RufusAtticus

And yet Doby was still able to show using experiments with Drosophila that in real populations the results of evolution are not deterministic.

I chose to single out drift because it is always operating on populations due to their finiteness. Random sampling and union of gametes along with finite populations insures that evolution will be stocastic.

Of course it is complicated. I wouldn't be getting my PhD in evolutionary theory if it were so simple.

~~RvFvS~~

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Albion

Why do I always get the impression in these conversations that theists and non-theists are talking past each other?

pz

Fine. Science doesn't deal with "might be's" very happily, though. You need to show evidence of some sort that there is a teleological force. Absent that evidence, the null hypothesis is provisionally accepted.

Albion

I don't see where anybody can be justified in using science to argue about theism or atheism being tenable worldviews. For people who don't believe in the literal Genesis, where sin entered the world because two people disobeyed God and is then passed down to all the offspring, behaviour does have a biological basis. If humans have vestiges of behavioural instincts that are our legacy from distant ancestors but that are harmful to modern human society, then humans need to keep those instincts under control and not fall back on the "but it's my nature, it isn't my fault" excuse. We live in modern society, not in the societies where some of those behaviours evolved, and we need to do what it takes to keep modern society stable. We've got brains and empathy and the capacity for abstract thought, and we should be able to use those to work out which behaviours are destructive and which aren't. And if we then choose to go with the destructive behaviours anyway, it's our fault; we've chosen to be selfish, and there's no excuse - hardwiring notwithstanding. One of the abilities of the modern brain is to override that hardwiring. Some people do it by adhering to a religious faith, some don't. But I don't buy the explanation that religious faith is the only really effective way of overriding those instincts and that non-theists will just indulge in them without any pangs of conscience whatever.

GeoTheo

How 'bout:
There is no way to tell impirically if there is a goal or not.
Therefore statements such as:
"There is no goal."
"There is a goal."
Are outside the realm of science.

Denis Lamoureux

Hey good news,
Tell me more. What system are you using? Are you at thesis phase yet?

One more comment about Theo and drosophilla: I'm concerned that work (and it's good work) on one system that is extrapolated into a such a grand metaphysical thesis like dysteleological evolution (and of course all in the name of science) is just too large an extrapolation.

Where it really hit me hard in my scientific research was when I started looking at the HOX combinatorial code. Obviously there's been two duplication events(from somthing similar to HOM-C). But it's all the relationships that emerged and their morphological implications which made me realize we really have got a long way to go before we even come near to a outlining a model of evolutionary genetics.

This being said, I can help but sense that evolutionary biology might have an anthropic arm similar to cosmology, but much more complex.
(and of course, we could get into weak/strong Anthropic Arg later).

Denis

Denis Lamoureux

Hey,
I think you are absolutely right. But, we are all going to make these META (Gr meta: after, behind, beyond) PHYSICAL (Gr phusis: nature). This is the only point I want to drive home to the positivists. And you can use your science as data, BUT THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL FORMULA THAT CAN GET YOU FROM THE SCIENCE TO YOUR METAPHYSICS. Most skeptics just don't seem to get that. It's like some sort of categorical blindness. Bottom line is that we all have to make some sort of "jump" or "act of faith" to get to our metaphysical position.
Denis

Denis Lamoureux

PZ,
Yes, but the moment you say evolution is either teleological or dysteleological you are no longer doing science--you're doing metaphysics.

Moreover, the "teleological force" could well be enacted/manifested through "the laws impressed on nature" as our good friend Charles Robert Darwin stated in the _Origin of Species_ (1859, 1st ed., p. 488).

Denis

scigirl

Hey I asked Vander this question but did not get a response.

I was wondering - can anyone give me specific examples of the practical applications of either theism or atheism in the science laboratory? In other words, ways in which believing one way or the other make a practical, measurable difference in the science?

Thanks,

scigirl

Albion

Is anybody arguing with this? I mean, saying that evolution by natural selection is undirected (to the extent that it depends on interactions of lifeforms with the environment as it is at the time the lifeforms are in it) is a scientific statement, it doesn't carry a bunch of metaphysical baggage. Does it? Evolution can be undirected at the purely natural level and still be the work of some personally involved deity. Or is this just my lack of spiritual gene making me miss something that's obvious to others?