I wanted to bring this discussion here so it could be continued without taking the other thread off track.
Also, I want to note there is no motivational
purpose of evolution. It simply is what it is.
Quote:
dk: answer is all to ready, nobody raised the question because everybody mistook the pretext of evolution for context. Clearly patterns are repeated across the DNA of all living creatures, but I would expect this to be the case on appearances alone, and even a monkey knows they have fingers and toes like people, even if they can’t count to ten. The genes certainly prove life manifests the same patterns, again and again and again, but this evidence has been around since the 12th Century ( Fibonacci). I don’t see how this proves evolution is a blind undirected process, or a directed designed process; and its quite possible there’s evidence for both. If Newton and Einstein saw design in the universe then that’s great, and if Heisenberg and Bell see only random variables that’s even more wonderful.
Xixax:- The context of evolution is not something that can accurately be described as an assumption. No more than when someone talks of the orbits of satellites is making an assumption of gravity. It is backed by enough supporting facts that it can be considered a given when it is not the subject of inquiry itself.
dk: Satellites are applied technology, and deploy technology for all kinds of reasons, as a matter of fact. Evolution covers every aspect of science in one form or another. Specifically the evolution of life is about the laws that govern life on several levels, but the scope of the evolution in the broadest terms covers all aspects of all life, hence in its own right is as much a philosophy as a science.
|
Evolution does not really cover every aspect of science, unless you
personally assign it more meaning that it has. Because evolution describes our origins since life first began, does not mean that it explains the origins of
all that is. It also does not make us incapable of having a specially created soul or some other independent entity that makes us unique to a deity. I personally find no evidence for that either, but the two are unrelated. That we evolved from common ancestors does not tell us our purpose in life, or eventual destination if we have a soul, nor does it determine our morality.
These philosophical issues are entirely separate! I know
some have applied these issues to evolution, but that does not require that everyone does, or that it ( evolution ) is responsible.
Quote:
Xixax: The companies decoding the human genome are not only doing the work so that we have more evidence of evolution. Really, I doubt proving evolution is even a major goal of their work. They are much more interested in the immediate medical benefits that would come from a deeper understanding of the genome. Since they are not looking to expand the evidence of evolution, and it is so well supported without any new evidence anyway, it is treated then as the context for which the data makes sense.
dk: Very good, so you agree evolutionary science is ancillary to the human genome, medical applications, and health. I agree that the work done by the genome project adds to the knowledge base of evolutionary science.
|
Yes and no. Without the context of evolution, much of biology does not make sense. However, not every biological pursuit is in defense of evolution. Some have evolution as a backdrop, it's a
given so it is not directly addressed. If you remove it as an underpinning, suddenly much of microbiology and disease control is in chaos unless you are replacing it with another theory that more accurately describes the data (
which currently does not exist )
Quote:
Xixax: At this day and age, I doubt many grants would be given to companies whose sole reason for research would be the proof of evolution. It's so well supported already, that any further funds spent is really only for the benefit of those still wrapped in the emotional, religious, and philosophical webs that block them from accepting the direction the evidence points.
dk: I’m not contrary to evolutionary science, but I don’t see how religion is a threat to evolutionary science, anymore than literature, opera or architecture. Its only when we get into matters of education, dogma and doctrine that evolutionary science becomes contentious.
|
I don't see how religion is a threat to evolutionary science either, and vice-versa.
Quote:
Xixax: And the cosmetic similarities between us and apes is not the answer to the question at all ( the question being, "Why are we similar?" ). Sure, the apes may on some level notice similarities, but that doesn't give us the information we're looking for.
dk: I disagree, women get boob jobs for appearances. Science doesn’t need a boob job, and morphing fossils into people is a boob job fashioned to titillate not educate. Chromosome fusion is science, and I look forward to a credible response in the context of the birth defects that inflict monkeys and people. How this bares on evolution could be important, or it could be purely a medical matter.
|
I don't follow the analogy of breast implants. I was referring directly to the statement that morphology does not infer common descent or proof of evolution.
Quote:
dk:The only progress I’ve noticed come from the genome entails defective chromosomes of inbred dogs and lab mice that match similar ailments in people, and this analysis is systematic, not evolution based.
Xixax: But that would be of much less use if we did not understand why we have ailments and genomes similar to dogs and mice.
dk: That’s subjective. Maybe if science hadn’t gotten preoccupied with Darwin’s finches, survival of the favored races and biometrics they would have taken the time to read Mendel’s paper on genetics, and we’d have a cure for cancer, AIDs and MDR microbes. I don’t know, and I don’t see any point in debating alternate time lines. I’m willing to state post facto, evolutionary science thus far has been so unreliable it has done more harm than good.
|
It's not entirely subjective. It we can not assume descent with modification and common ancestry, there is little point in developing some of the anti-biotics we need in other animals or test tubes. We would have to use humans to be entirely sure. Those cures you're talking about would be impossible
without a thorough understanding of evolutionary principles. The reason we have not yet found a cure is that they are keeping pace ( thanks to evolution ) with the
inhibitors we develop, or we do not yet have the relevant genetic information to combat them. It
will happen. It just takes time.
The argument you are using it tantamount to asking, "Why can't we travel at the speed of light? It must mean physics is an unreliable science."
Quote:
|
......I could effectively argue that the random undirected processes evolutionary theory demands innately lack predictive qualities. But I don’t want to go there, because it’s off topic. .
|
Well, here it is one topic.
I want to take issue with what you say evolutionary theory demands. It is
not undirected by any particular force, but is only undirected by a final goal. It has no goal in mind, but it is definitely directed by natural selection and other environmental pressures.
You may take issue with pure randomness, as would I. However, when selective pressure is applied, it is now on solid ground.
10-11-2002, 12:30 PM
dk: Utility and purpose of evolution
