I have a strong interest in the question of free will. The philosophical issues are fascinating, and the implications for our society are enormous. The denial of the reality of free will undermines our basic freedoms and undermines our social order. Aside from the assertion that God does not exist, it's difficult to think of a more destructive assertion than 'we have no free will'.
But what precisely is the debate about free will all about? Here's my understanding of it.
There are two sets of yes-or-no propositions in the debate about free will that form the framework for the debate.
The yes or no propositions are:
Is determinism true?
Determinism is the belief that our actions are necessitated by present and past events, consistent with the laws of nature.
One can describe the determinist position with an x,y graph. The independent variable (x) is time, and the dependent variable (y) is an option of behavior or thought. There are an infinite number of such graphs, representing the spectrum of options we have available. If determinism is true, then all graphs consist of an unbranched line. There is only one possibility for future behavior. That option is determined by past events and the laws of nature. Our belief that we have genuine options is an illusion. Our behavior and thoughts are determined.
Indeterminism is the denial of determinism. Indeterminism is the belief that our actions are not necessitated by present and past events, nor by the laws of nature. We have genuine choices, and could have chosen to do other than that which we do.
One can also describe the libertarian position with an x,y graph. As with determinism, the independent variable (x) is time, and the dependent variable (y) is an option of behavior or thought. There are an infinite number of such graphs, representing the spectrum of options we have available. If indeterminism is true, then all graphs consist of branched lines. There is more than one possibility for future behavior, and we choose it. That option is not determined by past events and the laws of nature. Our belief that we have genuine options is not an illusion. Our behavior and thoughts are our choice, in some real way.
Of course, indeterminists don't believe that our choices are utterly without influences from the natural world. Any number of natural conditions influence our choices, obviously. We tend to choose differently when we are drunk than when we are sober, etc. But, at a fundamental level. at least some of our choices are genuine choices. We could have done otherwise, but chose not to.
The second yes-or no proposition is:
Is free will compatible with determinism?
Compatibilism is the belief that both determinism and free will are compatible. All of our acts and thoughts could be determined by past and present events and by the laws of nature, but we could genuinely claim that out acts and thoughts are free to some extent. Note that compatibilism does not imply anything about the truth of determinism or free will. It merely states that they are compatible in a logical sense.
Incompatibilism is the belief that both determinism and free will are not compatible. All of our acts and thoughts could be determined by past and present events and by the laws of nature, but then we could not genuinely claim that out acts and thoughts are free to some extent. Note that incompatibilism does not imply anything about the truth of determinism or free will. It merely states that they are incompatible in a logical sense.
As you might imagine, the questions that arise from this issue are protean. I'll post on some of the more interesting ones. But I raise two questions now:
If hard determinism is true, then can we trust the opinion 'hard determinism is true' to be true? After all, we came to that belief without choice, enslaved to the past and to physics. Why would we credit physics with the capacity to ascertain metaphysical truth?
The other question is this:
If hard determinism is true, why try? Why do anything? If the future is set according to the past and the laws of nature, then what will be will be no matter what you do. Why make any effort at all? Why not just sit on the couch, open a beer, and let the inevitable happen?
As you might imagine, I'm a libertarian incompatibilist . I believe that free will is real, and that determinism is wrong, and that determinism is incompatible with free will.
The issue is fascinating, and very important.
I too have a strong interest in the question of free will, but I disagree that the implications for our society are enormous. I doubt very much that anyone who has adopted the view that free will is an illusion has ever then decided they will just sit on the couch and drink beer. Even if you believe that free will is an illusion, it’s such a convincing illusion that we have no choice to proceed as if it where real and get on with making the myriad choices we make every day.
ReplyDelete@anon:
ReplyDelete[I doubt very much that anyone who has adopted the view that free will is an illusion has ever then decided they will just sit on the couch and drink beer. Even if you believe that free will is an illusion, it’s such a convincing illusion that we have no choice to proceed as if it where real and get on with making the myriad choices we make every day.]
That's exactly my point. Your assertion that free will is an illusion is so stupid that even you don't really believe it.
And I love your locution "we have no choice but proceed...'. According to you, you have no choice at all, about anything. You're just a meat robot, without even a designer.
What a stupid ideology.
My point was that your questions make no practical difference to anyone. The one possible exception to that is neuroscientists who can only expect to make progress in the field if they make the same materialistic assumptions that underpin all of science.
ReplyDeleteYour view inevitably leads to some sort of magical essence that you feel you need in order to avoid seeing yourself as a meat robot. I find it ironic that considering your obvious distaste for the concept of humans as meat robots, you are in effect, a meat robot repair man.
Anon wrote:
ReplyDelete"I find it ironic that considering your obvious distaste for the concept of humans as meat robots, you are in effect, a meat robot repair man."
What a funny way to express that? 'in effect', eh? So the effect of you ideology is that the work done by men such as Dr Egnor (ie neurosurgery) is that of a 'a meat robot repair man'? What a bleak outlook. Good thing it can have no relation to an objective truth.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[Anonymous said...
My point was that your questions make no practical difference to anyone.]
Free will makes all the difference. If determinism is true, there is no reason to do anything. All practical acts depend on the falsehood of determinism.
[The one possible exception to that is neuroscientists who can only expect to make progress in the field if they make the same materialistic assumptions that underpin all of science.]
Materialist assumptions underpin atheism, not science. What is material about laws of nature? How much do they weigh? Where are they located?
Don't confuse your pinhead ideology for science.
[Your view inevitably leads to some sort of magical essence that you feel you need in order to avoid seeing yourself as a meat robot.]
The opposite is true. I have no problem avoiding inferences to meatrobot-ism. We are created by God, in His Image,adn we are composites of matter and spiritual soul. That's not magic, it's the truth about man.
You're the one who has to resort to magic: somehow atoms in the void become alive. Spooky!
[I find it ironic that considering your obvious distaste for the concept of humans as meat robots, you are in effect, a meat robot repair man.]
I'm a surgeon who takes care of human beings. None of my patients are meat robots. They're real people, just like you and me.
“Materialist assumptions underpin atheism, not science. What is material about laws of nature? How much do they weigh? Where are they located?
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse your pinhead ideology for science.”
I find it difficult to believe you don’t know the definition of materialism and its role in science. Your suggestion that the laws of nature must weigh something, or be located somewhere, as if that has anything to do with materialism, is just plain intellectually dishonest.
It’s funny that you think you can zing me with “You're the one who has to resort to magic” as if it’s is a stupid thing to do, when you do it every day.
Your apparent need to go with the ad hominem “stupid” and “pinhead” demonstrates the emptiness of your quiver. For a man who seems to fancy himself a master of metaphysics and logic you sure seem to have a hard time controlling you baser, less civilized, instincts.
For a man who seems to fancy himself a master of metaphysics and logic you sure seem to have a hard time controlling you baser, less civilized, instincts.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell are you talking about? I thought Egnor doesn't really have free will to "control" any such thing, according to your lights.
You don't need to agree with Egnor, but you ought to try agreeing with yourself.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[I find it difficult to believe you don’t know the definition of materialism...]
Materialism: incoherent gibberish asserted soley for the purpose of denying the existence of God.
"For a man who seems to fancy himself a master of metaphysics and logic..."
I'm no metaphysical master. I'm hardly competent. But atheism is such self-refuting drivel ('nothing caused the universe... free will is an illusion...')that even a spark of coherence looks like mastery.
You know the old adage: in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king...
The trouble with atheism is all the special pleading. According to them, free will is enough of a subjective illusion that it allows "us" to exist, but determinism is enough of an objective reality that it precludes God from existing.
ReplyDeleteHow convenient.
Matteo:
ReplyDelete"The trouble with atheism is all the special pleading.'
Exactly. I am coming to realize (at such a late age!) that what I had thought was a flawed but substantial argument (atheism)is in fact a mash of special pleading. What particularly brought this point home to me has been the assertion that ID is false, and untestable. I'm now seeing that that kind of laugh-out-loud gibberish characterizes all atheist arguments. Built on sand.
Egnor: I'm no metaphysical master. I'm hardly competent.
ReplyDeleteTrue, that.
What is material about laws of nature?
What exactly do you mean by laws of nature? Is Newton's law of universal gravitation one of those?
Personally, I have come to view the ID position as more of a (re)discovery of purpose and design in nature; a series of observations and discoveries rather than a theory.
ReplyDeleteI see it as interesting and full of potential in that regard. It could be the breeding ground for new working theories.
So, when I see Atheists / Materialists arguing that 'ID is false, and untestable' (or along those lines) I see it as an error in approach. They see a challenge to their Origins via NS theory, but in reality there is a series of discoveries that when observed as a whole pattern refutes NS origin theory.
They cannot see the forest for the trees.
What I find remarkable about this is how useful such monistic thinking makes people, for the 'opposition'.
crusadeREX:
ReplyDelete[What I find remarkable about this is how useful such monistic thinking makes people, for the 'opposition'.]
Atheism is a target-rich environment. When you add their sense of self-importance to their gibberish, it's amusing as well.
@oleg:
[What exactly do you mean by laws of nature?]
The teleology of most natural change, especially the teleology that can be expressed mathematically.
Egnor: The teleology of most natural change, especially the teleology that can be expressed mathematically.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I understand what you mean. Can you give us an example of a law of nature? Is Newton's law of universal gravitation a law of nature?
oleg:
ReplyDelete[Not sure I understand what you mean. Can you give us an example of a law of nature? Is Newton's law of universal gravitation a law of nature?]
Newton's law is a law of nature. So with Boyle's Law, Charles's Law, Einstein's tensor equations, quantum electrodynamics, ad nauseum.
You know exactly what I mean.
Egnor: The teleology of most natural change, especially the teleology that can be expressed mathematically.
ReplyDeleteTeleology!? Are you serious? I think a better definition would be something like “An explanatory framework describing empirical truth observed to be valid over a wide range of well defined circumstances”. Teleological assertions should be a big warning to turn on you B.S. detector. None of the laws you mention subsequently are teleological in any way. I also doubt there are any theories that rise to the level of natural law that can’t be expressed mathematically.
I think Anon, Dr Egnor is talking about the possible analogy, that well fixed laws might be goal oriented.
ReplyDeleteI remember coming with that thought once or twice trying to figure as many possible interpretations to to natural occurences.
I think that, we have some confusions here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Materialism and Naturalism and other metaphysical philosophies are frameworks in science.
Of course, pretending that, there are no people claiming that some of these philosophies are scientific truths.
___________________________________________
I think Dr Egnor is talking about something like this.
Do Natural Law exists? If so, are they Material? If not why matter is like that?
I think that it follows finally that matter is contingent, and if it is necessary, what follows from that.
I think that the only one that could evade the question giving straight without resorting to exterior elements of the Universe like God, or a Higher Force, or a Crazy Ass Multiverse XD; would be Pantheists, Pendeists, Penemtheists... maybe the Monist can save himself too.
I mean, if something IS, exists by itself, it must be something necessary. SO no room for contingency I suppose.
For a non-metaphysical philosophy, that often falls in a more straight ontology, like let's say, Materialistic Naturalism or somehting like that. Or other types of philosophies that create the idea that nothing really exists outside what there is now, would come to that point and simply have to Postulate that somethings in the Universe ARE.
It is a axiom, because for these philosophies, these kind fo questions are too basic. Like it becomes for these Ontological/Metaphysical philosophies something that doesn't need to be proved.
Like Dots and Straight Lines, and Planes in geometry, or the existence of the number 2. But of course, that does not mean it doesn't have a prove let's say.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[Teleology!? Are you serious?]
Just kiddin'.
[I think a better definition would be something like “An explanatory framework describing empirical truth observed to be valid over a wide range of well defined circumstances”.]
Directedness in nature. Teleology.
[Teleological assertions should be a big warning to turn on you B.S. detector.]
My b.s. detector is so overwhelmed by atheism and materialism and Darwinism that it didn't go off when I mentioned teleology. Odd.
[None of the laws you mention subsequently are teleological in any way.]
Teleology simply means directedness in natural change. All natural laws are teleological, by definition. Sometimes the directedness is quantatitive and can be expressed mathematically.
[I also doubt there are any theories that rise to the level of natural law that can’t be expressed mathematically.]
My dog begs for cheese. That's teleological behavior. I haven't found a formula for it.
Your allergy to teleology is because you think that teleology means God. Aquinas argued that it did (Fifth Way). Aristotle argued that it didn't.
So you don't need to do the usual and deny the obvious (teleology) just because it might let a divine foot in the door. Just say you agree with Aristotle, and you can have your non-divine teleology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAtheists, materialists, determinists, darwinists, liberals and other monkey offspring have a tendency to paint themselves in a corner!
ReplyDeleteEgnor: Newton's law is a law of nature. So with Boyle's Law, Charles's Law, Einstein's tensor equations, quantum electrodynamics, ad nauseum.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer, Mike. You should keep in mind that these laws are only approximations that have a limited range of applicability. Newton's law of universal gravitation breaks down at high speeds and for strong gravitational fields. Einstein's equations break down at the microscopic scale where quantum effects are important. Boyle's and Charle's laws are only valid in the limit of dilute gases etc. In that sense, these aren't laws handed down from on high. They are products of human mind. There is no reason to believe that they are an expression of the ultimate truth (whatever that is).
@oleg:
ReplyDeleteThat's the salience of using the concept of teleology. Teleology simply means that some change in nature is directional-- things tend to change in certain ways. Rocks fall to earth, struck matches lite, heated gasses expand, etc. Any directionality to change falls under the rubric of teleology.
As you've noted, our understanding of teleology in nature is incomplete. Our models and equations are generally imprecise for many processes. It is fair to say that one of the central goals of science is to make our understanding of teleology more precise.
I point out that although the mathematical description teleology in nature is the product of the human mind, the teleology itself is independent of the human mind. Directionality in natural change (gravity, entropy, etc) have been going on since the beginning of time, and will continue after man is gone.
Some people have argued that teleology is evidence for God; some have argued that it is not. But anybody willing to be honest recognizes that teleology is real and pervasive.
In fact, teleology has been a source of disagreement between Thomists and ID advocates. Thomists see evolution as teleological, and may feel that the term "design" misstates the reality (they assert that nature is not a machine, and is not designed in the sense of an artifact). ID folks insist that "design" is appropriate. It's an iteresting debate.
I tend to side with the Thomists, but I have sympathy with both sides.
“My dog begs for cheese. That's teleological behavior. I haven't found a formula for it.”
ReplyDeleteYeah, and my socks smell bad at the end of the day, but I’m pretty confident it doesn’t rise to the level of natural law, which by their very nature are literally universal.
I think I can safely say that there are no scientific principles that have been elevated to the status of a law of nature that rely on Teleology in any way.
As a matter of fact, the principles that we have elevated to the status of natural law are, with few notable exceptions, completely time symmetric and directionless, and thus obviously not goal dependent. Play the film backwards for any natural change you can think of, and the resulting sequence of events will in no way violate Newtonian Physics, Special or General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics. Of course the second law of thermodynamics is time dependant, but it is only applicable to systems that contain enough degrees of freedom for meaningful statistical analysis.
The thing is, I know allot more about the nature of natural law then Aristotle or Aquinas ever did. You can’t really talk intelligently about natural law and the nature of change in the universe if you have only the vaguest of notions of what you’re talking about. Aristotle and Aquinas where stumbling in the dark. Not only did the not know the answers; they barely knew the questions. I would love to fill them in, I’m sure they would be fascinated. I’m looking forward to the day when you get beyond 13th century metaphysics in your studies and join me standing on the shoulders of giants.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[Yeah, and my socks smell bad at the end of the day, but I’m pretty confident it doesn’t rise to the level of natural law, which by their very nature are literally universal.]
Natural law governs your sock smell problem, from odiferous gas production by your sock bacteria to diffusion of the gas through the air to olfaction in your nose and sensation in your brain. You seriously need to bone up on science. My biochem professor in med school (Richard Axel) won the Nobel Prize for his work on olfaction. Lots of laws of nature there.
[I think I can safely say that there are no scientific principles that have been elevated to the status of a law of nature that rely on Teleology in any way.]
They don't 'depend' on teleology. They are teleology.
[As a matter of fact, the principles that we have elevated to the status of natural law are, with few notable exceptions, completely time symmetric and directionless, and thus obviously not goal dependent.]
The directionality of natural change (positive attracts negative, etc) is goal dependence. And time symmetry of natural laws (with exceptions) has strengthened the inference to teleology. One of the critiques of teleology in the early modern era was that it implied retrocausation-- the future can cause the past. Time symmetry of natural processes makes that less of an issue.
[The thing is, I know allot more about the nature of natural law then Aristotle or Aquinas ever did.]
They knew less natural laws than we do. They knew much more about the nature of natural law than you do. You can fix that, by learning from them.
[I would love to fill them in, I’m sure they would be fascinated.]
They would love to learn about natural law. After all, it was their genius that prepared the way for modern science. But they'd say you were a fool for accepting materialism. They'd be right.
[I’m looking forward to the day when you get beyond 13th century metaphysics in your studies and join me standing on the shoulders of giants.]
I do quite a bit of science (I'm a tenured research professor). I have the perspective to understand where the deep wisdom that has given us modern science came from.
It wasn't from 'shit happened'.
Can you imagine the look on Aquinas’s face as you explain to him how the application of the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy to the physics of black holes has lead us to a clearer theoretical understanding of the nature of the big bang singularity? I’m sure he would quickly see what should be obvious to all of us with benefit of hindsight; philosophy is a useless tool for divining truths about nature.
ReplyDeleteI certainly do appreciate to contribution Aquinas and others pre-science philosophers have made to the western tradition of rational inquiry. I’m glad they gave it a shot, you have to start somewhere.
“I do quite a bit of science (I'm a tenured research professor).”
I’m sure that’s why I’m enjoying this so much. This is way more fun than trying to engage your political allies over on Glenn Beck’s website. Those dolts don’t know their ass from their elbow. I don’t mind clever snaky remarks; as a matter of fact I rather look forward to them. I want you to land a good blow. I just wish you could refrain from cheap shot insults like “stupid” and “pinhead”.
Finish your thought “It wasn't from 'shit happened'….some guy did it.”
Anon... Logic ... which happens to be part of philosophy... has helped science a lot n_n.
ReplyDeleteLike RickK said, hope you are not RickK... Science is Philosophy with a LAB, and I agree 100% with him.
Let's just put this way ... Science has grown so much as a gospel in people's head, they believe that science is all there is and all else is garbage.
Big thanks to science popularizers that made this shit true!
Right, Aristotle and Aquinas simply lacked the mild autism required to focus on the props and set design to the exclusion of the play itself. The poor guys simply didn't realize that the inductive study of secondary causes acting in a fallen world is far, far more important than deductive knowledge of the First Cause.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt whatsoever that you will, in fact have the chance to meet Aquinas and Aristotle, but as to who would be filling in whom, it will probably be quite different than what you expect.
actually anon ... errr this argument is not an argument of authority, even though Dr Egnor like Aquinas.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are doing is ...well a genetic fallacy. You are trying to discredit the argument by saying that these men did not know a thing of what we know...
hmmm let me illustrate this to you, Einstein knows less about Theorical Science than we do... therefore Relativity is wrong.
Newton knew less than I do, therefore, the Theory of Gravitation is wrong.
Galileu knew less than me, therefore, Bodies with different masses fall with different speeds.
Edward, your examples are horrible. I’m simply judging the merit of philosophical assertions in the light of new evidence.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I where to say that Fred Hoyle was wrong about steady state cosmology because he didn’t know of the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation predicted by the big bang, would that entail the genetic fallacy? I think not.
Newton too, was in a sense, wrong. Well before Einstein arrived on seen, observations of Mercury’s orbit showed that Newtonian physics had limits. I can rightfully say Newton knows less than I do about gravity. He was unaware of the boundaries of his theory’s applicability, and he was unaware of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which is more broadly applicable and provides a physical explanation of gravity that Newton’s theory lacks (curved space-time). Is there any fallacy? Having said that, we can still rightly talk about Newton’s law of gravity because it retains great utility for making accurate predictions about nature within a well defined set of circumstances.
Philosophical positions like Teleology are much more difficult to refute because they don’t make any predictions. The notion that there is purpose or direction in nature (the Greek word “telos” does after all mean “end” or “purpose”) does absolutely nothing to advance human understanding of the natural world. It’s the antithesis of the kind of naturalistic assumptions underpinning all of science, the only human endeavor that relentlessly adds to our knowledge of the natural world.
Fred Hoyle
ReplyDelete_______________________________
Is your example analogous to your criticism of Aquinas ??? You are trying to judge a logical argument by discrediting it by attacking Aquinas lack of knowledge. Second, we are talking about Metaphysics, not necessarily Science. See Aquinas is trying to prove a prime reality or first mover, and he is looking for that because God is a creator of everything for him. See the argument doesn't necesssarily loses it's power because of material evidence, since new material evidence doesn't necessarily refute logical rules.
_______________________________
Newton
_______________________________
You are not understanding the basics of a genetic fallacy. Newton was not correct I am well aware of that. My terrible examples were to show, how a person is trying to arrive at conclusions using genetic fallacy. What you are doing is simply showing that their models was wrong which is a valid argument, BUT, no the same thing you did with Aquinas. You are trying to refute a logical argument with scientific models and theories.
______________________________
Predictions
______________________________
You are absolutely wrong about teleology oh man. Try to describe a animal's body without using teleology please ?
Solve a crime without teleology ?
Go through your day without teleology ?
Teleology makes predictions, and obvious predictions, try to understand a boxers behavior withour teleology. With "telos" I can predict what will be the next step of a system.
_________________________________
Final assertion
_________________________________
right so I can safely assume that all you just sad is worthless. after all none of that was proved scientific.
Anon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, and my socks smell bad at the end of the day,"
Note how a materialist equates an object, such as a sock, with a living being (dog). He equates the stench in his sock to the dogs desire for a specific taste response (cheese). Is that rational or logical? I see it as tragically reductionist.
How now to pursue a conversation on teleology when your fellow is unsure of the difference in purpose between a sock and a living canid? It makes me wonder if the conversation would be better held with the DOG? Perhaps it's grasp of reality is a little firmer.
“You are absolutely wrong about teleology oh man. Try to describe a animal's body without using teleology please ?”
ReplyDeleteEasy, please refer to a good book on evolutionary biology. In particular I recommend Stephen Jay Gould’s “Full House” The book demonstrates how statistical misconceptions give the impression that evolution proceeds in a preferred direction. In the case of the dog or any other animal, biology controls the dog’s behavior and evolution explains the biology.
Sure, a dog wants to eat cheese, that’s easily explained by biology, but a desire to eat isn’t any more a natural law than the fact that broken glass is sharp, nor does existence of hunger imply a nature imbued with a final goal or preferred direction, which as I’ve explained, is the central tenet of Teleology.
You seem to think just because things change, and animals act in accordance with desired outcomes, that somehow Teleology is obvious, but Teleology asserts that all of nature progresses in a preferred direction to some final goal, and a hungry dog doesn’t even come close to demonstrating that.
I’ve functioned every day of my life without Teleology and so have you. We may act with regard to certain goals, but those goals have nothing to do with a preferred direction of nature. What’s ironic is that you’re unwittingly arguing for goal oriented evolution, because that’s the one aspect of nature that sure seems goal oriented due to our perspective from the top of the evolutionary heap.
CrusadeREX, try to keep up, your last comment was so pathetic I’m not even going to waste my time.
Anon you didn't get what I meant, and actually I even wrote it wrong.
ReplyDeleteBach where the heck are you to save me XD.
For instance, hands are made for... or wings are made for... paws are made for, claws are made for.
I am not talking about teleology of preferred direction in Evolution, but rather purpose in body plans!
I would love to read Gould's book, but... the whole problem is that evolution is throughly especulative, so it might have the teleology you talk about, or it might not. Right now I believe that evolution has a preferred direction because... well, it is not a free in all directions mutation. Otherwise we should have spotted the fucked up "designs", somethings like monsters or not evolved limbs or something like that.
I mean the best example I have in my head is T-rex's fucked up "arms". But overall that is it.
“See the argument doesn't necessarily loses its power because of material evidence, since new material evidence doesn't necessarily refute logical rules.”
ReplyDeleteBut it does. Logical rules obviously have great utility when applied to math, and the math has certainly shown great utility in describing nature, but deductive reasoning in the absence of supporting observation and mathematical frameworks has proven to be virtually useless. I can’t think of a single valid scientific principle that was deduced solely by the application of logical rules. Nobody ever said anything like “I’ve given it allot of thought lately, and based solely on logical principles, I’ve determined that the earth is round.”. Nature has provided us with surprises around every corner, and until we look, we have little hope of figuring out great universal truths.
“For instance, hands are made for... or wings are made for... paws are made for, claws are made for.”
Ahh, I think I get your point. I would be tempted to say “hands evolved for..or wings evolved for…”, but even though the supporters of evolution often slip into this kind of language, it’s wrong.
Take the evolution of the tetrapod limb for instance. It’s easy to imagine that somehow the development of a better limb was a desired goal so that animals could conquer the land, but evolution doesn’t work that way. The evolution of the limb was due to the immediate effects of mutations on the fitness of individuals. Those individuals who had even a slight mobility advantage allowing them to utilize resources that others of their species could not reach would gain an advantage resulting in their ability to have more offspring. The beneficial mutation would then inevitably spread through the population resulting in a population better adapted to exploit shallow water resources. There is no goal, only immediately beneficial mutations that then accumulate over time. This process is what Dr. Egnor likes to refer to as “shit happens”.
“Otherwise we should have spotted the fucked up "designs", somethings like monsters or not evolved limbs or something like that.”
Generally, mutations that result in fucked up individuals don’t get passed on, but having said that I can think of a few suboptimal traits that do get passed on. I’ll stick to humans.
I have sleep apnea, not bad, but I can’t really sleep on my back. This condition is a result of details of human anatomy that are contingent upon our evolutionary history. I can certainly imagine that it could have been otherwise, but we’re stuck with what we’ve got.
Then there’s sickle-cell anemia, carrying one copy of the mutated gene responsible for the disease gives you a measure of immunity to malaria. Carrying two copies makes you sick. Unfortunately for the unlucky people that get two copies of the gene, more individuals gain in fitness by avoiding malaria than lose fitness from sickle cell disease. I would like to think that an all powerful designer could have come up with a better solution to malaria prevention, but on the other hand, this is exactly the kind of fucked up thing you can get from evolution.
Oh shit. It’s almost 8, I need to get a life.
Anon.
ReplyDeleteLogical Rules without Math or evidence
___________________________________
The relation of Cause and Effect or Action and Reaction has no mathematical model to it neither it can be proved scientifically. I don't the body A moved because the body B touched it or vice versa. Of course if I was to take your assertion as true ... it will self refute. Sooooo... No point in believeing that Pure logic is worthless, like mathematical truths will be worthless as well.
Sorry Anon I think that trying to fit a Method as the Ultimate Epystemoly is worthless because the proccess that created the Method must also be considered correct. So it leaves only two options: Make axioms that certain types of abstractions are valid and can only be used to create the model, which most likely will fall into petition os principle of somesort, or will Beg the Question, or ...well it won't go well. Or realize that all knowledge is non existent since the mechanism will self refute. It doesn't matter how it goes, Methods need to be considered frameworks, but not as Ultimate truth as so many of our dearest Science Popularizers and Teachers like to do.
PS: The principle of incertainty... just saying.
_______________________________________________
Evolution
_______________________________________________
Anon first of all, I would agree with you if Natural Selection was the toughest bitch ever. For instance we know that Human beings with certain disadvantegeous characteristics survive to give birth to a new *Cycle of life, or children of tomorrow... some funky word like that*. Now let's put you, you have back problem, I don't. Or something more dramatic, People with bad eyes. My eyes are pretty good, but most my friends have bad eyes. Now this characteristic, let's say, can be tracked back to genes.
If Natural Selection was a "killer" these people would have died long time ago, but because we changed so much our environment, they are still around. So we know that it is the characteristics that beings have that "decide" the battle. As you said of course.
The problem is... Natural Selction doesn't know shit, so the best we can say that natural selection does is favor the ones that have enough chracteristics to survive. Let's say, I remember Bach another post around here... I think it was him... talking that all you need is to run faster than the slowest of your peers. True, if you have other beings to hunt you, and if your Species are not already faster than the pursuers, otherwise, that rule falls like shit.
Put this way, IN an given environment you need to move at least at 10 km/h, that is like a human being walking fast. So if you can move faster than that, you will survive and will be able to spread your genes. It doesn't matter that you are the slowest of your kind because you happened to be born with legs behind you back XD!, you can beat the competition easily.
The whole problem is simple see, as long as you fall inside the environment threashold of survival you are a Winner. And that is it. So look-design structures can really show up very often if you depend of Natural selection.
For instance, you can have like 1000 sons, and 995 of them are born with chracteristics worst than yours... but you happen to be part of an especies that lives under rocks, and have no Natural predators... therefore... 995 defect beings FTW!
This Whole Hard-Core competition scenario only works if the World was pretty much "Hell". Otherwise it will always falls short. Natural selection and random mutation can't explain Teleology Body plans.
Edward, There are many misconceptions in your comment.
ReplyDelete“The problem is... Natural Selection doesn't know shit, so the best we can say that natural selection does is favor the ones that have enough characteristics to survive.”
There’s far more to it than simple survival. When evolutionary biologist talk about an individual’s fitness they are talking about the number of surviving offspring they leave. The very characteristics that give them advantage in one situation may be disadvantages in other ways. The fastest gazelles in a population may indeed be the best at escaping predators, but the fastest female gazelles may well have less fitness because of problems supporting her suckling offspring due to the greater metabolic demands of her and her offspring compared to their slower pears.
Of course that was a greatly simplified example, but my point is evolution tends toward stable states that balance these various influences on fitness. Because of this, you never see a species that is 100% effective at outrunning all predators. If that where the case, evolutionary pressure would be toward making the species slower until predation again became a significant selective influence.
These sorts of relationships between various effects on fitness are what is predicted and described by evolutionary biology, and it is indeed what we see in nature.
@anon:
ReplyDelete[There’s far more to it than simple survival. When evolutionary biologist talk about an individual’s fitness they are talking about the number of surviving offspring they leave.]
'Survival' is a place-holder for reproductive success. Duh...
[The very characteristics that give them advantage in one situation may be disadvantages in other ways.]
I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't studied evolution. Thanks.
[The fastest gazelles in a population may indeed be the best at escaping predators, but the fastest female gazelles may well have less fitness because of problems supporting her suckling offspring due to the greater metabolic demands of her and her offspring compared to their slower pears.]
Duh. Evolution explains so much...
[Of course that was a greatly simplified example,]
All evolutionary examples are greatly simplified.
[but my point is evolution tends toward stable states that balance these various influences on fitness. Because of this, you never see a species that is 100% effective at outrunning all predators. If that where the case, evolutionary pressure would be toward making the species slower until predation again became a significant selective influence.]
In other words, 'stable states' are states that are, and 'unstable states' are states that aren't. Evolution is deep shit.
[These sorts of relationships between various effects on fitness are what is predicted and described by evolutionary biology, and it is indeed what we see in nature.]
Evolution predicts that what was, was, what is, is, and what will be, will be. How could we do science without it?
@anon:
ReplyDeleteCompare evolution to physics.
Newton's law asserts (roughly correctly) that the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of their divided by the square of the distance between their centers.
Quantum electrodynamics predicts quantum states to 14 decimal places.
Evolution predicts that stable states are stable, unless something makes them unstable.
You should be embarrassed to be fronting for that crap.
Tell me what evolution explains that isn't f*cking obvious.
Anon.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you noticed but you have shown that there is teleology in Nature... It tends to increase the number of offsprings and all else play by the song. See you are defending a point where body plans will evolve to help the increase of offsprings and that it has some kind of general rules.
Anon you refuted yourself man, or perhaps I misunderstood you. Well anyway, I guess nobody really believes that evolution is just some random shit, even when people actually say so. Not necessarily saying that you said so, but I hear awful a lot the whole total random shit, coupled with lucky bastard hypothesis, solves everything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Well there is something here. I see your model, I do not disagree with it. Now I will ask some quetions man/woman.
For instance, Let me see if I can connect the dots here see if you can catch my drift. My model says that what really matters is survival, and as long as you survive you will leave your traits behind. You say that Evolution tends to increase number of offsprings, because these extreme examples will probably have less offsprings. Am I correct?
Now your model makes awful lot of sense... for Micro-Evolution. If your teleological (tendency) approach is correct than Nature apparently is going the wrong way. For instance, why to "invent" sex if that decreases the number of offsprings that you can create within a given time period??? Why Wombs ???
In other words, why do you see these screw-ups in Macro-Evolution ???
See my model actually can work all the way to Macro-Evolution, which is the corner stone of Evolutionary Biology, otherwise it would be Creation Biology of something like that. Now your model, creates genetic drift, which, once again I do not disagree with you, creates nothing more but Micro-Evolution.
But my Model at least will virtually arrive at Macro-evolution, yours will most likely... stay in Micro-evolution and will never produce anything new. Do you see that trying to give another evolutionary step will only decrease the offsprings that survive and therefore... going against your model?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Look man you are using very especific scenarios. You are pressuposing that there are predators; that a certains especies are always not as fast as their predators; that evoltuion will tend to make the hunted slower.
First, there are especies that have no natural predators. Like Modern Human Beings, or bacteria that live in fucked up places, or all the animals on the top of food chains.
Second, let's say that there is a especies that can out maneuver their predators, your model would say that, they will eventually become weak until predation becomes something important again, but there is a very simple example for that one... Human Beings. None of that happened to us, we are not becoming more and more victims of fellow animals, actually we pretty much destroyed all other major especies in the planet, or something less apocalyptic. The animals that live with us like Cows, Dogs, Cats and many others have not become further and further less fit. There is no way to guarantee that especies will get weak until they are once again victims of predation.
Third... the hunted will possibly have some slower and some faster. Like Birds and Snake relation. The snake is ULTRA slow compared to birds, and overall birds will have tons of offsprings, and because of their flying ability will care not all that much for predators.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Actually evolutionary Biology goes above that, but yeah you right, genetic drift, and Micro-evolution is pretty solid stuff. It just doesn't really help the rest of evolutionary Biology.
Or even worst, I could say that all those things you talkes about are just the tip of the iceberg of Evolutionary Biology.
Sorry if I don't reply soon... tests u_u essays ... ahhh anyway, looking forward to yor answer
ReplyDeleteEdward, Fist off, I’m not really sure what your model is.
ReplyDelete“You say that Evolution tends to increase number of offsprings, because these extreme examples will probably have less offsprings. Am I correct?”, and “why wombs?” (sort off)
I'm saying that the genes and traits of the individuals who leave more offspring that make it to reproductive age will come to dominate the population. Various species do this in different ways, from leaving a great many offspring with no parental care, to having few offspring with allot of parental care.
“For instance, why to "invent" sex if that decreases the number of offsprings that you can create within a given time period???”
Great question. The evolution sex may very well be one of the greatest mysteries in the history of life on earth. There are numerous theories with both promise and problems. My guess is that sex evolved because of a combination of events from the various sex evolution theories, perhaps including concepts that no one has ever imagined. Unfortunately it was a undoubtedly a complicated process not likely to be in evidence in the fossil record, so we will never be able to observe it the way we can observe the development of the tetrapod limb. What are the chances sex evolved? 100%, for the same reason that there's a 100% chance that the Moon goes around the Earth.
“Do you see that trying to give another evolutionary step will only decrease the offsprings that survive and therefore... going against your model?”
“Trying” is not applicable, that's Teleological. There was no “Try”.The vast majority of mutations are detrimental and result in a decrease in fitness. It's not against my model, it is central to it. It's the opposite side of the positive mutations increase fitness coin.
“Second, let's say that there is a species that can out maneuver their predators, your model would say that, they will eventually become weak until predation becomes something important again, but there is a very simple example for that one... Human Beings.”
Right, We have removed predators as a threat, and our population has exploded as a result. If not for our ability to use our intellect to limit the number of offspring we generate, we would simply keep growing in numbers until we run out of food. We've seen this sort of thing in nature. Food availability in the natural world is every bit as big an influence as predation, hell, it's probably bigger. I'm sure more extinct species starved to death than where eaten to death.
Macro evolution is indistinguishable of micro evolution over long periods of time. The terms don't even originate from evolutionary biology. Micro evolution is a term coined by creationists to allow them to accept the obvious.
I'm saying that the genes and traits of the individuals who leave more offspring that make it to reproductive age will come to dominate the population.
ReplyDelete_________________________________
Yeah I noticed.
---------------------------------
“Trying” is not applicable, that's Teleological. There was no “Try”.The vast majority of mutations are detrimental and result in a decrease in fitness. It's not against my model, it is central to it. It's the opposite side of the positive mutations increase fitness coin.
_________________________________
No... Your model is perfect for Micro-Evolution and terrible to explain Macro-Evolution, that is what mean. I know it is central to your argument, yeah I get it, but I am argumenting that your explanation is top notch for Micro-evolution
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What are the chances sex evolved? 100%,
______________________________________________
Errr... right and since when did I said the opposite ?
By the way, remember that I am talking about, why sex goes the other way around. You say we tend to increase offspring, but sex dimish the shit.
Btw, the Moon revolving around the Earth has tending to be 100% not 100%. Not even gravity is 100% certain.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Food availability in the natural world is every bit as big an influence as predation, hell, it's probably bigger.
_______________________________________________
Right still, that doesn't lead to Macro Evolution, it doesn't lead to new stuff. It just leads to the death of the crapiest beings, and the death of extreme traits and you have stated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Macro evolution is indistinguishable of micro evolution over long periods of time.
_________________________________
No, you are wrong. Studies have shown that micro evolution does not remain there for too long. Actually Evolutionary Biologists have discussed the issue for decades now.
Micro Evolution in long periods of time is not equal Macro Evolution. If you want you can look around on papers.
And it was coined by Robert Leavitt in 1909. maybe what... 60 years before Cretionism kicks up as a movement.
Anyway, look around the papers. Write Micro Macro Evolution and you will surely see papers discussing the whole deal.
Can we explain MACRO through MICRO... Some say we can because certain gene starts to decay and another genes show up and then a new especies rise... well ... some say that it can't because you have to add information; or that generally Beings tend to genetic drift... and stuff like that.
100%, for the same reason that there's a 100% chance that the Moon goes around the Earth.
ReplyDelete__________________________________
Wait a minute... does that mean that Gravity is what causes Evolution ???? O_O"
oh Anon sorry ... I was taling about full fledged random evolution and survival of the current generation and produces the new generation.
ReplyDeleteAnyway it is sort of... Darwin's original idea, like I suppose the infancy of Darwinism.
It is what we observe. There is a 100% chance you will find the moon orbiting the earth because it is orbiting the earth.
ReplyDeleteCreationism is far far older than the notion of evolution. Evolution is the better idea that came later as the result of observation.
Take a look at the Wiki entry for microevolution. Your use of the term is found in the section titled “Misuse”
Anon. One 100% is can only be said by a Omniscient being, because you know well... the future the past...
ReplyDeleteWithout saying if I am not mistaken, there are probability calculus, Gravity tends to 100% but it is not 100%. Simple math man.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I amnot saying creationism as believe in Creation. I am talking about the Movement which "flourished" in the 70's I think, and are composed pretty much of Yound Earth Creationists, and have sites like AiG (Answers in Genesis) and stuff like that.
This idea of small changes and big changes is old.
I am not disputing which is the best inference from observed data as of this moment really XD.
Aham ... wanna bet that I can find Academics that make the same misuse ???
__________________________________________
I will just post as I find them, no changes, just what they talk about microevolution and macroevolution
Site:http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf
"The reader should be aware that Denton uses the distinctions 'special theory'- 'general theory' and 'microevolution'-'macroevolution', which are not Darwin's own words and cause a biased description of Darwin's theory. According to Denton, the special theory is relatively conservative and restricted in scope and merely proposes that new races and species arise in nature by the agency of natural selection. The general theory is far more radical. It makes the claim that the 'special theory' applies universally and that the appearance of all manifold diversity of life on Earth can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos Islands (p44, italics are mine). The distinction micro/macro is associated with limits on change. Darwin himself saw no limits. For Denton these distinctions are crucial, as will become more and more clear in later chapters."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The zoologist Rensch compiled a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes. Denton tries to illustrate limits of change with the example of transformations of words and sentences in natural languages. Summary: Microevolution? Yes! Macroevolution? No ! It's clear now why Denton needs the distinction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Darwinists produced evidence for micro-evolution, not available to Darwin, but failed to provide evidence for macro-evolution. The failure to produce evidence for macro-evolution is simply caused by the fact of the discontinuity of nature, the reality of gaps in nature. But being convinced of the continuity of nature, biologists neglected or explained away discontinuity in the living world and in the past.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Denton is consistent in that he accepts micro-evolution (evolution at the species level) and the standard Darwinian explanation for the origin of species and at the same time holds that the 'Typological Model' does not apply at the species level. It is clear that acceptance of micro-evolution necessarily excludes TM at the species level. For if gradations of intermediates between species exist, then the idea that species are isolated groups with unchanging essential characteristics is wrong.
_______________________________________________
Enough of this site.
Link:http://www.springerlink.com/content/x81q31h1m6052651/
ReplyDeleteI just got the abstract.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An adaptive landscape concept outlined by G.G. Simpson constitutes the major conceptual bridge between the fields of micro- and macroevolutionary study. Despite some important theoretical extensions since 1944, this conceptual bridge has been ignored in many empirical studies. In this article, we review the status of theoretical work and emphasize the importance of models for peak movement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notice... Micro and Macro are actually two different levels of study... If your assertion is correct, we should just have Micro Extrapolated, no need to SPLIT them both.
Does Micro explains Macro ???
Link:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409748
ReplyDeleteThe diversity of body sizes of organisms has traditionally been explained in terms of microevolutionary processes: natural selection owing to differential fitness of individual organisms, or to macroevolutionary processes: species selection owing to the differential proliferation of phylogenetic lineages. Data for terrestrial mammals and birds indicate that even on a logarithmic scale frequency distributions of body mass among species are significantly skewed towards larger sizes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This one actually freaking define them as different.
__________________________________________
Link:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
Arguments over macroevolution versus microevolution have waxed and waned through most of the twentieth century. Initially, paleontologists and other evolutionary biologists advanced a variety of non-Darwinian evolutionary processes as explanations for patterns found in the fossil record, emphasizing macroevolution as a source of morphologic novelty. Later, paleontologists, from Simpson to Gould, Stanley, and others, accepted the primacy of natural selection but argued that rapid speciation produced a discontinuity between micro- and macroevolution. This second phase emphasizes the sorting of innovations between species. Other discontinuities appear in the persistence of trends (differential success of species within clades), including species sorting, in the differential success between clades and in the origination and establishment of evolutionary novelties. These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns. Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuites may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation. The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution.
________________________________________________
Link:http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=tBxGpaV-ocsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA193&dq=micro+macro+evolution&ots=2JsrZzfncO&sig=iLK8KAT3fVY9INSbJioFEA5kvjk#v=onepage&q=micro%20macro%20evolution&f=false
Sorry it is part of a book.
Just read the page that shows up. The question that I am making is RIGHT THERE. And be glad, if I am not Mistaken Sean B. Carroll defends your point of view. But what a bastard isn't he... misusing the term. Or have Micro evolution increased in its meaning over time ??? and now represents variation within a especies ???
_____________________________________________
Link:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01604.x/abstract
ReplyDeleteThe observed pattern of G matrix variation between species could not be predicted by either morphological trait values or phylogeny. The constraint hypothesis was tested by comparing the multivariate orientation of the reconstructed ancestral G matrix to the orientation of the across-species divergence matrix (D matrix, based on mean trait values). The D matrix mainly revealed divergence in size and, to a much smaller extent, in a shape component related to the ovipositor length. This pattern of species divergence was found to be predictable from the ancestral G matrix in agreement with the expectation of the constraint hypothesis. Overall, these results suggest that the G matrix seems to have an influence on species divergence, and that macroevolution can be predicted, at least qualitatively, from quantitative genetic theory. Alternative explanations are discussed.
____________________________________________
In the last one you lucked out. Micro evolution can possibly explain qualitatively Macro evolution.
hmmm only the qualities... that is not exactly the same as, PREDICT quantity, or rather precise.
Well at least they are both connect huh ?
I think the Spam filter got some of the posts... well I will just post link man, I am very sorry to have to give you work to do...
ReplyDeleteLinks:
ReplyDeletehttp://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf
* talks about Micro and Macro evolution as two different things and not necessarily one product of the other *
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2400240
* J "the Man" Gould apparently says that Micro Evolution or small tiny genetic changes will not produce Major changes *
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409748
* the abstract of the paper talks Macro and Micro with different definitions, and actually make them look like two different phenomenas, not Micro and Super-Micro. *
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full
* Title of this one is ... well intriguing *
http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=tBxGpaV-ocsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA193&dq=micro+macro+evolution&ots=2JsrZzgpcT&sig=_gbnMat-ie-PiZkDnRHhaftYauQ#v=onepage&q=micro%20macro%20evolution&f=false
*Sean B Carroll the Super star of Evo-Devo says that question is in the air. Look for the bright side, he most likely agrees with you, but the genes he talks about are the Hox Genes and other types of gene that control fetus development I suppose.*
It is what we observe. There is a 100% chance you will find the moon orbiting the earth because it is orbiting the earth.
ReplyDeleteCreationism is far far older than the notion of evolution. Evolution is the better idea that came later as the result of observation.
Take a look at the Wiki entry for microevolution. Your use of the term is found in the section titled “Misuse”
________________________________
Even my post to you got blocked.
No, first saying there is 100% chance that the moon will revolv around the Earth is just claiming that you are omniscient, or that you have seen all the future.
There are calculations of probability, if I am not mistaken, about gravity. It TENDS TO 100%, but it IS NOT 100%.
Creationism that I speak of is not the notion of Creation, but rather the social movement, that is mainly composed of Young Earth Creationists and have sites like AiG(Answers in Genesis)
Me and bunch of other folks Misuse it. Microevolution is often evolution within a especies. That is the broadest definition. That can be tracked back to genetic change, but still ...
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/abs/6800871a.html
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the academic points that it is a problem. He is connecting both, but he seems to point a problem or a mystery between Micro and Macro.
Anyway man... lost too much time... gotta study.
Let me try one more time.
ReplyDeleteAre you sitting in a chair at this moment? If yes there is 100% chance you are sitting in a chair.
Is the Moon orbiting the Earth yes or no? If the answer is yes (and it is), there is a 100% chance that the Moon is orbiting the Earth.
If we where standing next to each other with the moon overhead and I asked what the chances are the moon is orbiting the earth and you say anything other than 100% you're crazy. Thinking that the moon may have disappeared or was flung out of orbit in the second or so it took it's image to reach our eyes is crazy. You would have to presume the existence of some supper powerful aliens, a space monster, or supernatural beings, poised to wreak havoc at any moment.. crazy.
My point was that even tough we might never figure out how exactly sex evolved because it's contingent on a series of historical events that might not have left any evidence. We can be 100% confident it did happen because of it's observed ubiquity in nature.
Oh, and that paper you linked to describes how macro and mico evolution mesh in regards to beetle horn morphology.
From the paper: “It is this remarkable diversity within a very narrow taxonomic framework that allows us to not only investigate the genetic, developmental, and ecological mechanisms that made the origin of horns possible, but also how modifications of these mechanisms and the interactions between them, have mediated the diversification of horns below and above the species level.”
Did you get that “Above and below the species level”.
From the conclusion: “Beetle horns and horned beetles, in particular, of the genus Onthophagus, have recently become a successful model system for integrating the genetics, development, and ecology of morphological and developmental diversification. Representing a class of traits that lacks obvious homology to other insect structures, beetle horns are also providing increasing insight into the interplay between conservation and innovation in the origins of novel diversity.”
No Macro-Micro conflict here. I'm curious, how did you find this paper and why did you think it supported your position?
-KW
If we where standing next to each other with the moon overhead and I asked what the chances are the moon is orbiting the earth and you say anything other than 100% you're crazy
ReplyDelete_____________________________________________
Or a Anti-realist. Another thing you are changing the argument. Your argument was certainty of cause not certainty of current state.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We can be 100% confident it did happen because of it's observed ubiquity in nature.
_______________________________________________
No, your argument was that it had 100% of chance it evolved. C'mon don't change the argument.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No Macro-Micro conflict here. I'm curious, how did you find this paper and why did you think it supported your position?
________________________________________________
my position is that micro and macro evolution are different things and that people that study it speak as if they were different. That is my position.
And my second point is that Micro Extrapolated is not Macro.
I was pointing out to the literatures that show that Reasearchers speak about it as two different things. Second I wasn't doing Cherry-picking. I forgot to say that I was picking them as I found them. Actually I said but the spam filter didn't allow the big ass post to show up.
So the last one out of 10 or 11 that I found, the guy connected Micro to Macro.
However, many argued that there is a problem... as in the other papers argue that there is a problem.
PS wait a freaking minute I did saay that it pointed towards your point ... where the HECK DID YOU THOUGHT I SAID otherwise XD ???
You mean the Nature paper huh... so Like I said before I wasn't cherry picking.
ReplyDeleteYou claimed that I miss used the Word Micro-evolution because it is just a short Macro-evolution, or something among those lines.
So let me ask ... why do we have this difference to begin with? Why not simply say Evolution attached with time.
Anyway the other papers I think point my way. Or rather point the other way. So therefore my point that Micro times long periods of time does not equals Macro.
By the way ... isn't the beetle paper about to extrapolate and say that the different horns point to Macro-Evolution ??? Or maybe he will just review the Variation within a especies. Anyway, my point is this:
1_ Micro and Macro Evolution are two different things, and Macro evolution is not Micro Extrapolated.
2_ Academics use the damn "misused" definition.
3_ I am using micro-evolution as variation within a especies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PS. I think I see what you MEAN by Macro-Evolution, as in evolution that occurs above especies level huh ??? If so, than Let's just put in different words, that don't have 1 million possible difinitions.
Variation within a especies will not necessarily create/evolve novelty.
I shouls have written this shit right from the start.
Damn ... PS... novelty as in something never seem before.
ReplyDelete