Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Motorcycle Mama · 10-31-2002, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xixax:


Structure doesn't evolve, the recipe for structure evolves, which influences structure, which influences function.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Xixax ]

The above quote triggered a thought because of the possibility of viewing a recipe as a code.

A couple of friends and I are working on the idea that a species, of itself, has no material existence but instead is a virtual code. That virtual code is expressed when an individual appears that makes use of that code. This definition grew out of dissatisfaction with most others that emphasized things that exist in a material form, biological species concept, morphological, etc. We now face two problems. First is to devise a test for this idea and second is to come up with an account for evolution. The first has been started. As to the second, a way to account for evolution when dealing with a virtual code is to argue that as individuals in a species change, through ontogeny, reproduction or mutation, that virtual code is also changed. As that virtual code continues to change it becomes more and more unstable until it bifurcates (speciation occurs). That's a very brief summary and it suffers from two problems. First is that it expands the source of variation in a species to include ontogeny. Second is that we don't have a mechanism.
MM

Motorcycle Mama · 10-31-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:


That's absolutely appalling! An entire webpage of text that is presented in the form of a GIF image! Savages!

If you fiddle around a bit in SEED you can find things other than GIF. I think.
MM

Motorcycle Mama · 10-31-2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
Mo-ma,

You are correct that "unpopular" does not mean "wrong". I used neither of those terms, however. I said "badly argued", and that, at least, has not changed. It is useful to have the sources that have influenced your opinion; nevertheless, insofar as you have expressed that opinion, it is in the way I described: a bad argument for an irrelevant conclusion.

Suppose your unsound argument for Darwin's being a real shit in fact has a true conclusion (as certainly can happen) -- suppose, that is, that Darwin was somehow a worse than usual person, having attitudes significantly worse by modern standards than were typical for his day and age. What's the pay-off? All you can suggest is that this ought to affect how much trust we put in his expressions of his view.

But of course we need not put any "trust" whatever in Darwin's expression of his view. This is not a matter of faith in Darwin. That's what evidence, justification, testing, consilience, prediction, and so forth, are all about. For all we care, Darwin was a high-seas pirate, a tax-cheat, and a a card-shark, as well as being a covert Young Earth Creationist who insincerely wrote Origins and Descent as colossal hoaxes, and was then secretly appalled at the efficacy of the ideas they promulgated, and at the weight of evidence that accrued in support of them. So what? What would this show about the explanatory power of, the evidence in favour of -- and, for that matter, any recalcitrant phenomena bearing negatively upon -- the theory that bears his name? Short and obvious answer: Nothing at all. So what on earth is your relevant point?

Now, as to the second ongoing strand of your comments, that anti-creationists demonstrate some sort of problematic ignorance. You have simply failed to give any substance to the charge. It is quite correct that they have not "often" described natural selection in thermodynamical terms. Indeed, this underdescribes matters; they have virtually never attempted such a thing. But nor have they attempted to describe natural selection in sub-atomic terms, nor in purely kinematic terms, nor in terms of the specific densities of all biological systems... even though there are presumably true ways of describing selection events that focus on each of these levels of analysis.

You need to do more than point this triviality out. You need to argue that anti-creationists have somehow egregiously failed in not seeking to represent events of selection by describing them in thermodynamical idiom. On the face of it, this is about as sensible as taking geologists to task for not seeking to frame the laws and regularities of geology in the language of quantum physics. Notice, moreover, that this entirely grants that your semiotic thermodynamics approach actually captures truths at some level of description. There's is no clear reason to grant this, given the poverty of semiotics more generally, but even were it so there is no implication of an error in evolutionary biology standardly conceived.

Finally, let me say that I would be happy to see a more precise use of the term "law" in science. But it seems pretty clear that the accepted use is self-consciously permissive -- that some things called "laws" are intended to permit exceptions, or are even false. Scientists speak all the time of Newton's laws, even though they know full well that they are false, prescinding from strong idealizations. Snell's Law, Hardy-Weinberg, Gresham's Law... a wide range of things with vastly different degrees of precision and generality, in a disparate array of discplines, get called laws. What matters is that everyone understands the actual role of these things individually; what you call them after that doesn't much matter.

Indeed, it is partly for this reason that the covering-law model of scientific explanation has long been recognized as fraught. It's a good idea, but one that has many exceptions. If you think that it conflicts with natural selection's being a law, well, so much the worse for the idea that the covering-law model exhaustively describes the phenomenon of scientific explanation. Natural selection helps explain speciation -- it's the dog, Hempel's view is the tail. You seem to have this relation backwards.

Sorry Clutch but my masochism gene just maxed out. I've now been subjected to various levels of insults with varying degrees of vitriol, your most recent post is one example of such. There have been some posts that seem worthwhile pursuing, mainly those from Xixax who seems interested in understanding, but most of the rest seem to have one purpose, to vilify me for being anti-Darwinian. So long.
MM

Clutch · 10-31-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Sorry Clutch but my masochism gene just maxed out. I've now been subjected to various levels of insults with varying degrees of vitriol, your most recent post is one example of such.

Well, I can't speak for everyone else's posts, though I don't recall seeing anything worse than frustration directed at you. My own latest post manifestly contains no insults, nor anything answering to "vitriol", although I minced no words with respect to pointing out the arguments you appear to owe, but have not yet delivered. To be frank, becoming too insulted to continue seems rather convenient for you at this point, dialectically speaking.

Quote:

There have been some posts that seem worthwhile pursuing, mainly those from Xixax who seems interested in understanding, but most of the rest seem to have one purpose, to vilify me for being anti-Darwinian.

Again, I might be wrong, but I don't see anything except people becoming frustrated by your refusal to explain why your anti-Darwin-the-man-ism, justified or not, is relevant to assessment of the theory that nowadays bears his name. Your anti-Darwin-the-man-ism itself is neither here nor there, though I have pointed out that you have not argued for it well. The question on everyone's lips is, "Even if you were right, why would this amount to anything more than the Genetic Fallacy?" (An especially appropriate name for it, in this case...) If folks are getting snippy, it's because this relatively straightforward question has been so much asked, and so never answered.

Quote:

So long.

I hope you don't leave. Contrary opinions are the lifeblood of a healthy discussion board. But they have to be argued. I understand that you are busy; better, then, to ration out your claims and support them serially and thoroughly as you find the time. Making a collection of claims (especially ones about the defects of your interlocutors) while not providing supporting argumentation for even the most obvious objections is of course a recipe for short fuses, and eventually ridicule.

seanie · 11-01-2002, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Motorcycle Mama:

Why criticize Darwin as a man. Based on my reading of his biographies, I interpret him as someone mainly concerned with the acceptance of his views. Given that interpretation, I ask if his views and be trusted to be those he really believes. If you compare the 1st and 6th editions of the Origin of Species, his views on evolution change quite a bit and I suspect it is to deflect criticism.

You offer a further criticism of Darwin. You still haven't explained the relevance of this criticism.

About theormodynamics and semiotics. The part about semioitics was meant mainly for clutch, the apparent neglect of a thermodynamic component to evolution, evolution a system of increasing entropy, is something anti-creationists often ignore. Semiotics is the science of signs and signals. It deals with the generation, sending, receiving and interpretation of signals. The generation of signals may be viewed as one of the products of evolution. Semiotics, also, is sort of a more modern and expanded version of information theory.

Sugar frosted wheat puffs may be viewed as one of the products of evolution. I'm not sure how helpfull that is though. How does looking at evolution in terms of thermodynamics and semiotics help? How does it assist our understanding? Again what is the relevance?

I mentioned a lack of understanding among anti-creationists in assuming population differentiation, due to natural selection, is adequate to cause evolution at a higher level, i.e., the formation of species. I know of no evidence that natural selection can cause speciation. It has been demonstrated that you can select for infertility in crossing among organisms and then use that in conjunction with the biological species concept to argue that selection can cause speciation. But the biological species concept is badly flawed, i.e., it doesn't work.

In what way does the the concept of biological species not work? The definition of a species is largely a matter of convenience isn't it? It's a taxonomical dilemma rather than a flaw in biology.

Why do a say natural selection is not a cause? That depends on your definition of a cause. By my definition a cause is something that makes an event inevitable, e.g., gravity is the cause of the rise and fall of tides. Natural selection does not make evolution inevitable. First there is stabilizing selection which leads to no change and second in the absence of variation, there can be no change.

Well I've never really thought about it but I think I'd define a cause as something that has an effect. I don't see why inevitability is a condition. Evolution is the effect we're trying to explain. There's plenty of evidence for evolution but how does it occur? Natural Selection may not be the only explanation but it was the first coherent, logical, plausible explanation and it's still going strong.

Who is Hempel? A philosopher of science who offered a formal account of an explanation. What Hempel said was that given certain conditions and a natural law, certain events were inevitable. I would argue that natural selection, in spite of Darwin's own words, is not a law. If one were to present it as a law, how would it be stated? It is my opinion that by the time natural selection is presented in its most basic form what is says is the equivalent of, "If you have more red balls in a bag than white ones, red balls will predominate." That statement could be make less blunt but at the cost of many, many words.

Try actually presenting natural selection in its most basic form instead of talking balls. That way we can evaluate your claim.

Your title for this thread is 'An education for Darwinians'. Well I'm always willing to be educated. Now I don't have a scientific background so that may be causing me problems. But I'm having real difficulty following what your arguments are. I've worked out you don't like Darwin and that you have a soft spot for Lamarck.

But beyond that I'm struggling to follow.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2002, 01:15 AM	#95
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Originally posted by Motorcycle Mama: Why criticize Darwin as a man. Based on my reading of his biographies, I interpret him as someone mainly concerned with the acceptance of his views. Given that interpretation, I ask if his views and be trusted to be those he really believes. If you compare the 1st and 6th editions of the Origin of Species, his views on evolution change quite a bit and I suspect it is to deflect criticism. You offer a further criticism of Darwin. You still haven't explained the relevance of this criticism. About theormodynamics and semiotics. The part about semioitics was meant mainly for clutch, the apparent neglect of a thermodynamic component to evolution, evolution a system of increasing entropy, is something anti-creationists often ignore. Semiotics is the science of signs and signals. It deals with the generation, sending, receiving and interpretation of signals. The generation of signals may be viewed as one of the products of evolution. Semiotics, also, is sort of a more modern and expanded version of information theory. Sugar frosted wheat puffs may be viewed as one of the products of evolution. I'm not sure how helpfull that is though. How does looking at evolution in terms of thermodynamics and semiotics help? How does it assist our understanding? Again what is the relevance? I mentioned a lack of understanding among anti-creationists in assuming population differentiation, due to natural selection, is adequate to cause evolution at a higher level, i.e., the formation of species. I know of no evidence that natural selection can cause speciation. It has been demonstrated that you can select for infertility in crossing among organisms and then use that in conjunction with the biological species concept to argue that selection can cause speciation. But the biological species concept is badly flawed, i.e., it doesn't work. In what way does the the concept of biological species not work? The definition of a species is largely a matter of convenience isn't it? It's a taxonomical dilemma rather than a flaw in biology. Why do a say natural selection is not a cause? That depends on your definition of a cause. By my definition a cause is something that makes an event inevitable, e.g., gravity is the cause of the rise and fall of tides. Natural selection does not make evolution inevitable. First there is stabilizing selection which leads to no change and second in the absence of variation, there can be no change. Well I've never really thought about it but I think I'd define a cause as something that has an effect. I don't see why inevitability is a condition. Evolution is the effect we're trying to explain. There's plenty of evidence for evolution but how does it occur? Natural Selection may not be the only explanation but it was the first coherent, logical, plausible explanation and it's still going strong. Who is Hempel? A philosopher of science who offered a formal account of an explanation. What Hempel said was that given certain conditions and a natural law, certain events were inevitable. I would argue that natural selection, in spite of Darwin's own words, is not a law. If one were to present it as a law, how would it be stated? It is my opinion that by the time natural selection is presented in its most basic form what is says is the equivalent of, "If you have more red balls in a bag than white ones, red balls will predominate." That statement could be make less blunt but at the cost of many, many words. Try actually presenting natural selection in its most basic form instead of talking balls. That way we can evaluate your claim. Your title for this thread is 'An education for Darwinians'. Well I'm always willing to be educated. Now I don't have a scientific background so that may be causing me problems. But I'm having real difficulty following what your arguments are. I've worked out you don't like Darwin and that you have a soft spot for Lamarck. But beyond that I'm struggling to follow.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.