how such a chemical process remained unchanged for the 3.4 billion years or so that life has existed.

Considering such aspects of the process such as the Cambrian Explosion and the appearance of gender distinction and sexual reproduction within the schematic of the process must be a considered application to generational descent.

If we can view, as science does, "laws" embedded in any in any process which remains consistent then we must ask where do these laws originate and why do they remain consistent. Consistency suggests laws, such as gravitation laws and gas laws.

We understand that mutations occur at a molecular level, and if natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, and since life has had a successful progression from those first Prokaryotes to Man then natural selection must be considered a process inherent in the chemical processes from the beginning of the formation of life.

This avenue of investigation lends credibility to design theory.

When we consider hierarchal organization and morphological coordination as a necessary observed aspect of generational descent from a Prokaryote to Man then we can begin to understand the rational of design concepts.
Last edited by Juice on June 28th, 2010, 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

Meleagar
Posts: 1874
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar » June 28th, 2010, 2:04 pm

Alun is conflating "speciation" with "macroevolution".

Macroevolution, as Juice is describing it (and correct me if I'm wrong), is the construction from scratch of functioning stereoscopic color vision (or some equivalent). What, exactly, is speciation, and what, exactly constitutes "speciation"? Is it when one lineage that extends from a species can no longer interbreed with the preceding lineage?

If so, has anyone shown that X (what it takes to prevent one lineage from interbreeding with it's parent species) is in any way the same process as Y (what it takes to create functioning eyesight from scratch)?

No? Then why is Alun assuming they are categorically the same process?

User avatar
Unrealist42
Posts: 343
Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post by Unrealist42 » June 28th, 2010, 4:41 pm

Juice wrote: When we consider hierarchal organization and morphological coordination as a necessary observed aspect of generational descent from a Prokaryote to Man then we can begin to understand the rational of design concepts.
Necessary observed aspect?
The only necessity for "necessary observed aspect of generational descent" that I can see is to justify a designer which makes your statement, in a single sentence, a circular argument.

Lacking a designer there is no need for any necessary observed aspect.
Meleagar wrote:Alun is conflating "speciation" with "macroevolution".

Macroevolution, as Juice is describing it (and correct me if I'm wrong), is the construction from scratch of functioning stereoscopic color vision (or some equivalent). What, exactly, is speciation, and what, exactly constitutes "speciation"? Is it when one lineage that extends from a species can no longer interbreed with the preceding lineage?

If so, has anyone shown that X (what it takes to prevent one lineage from interbreeding with it's parent species) is in any way the same process as Y (what it takes to create functioning eyesight from scratch)?

No? Then why is Alun assuming they are categorically the same process?
The process is the same, evolution, the results are categorized with different words merely as a convenient conversational device. Macroevolution is observations made of changes in particular aspects across species. Speciation is far more specific as you say.

Meleagar
Posts: 1874
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar » June 28th, 2010, 5:33 pm

The process is the same,
Asserting that it is the same isn't demonstrating that it is the same.

User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun » June 28th, 2010, 10:38 pm

Juice wrote:While "origin of life" may not be considered as part of the discussion subsequent life processes proceeding from that event are, and consideration of whether or not natural selection was part of that initial chemical process should be considered, since understanding the development of a chemical process which may have produced a mechanism by which life appeared as currently observed can assist in further understanding a determined process versus a naturalistic process.
As I said, we do not know what form, much less what chemical structure, life originally had. This makes what you want fairly uncertain. Tests of evolution by natural selection need not have a holistic historical scope: It can be reduced to the changes in a specific population over time.
Juice wrote:We understand that mutations occur at a molecular level, and if natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, and since life has had a successful progression from those first Prokaryotes to Man then natural selection must be considered a process inherent in the chemical processes from the beginning of the formation of life.

This avenue of investigation lends credibility to design theory.
As I said, there is very little evidential difference between supposing some intelligence put organisms on earth which could evolve by natural selection, and supposing that said organisms appeared by random chemical reactions. What this thread is considering is only whether or not the changes the life on earth has experienced since then could've occurred via the autonomous mechanism argued by the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Meleagar wrote:Alun is conflating "speciation" with "macroevolution".
Sorry, maybe you guys should define your terms if you're going to make up new definitions for them. I wrote the OP assuming macroevolution meant this: (dictionary.com) major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
Meleagar wrote:What, exactly, is speciation, and what, exactly constitutes "speciation"? Is it when one lineage that extends from a species can no longer interbreed with the preceding lineage?
:( Check the OP and my last post where I quoted the definition.
Meleagar wrote:If so, has anyone shown that X (what it takes to prevent one lineage from interbreeding with it's parent species) is in any way the same process as Y (what it takes to create functioning eyesight from scratch)?
As I've said repeatedly, that has to be confirmed or falsified empirically. I am not going to go dig up papers on every phenomenon you have questions about; this thread was meant to address conceptual issues, not scientific details.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

Post Reply