Darwin's Theory of What?
Robert Kolker
Charles Darwin, for an occurance of the word "evolution". Not a single
occurence of that word.
Take a look for yourselves at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/glossary.html
use the grep function or the windows find function.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Shrugged
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF3368D...@attbi.com...
"Species" is not on the list either. So what does that prove? What is your
argument?
Paul
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Robert Kolker
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
>
> "Species" is not on the list either. So what does that prove? What is your
> argument?
I am just tracing the provinence of the term "evolution". Some people
think that Darwin coined that term. Not so.
By the way, the -title- of Darwin's book is
"On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"
Check your premises.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Shrugged
I haven't stated any premises or any argument. Just because it's not in
that book is not proof he didn't originate the word.
For a good definition, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
"Evolution" is not new to Darwin. See
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number3/number3.html
Paul
Patrick Crosby
used the term a decade or two before Darwin, but even he didn't originate the
*word." If you look "evolution" up in Webster's New World Dictionary Third
edition (the OED would be far better, but it's Sunday and the local public
library is closed), and check the etymology, you will see that it comes from
the Latin *evolutio* meaning an unrolling or opening.
The sense in which you mean the term even predates Spencer. Jean Baptiste
Lamarck (1744-1829) had a theory called Lamarkianism which supposedly Darwin
adapted. see http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/dispatch05.html
As for Spencer, who applied the concept of "evolution" not only to living
things, but the entire universe as well, I rather suspect this grows out of the
Hegelian dialectic. In fact, all "theories of evolution" seem to me suggestive
of a dialectic method. No, Marx and Plato weren't the only thinkers to employ
dialectical methods. Many important thinkers have (Heraclitus possibly being
the first). If you want to read a more recent dialectician, check out out Henri
Bergson's "Time and Free Will." Bergson just so happens to have the exact same
semantic profile as Hegel: entitative interpretation, dialectical method,
reflexive. My take on Rand (at the moment), if anyone is curious: ontological
interpretation, operational method, simple principles. (The "naturalism" in
Rand comes out of the simple principles, not from an entitative interpretation.
The "objectivism" comes out of the ontological interpretation).
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF3368D...@attbi.com...
I have downloaded the 3rd edition of the same work.
The fact that the word does not occur in the glossary is
irrelevant. The word "evolution" occurs 8 times in "The
Origin of Species."
Chap. 7:
"At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form."
"Everyone who believes in slow and gradual evolution, will of course admit
that specific changes may have been as abrupt and as great as any single
variation which we meet with under nature, or even under domestication."
"This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is
avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a
large
number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable
direction,
and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite
manner."
Chap. 8:
"Mr. Hudson is a strong disbeliever in evolution,"
Chap. 10:
"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or
families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to
the
theory of evolution through natural selection."
Chap. 15:
(3 times in this quote alone):
"I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution,
and never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable that
some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent or
expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to understand
their meaning. Now, things are wholly changed, and almost every
naturalist admits the great principle of evolution."
Instances of the word "evolve" and other variations:
Evolutionists: 2
Evolve: 1
Evolved: 5
Grand total: 16
(Grep this...)
Now, how many times it was used in the 1st edition of that work
is another question. However, since Darwin himself emended
the later editions, that still constitutes his own thinking and his
own writing on the topic of natural selection. Even if some other
thinker came up with the idea, it obviously met with Darwin's
approval as indicated 16 times in his work, so it's all the same.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF3368D...@attbi.com...
> I have just grepped the 3-rd edition of "The Origin of Species..." by
> Charles Darwin, for an occurance of the word "evolution". Not a single
> occurence of that word.
>
Darwin's theory of what?
"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly
appear in certain formations, has been urged by several
palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as
a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If
numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have
really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION."
The Origin of Species, 3rd ed.; chap 10, section 5
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> Now, how many times it was used in the 1st edition of that work
> is another question. However, since Darwin himself emended
> the later editions, that still constitutes his own thinking and his
> own writing on the topic of natural selection. Even if some other
> thinker came up with the idea, it obviously met with Darwin's
> approval as indicated 16 times in his work, so it's all the same.
>
The idea was the same from the git-go regardless of the word use. Darwin
saw natural selection and anologized selective breeding to natural
selection. Selective breeding produces variants species that look a
great deal different from the original stock. He saw the development and
elimation of species as the result of two processes: variation (for
which he did not have a mechanism at the time he wrote) and natural
selection, by which body structures no longer fit to the environment are
weeded out. Variation assures new body structures are tried and that the
fittest of these survive.
The interesting thing is that none of Darwin's work implies a
progressive perfection of species. That was a meaning read into his work
by others. Somehow they had to make Man the Pinnacle of Creation, by God
or by Golly so they substituted a spurious perfection by evolution for
the wisdom of God.
The truth is somewhat less elevating. We are essentially an accident
that is well adapted to the conditions on Earth as they exist now and in
the past quarter million years or so. The Human Race came close to
extinction during the last ice age. It was touch and go. Our body parts
are far from optimal in design (oh my aching back! The lumbar region is
totally at odds with our upright posture). The human eye is far less
nifty in its design than the eye of the octopus. And so on.
Apparently, it is our rather large brain that makes us the meanest and
smartest ape in the Monkey House.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DF3368D...@attbi.com...
>
>>I have just grepped the 3-rd edition of "The Origin of Species..." by
>>Charles Darwin, for an occurance of the word "evolution". Not a single
>>occurence of that word.
>>
>
>
> Darwin's theory of what?
Whoops. My err. I scanned the first edition. Sorry about that. Later
editions contained the work evolution (which means descent with variation).
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF3DC1A...@attbi.com...
In the later editions it also came to mean "progress."
"Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic
beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development,
yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the
fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection.
For the best definition which has ever been given of a high
standard of organisation, is the degree to which the parts have
been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends
towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to
perform their functions more efficiently." (3rd ed, chap 7, para. 18)
Interesting also how this paragraph tends to support a
teleological backdrop.
----------
It seems that the theory of natural selection itself continued
to evolve, and that this evolution was due, not to the
misunderstandings of other scientists, but to Darwin
himself. Natural selection underwent a decidedly
philosophical transformation in his own mind.
Variation and transformation became progression toward
an end; selection became evolution.
You will notice that in the preface to the 3rd edition
Darwin references Aristotle.
"We here see [in Aristotle's Physicae Auscultationes]
the principle of natural selection shadowed forth (but
how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is
shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth..."
To wit (quoting Aristotle): "So what hinders the different
parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental
relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by
necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing,
and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the
food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but
it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to
other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation
to an end."
Now whether or not you agree with Aristotle on this, I
am more interested in noting his effect on Darwin's
thinking and the transformation that occurred between
the 1st and 3rd editions of TOOS.
[Continuing to quote Aristotle]: "Wheresoever, therefore,
all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of
something, these were preserved, having been
appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and
whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish."
Darwin, as a scientist, would dispute the a-causal doctrine
of internal spontaneity. But, as a philosopher, he did not
dispute the idea of some end preserving the whole
(whether an individual being or a species) through a
coalescence of his various natural laws and the resulting
tendency toward progression of the species.
Paraphrasing the Darwin quote I first cited:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in
organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive
development (as implied in the Aristotle quote), the
progressive development of organic beings necessarily
follows through the continued action of natural selection.
Natural selection tends towards a high standard of organization
as an end, in the degree to which the parts have been specialized
or differentiated, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to
perform their functions more efficiently.
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> Interesting also how this paragraph tends to support a
> teleological backdrop.
Seems is right. Since modern evolution theory is firmly grounded on
genetics we see that there is no progress, only tracking the
environment. All characterisitcs are transmitted by genes (of which
Darwin knew nothing) and the mode of transmission is largely random.
Chromosome crosslinking and gene mutation are random happenstance. Thus
evolution has no progressive or perfective mode.
> or differentiated, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to
> perform their functions more efficiently.
Only if the changes produce and advantage in reproduction. It is
reproductive success natural selection produces. There is no abstract
notion of efficiency involved. Nature asks the organism (so to speak)
how well can you reporduce your kind? Nature rewards (so to speak) those
organsims whose characteristics produce reproductive success.
There is NO generalized perfection and there is no teleology since all
variations are the result of chemical and quantum processes. It is
chance and efficient cause from the git go.
Bob Kolker
>
>
>
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF3E7F4...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> >
> > Interesting also how this paragraph tends to support a
> > teleological backdrop.
>
> Seems is right. Since modern evolution theory is firmly grounded on
> genetics we see that there is no progress, only tracking the
> environment.
I was not talking about whatever you call modern evolutionism,
I was talking about one single paragraph in a book by Charles
Darwin.
> All characterisitcs are transmitted by genes (of which
> Darwin knew nothing) and the mode of transmission is largely random.
> Chromosome crosslinking and gene mutation are random happenstance. Thus
> evolution has no progressive or perfective mode.
>
No, what Aristotle called "the parts of the whole" are adapted to
suit a particular end.
> > or differentiated, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to
> > perform their functions more efficiently.
>
> Only if the changes produce and advantage in reproduction. It is
> reproductive success natural selection produces. There is no abstract
> notion of efficiency involved. Nature asks the organism (so to speak)
> how well can you reporduce your kind? Nature rewards (so to speak) those
> organsims whose characteristics produce reproductive success.
>
"How well" implies "how efficiently." There was no implication
of abstractness. You're still arguing against ontology, what you call
"metaphysics" (along with a lot worse), but I have not argued in
favor of it.
> There is NO generalized perfection and there is no teleology since all
> variations are the result of chemical and quantum processes. It is
> chance and efficient cause from the git go.
>
There is an implicit teleology, that is, theory of final causes,
wherever ends are implied. What you are arguing against is the
ontological implications of teleology, and claiming that the
universe is not constituted of final ends, only efficient causes
and chance. (And even those ideas are as dogmatic as any
ontology -- your view that epistemology rules the sciences
is contradicted by your other, more positivistic, statements
concerning efficient causes and chance.)
But if you start with observed facts -- such as the continual
specialization and organization of species toward greater
complexity and efficiency by means of natural selection --
it is only by that means can you create a systematization of
evolutionist theory. Nobody disputes that efficient causes
aren't present, that concept is important to our scientific
understanding, and perhaps also chance in terms of random
genetic mutations (assuming that there is a true randomness,
that is self-generated spontaneity, and not just our inability to
understand quantum causal mechanisms). I sincerely doubt,
however, that quantum mutations can be forced to fit into
evolution theory itself, and can only serve to explain why there
are wild variations that don't fit into the system. In other words,
the system is not absolute, but that doesn't make it wrong
or disprove teleology's use-value. And I have never been
an Aristotelian who argued for the ontological subsistence of
the notion of final ends, only for its epistemological use-value
for bringing systematization to the various sciences.
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> There is an implicit teleology, that is, theory of final causes,
> wherever ends are implied.
No there isn't. It is efficient cause (if that) from beginning to end.
It is all push and no pull. Final cause only makes sense when you talk
about the plans sentient beings make. There are no ends. There is only
the quantum jumping of electrons and the exchange of virtual photons.
Everything is matter and motion in the void.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF3FAED...@attbi.com...
That is still an ontological, metaphysical statement, and in light
of the fact that you have in previous threads contemptuously
dismissed metaphysics, it is hypocritical.
Acar
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RiSI9.2745$zS2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> an Aristotelian who argued for the ontological subsistence of
> the notion of final ends, only for its epistemological use-value
> for bringing systematization to the various sciences.
If I understand you correctly (maybe I don't) you are saying that teleology
is a useful metaphor, or that we are wired to think teleologically, but that
teleology does not exist in fact. If so you need to explain why you seem to
believe that it is necessary "for bringing systematization to the various
sciences." Is it "necessary" or simply helpful? If the latter, we ought to
emphasize that it does not exist in fact.
If there is a war and one family builds an effective nuclear shelter and
another one doesn't and there is a nuclear attack and one family survives
and the other one doesn't, and a member of the surviving family invents a
better method of mashing potatoes, would you say that there was a final end
in history for a better masher to be built?
If there is a wind that breaks a tree and that tree falls on another tree
and breaks it and that one also falls on another and so on a hundred times
until the last tree destroys the garage of a home, would you say that there
was a final end aimed at the destruction of the garage?
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:fwVI9.86295$%p6.88...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RiSI9.2745$zS2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > an Aristotelian who argued for the ontological subsistence of
> > the notion of final ends, only for its epistemological use-value
> > for bringing systematization to the various sciences.
>
> If I understand you correctly (maybe I don't) you are saying that
teleology
> is a useful metaphor, or that we are wired to think teleologically, but
that
> teleology does not exist in fact. If so you need to explain why you seem
to
> believe that it is necessary "for bringing systematization to the various
> sciences." Is it "necessary" or simply helpful? If the latter, we ought to
> emphasize that it does not exist in fact.
>
The point is, not to conclude one way or the other, whether or not
a final end actually exists, although one could argue that it possibly
exists. Are we wired to think teleologically? "Wired" sounds too
physical to me, but of the two alternatives you offered that's the one
I'd choose.
You cannot bring systematization to a theory without some kind
of unalterable, epistemic "container" that regulates to each aspect
of the theory by giving each its specific role in pushing the objective
elements of the theory (animals, in the case of evolution) toward the
final end. ("Pushing" isn't the right word, so don't hold me to it please.)
> If there is a war and one family builds an effective nuclear shelter and
> another one doesn't and there is a nuclear attack and one family survives
> and the other one doesn't, and a member of the surviving family invents a
> better method of mashing potatoes, would you say that there was a final
end
> in history for a better masher to be built?
>
> If there is a wind that breaks a tree and that tree falls on another tree
> and breaks it and that one also falls on another and so on a hundred times
> until the last tree destroys the garage of a home, would you say that
there
> was a final end aimed at the destruction of the garage?
>
No, the final end is represented at the end of time, when you find
the final state of perfectedness of all things. In Darwin's system, it would
bring that being which is perfectly efficient at survival, of infinite
complexity and intelligence, each part of its being perfectly adapted
to the task of survival. It would be immortal, although theoretically
mortal, but nothing could kill it.
Darwin made much of the environmental qualities surrounding each
creature. The universe as it is now could not support an immortal
being -- even the most successfully adapted being would eventually
outgrows its environment, and die. So the universe itself would have
to eventually, at some infinite point in time, arrive at whatever natural
state could support the infinitely vast needs of such a being.
Impossible in our empirical universe, for sure, but that's why teleology
is only a rational discipline, not an empirical one, and it only has
epistemic value, not practical value per se.
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> That is still an ontological, metaphysical statement, and in light
> of the fact that you have in previous threads contemptuously
> dismissed metaphysics, it is hypocritical.
Not at all. I stated a proposition with empirical content completely
well supported by experiment. It is Science, not hypocricy.
There is no Telos in raw insentient Nature. A thermostat does not care
if there is a furnace at the other end. A furnace does not care who or
what closed its start-relay circuit. Yet the system keeps a house at a
fixed temperature. What looks like final cause in a homeostatic system
is just the accidental arrangement of modules that work according to
physical laws (which are local in space-time). There is no cause but
efficient cause (if that).
See how much trouble we get when we reify abstractions and plunge
headfirst into the Philosophical Swamp (blub! blub! drown!). The closest
thing to a harmless philosphy is the kind of pragmatism that W.V.O.
Quine practised. Epistemology has its uses (in properly defined
circumstances). Abstract ontology is a bane and a curse.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> No, the final end is represented at the end of time, when you find
> the final state of perfectedness of all things.
The end of the earth is destruction when the Sun runs out of hydrogen
and helium to fuse. Some perfection. All tht natural selection is for
naught, in the long run. The final state of the Kosmos is the cold and
the dark (heat death). Some perfection.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF4BBE9...@attbi.com...
The end of the universe is a black hole, as near to perfection as it
gets. Perfect cold, perfect darkness. Perfect destruction.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF4B99E...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> >
> > That is still an ontological, metaphysical statement, and in light
> > of the fact that you have in previous threads contemptuously
> > dismissed metaphysics, it is hypocritical.
>
> Not at all. I stated a proposition with empirical content completely
> well supported by experiment. It is Science, not hypocricy.
>
Your statements were absolute, not science, but dogma.
> There is no Telos in raw insentient Nature.
I never, never never ever said there was. You are shadow-boxing.
> A thermostat does not care
> if there is a furnace at the other end. A furnace does not care who or
> what closed its start-relay circuit. Yet the system keeps a house at a
> fixed temperature. What looks like final cause in a homeostatic system
> is just the accidental arrangement of modules that work according to
> physical laws (which are local in space-time). There is no cause but
> efficient cause (if that).
>
I should hope it wasn't accidentally arranged, but plotted out
originally by an engineer using certain guidelines, among which
would be the functionality of the system and, moreover, as a
system, its tendency toward certain ends which regulate to
the standards by which the system is constructed.
If efficient causes are part of physical space, then final causes
are part of conceptual "space," that space which holds and
encapsulates the content of the sciences. You have completely
forgotten about Sir James and his different versions of space
and time. Although I admit that the conceptual space I
mentioned would actually be a formal space, an idea well
beyond Jeans's intellectual capabilities.
> See how much trouble we get when we reify abstractions and plunge
> headfirst into the Philosophical Swamp (blub! blub! drown!).
That's what you have done with efficient causality (Aristotle), atoms,
and the void (Democritus). And you are quickly sinking.
> The closest
> thing to a harmless philosphy is the kind of pragmatism that W.V.O.
> Quine practised. Epistemology has its uses (in properly defined
> circumstances). Abstract ontology is a bane and a curse.
>
So. Who are you arguing against here? Not me. Even Acar has a
better understanding of what I am saying than you do.
Robert J. Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> I should hope it wasn't accidentally arranged, but plotted out
> originally by an engineer using certain guidelines, among which
> would be the functionality of the system and, moreover, as a
> system, its tendency toward certain ends which regulate to
> the standards by which the system is constructed.
From the standpoint of physical law, the fact that a thermostat system
was designed to maintain a temperature is incidental and accidental. The
underlying processes in no way are changed by the design of the system.
In fact the design takes advantage of the underlying processes.
The laws of physics are local in space-time. They are not conditioned on
end results.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> The end of the universe is a black hole, as near to perfection as it
> gets. Perfect cold, perfect darkness. Perfect destruction.
All indications are there is not enough matter in the Kosmos to bring it
back to a Big Crunch. The Kosmos seems (based on the last knowledge) to
be expanding and cooling. No black hole. Black holes only occur when
very big stars gravitationally collapse on themselves when the fusion
processes stop.
Faded away, dark and cold. That is perfection?
The interesting consequence of this is that all we do is futile in the
long run. The very, very, very long run. It is all for naught quite
literally.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF50B94...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> > I should hope it wasn't accidentally arranged, but plotted out
> > originally by an engineer using certain guidelines, among which
> > would be the functionality of the system and, moreover, as a
> > system, its tendency toward certain ends which regulate to
> > the standards by which the system is constructed.
>
> From the standpoint of physical law, the fact that a thermostat system
> was designed to maintain a temperature is incidental and accidental. The
> underlying processes in no way are changed by the design of the system.
> In fact the design takes advantage of the underlying processes.
>
No kidding.
> The laws of physics are local in space-time.
Yet another metaphysical concept.
> They are not conditioned on end results.
>
I didn't say they were. If your goal is to build the perfect
system, then close familiarity with the laws of nature is
certainly an absolute necessity. But the idea of perfection,
or of ends, does not come from natural law, it comes from
human nature.
Malenor
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF50C2E...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> >
> > The end of the universe is a black hole, as near to perfection as it
> > gets. Perfect cold, perfect darkness. Perfect destruction.
>
> All indications are there is not enough matter in the Kosmos to bring it
> back to a Big Crunch. The Kosmos seems (based on the last knowledge) to
> be expanding and cooling. No black hole. Black holes only occur when
> very big stars gravitationally collapse on themselves when the fusion
> processes stop.
>
> Faded away, dark and cold. That is perfection?
>
I wasn't talking about a Big Crunch. But eventually all matter
and energy will be sucked into black holes.
> The interesting consequence of this is that all we do is futile in the
> long run. The very, very, very long run. It is all for naught quite
> literally.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
That depends on whether or not black holes dissipate their energy.
From my reading on that topic, they do not dissipate energy;
sometimes, at the edge of the event horizon, a particle escapes
the gravitational pull. But eventually, everything is destined for
the black hole.
And this is all beside the point. I have never claimed that there was
ontological perfection of all forms of matter and energy at the end
of time, only that we can mentally project it that way. My primary
focus is entirely inward, yours is primarily external. Yet you
continue to criticize my view by projecting it outward into matter
when that was never my intention.
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> focus is entirely inward, yours is primarily external. Yet you
> continue to criticize my view by projecting it outward into matter
> when that was never my intention.
You should watch X-Files more often. The Truth is Out There.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
>
> Yet another metaphysical concept.
>
Nope. Physics theories cannot be hostage to an arbitrary choice of
co-ordinates. Physics is local and covariant. That is the way working
theories are constructed. Nothing metaphysical about it. It is simply
noting what theories work, and what theories do not.
Bob Kolker
>
>>They are not conditioned on end results.
>>
>
>
> I didn't say they were. If your goal is to build the perfect
> system, then close familiarity with the laws of nature is
> certainly an absolute necessity. But the idea of perfection,
> or of ends, does not come from natural law, it comes from
> human nature.
The idea is not to build a -perfect- system. The idea is to build one
that works. I.E. a theory that is not disconfirmed by experiment or
observation.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF53B7B...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yet another metaphysical concept.
> >
>
> Nope. Physics theories cannot be hostage to an arbitrary choice of
> co-ordinates. Physics is local and covariant. That is the way working
> theories are constructed. Nothing metaphysical about it. It is simply
> noting what theories work, and what theories do not.
>
But previously you said:
"(which are local in space-time). There is no cause but
efficient cause (if that)."
Space-time is not an object of scientific study, it exists as
pure abstraction. So much for your abhorrence toward
reifying abstractions, you rely on this all the time. Efficient
cause is an empirically baseless metaphysical abstraction
that only has use-value for your science and even then
fails at the far ends of the perceptual 'spectrum.'
> >
> > I didn't say they were. If your goal is to build the perfect
> > system, then close familiarity with the laws of nature is
> > certainly an absolute necessity. But the idea of perfection,
> > or of ends, does not come from natural law, it comes from
> > human nature.
>
> The idea is not to build a -perfect- system. The idea is to build one
> that works. I.E. a theory that is not disconfirmed by experiment or
> observation.
>
My guess is that you create software that works as perfectly
as possible, with perfection the desired goal.
jo domani
wsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Darwins theory was of Natural selection, or survival of the fittest
in a time of natural environmental change over long time periods. No
consideration was given by him to heredity as there was no knowledge
or understanding of such in his time.
Artificial selection has been and still is practiced ,for example in
Tibet new born babies in ancient times where immersed in icy streams
and either survived or died, no doubt improving the general condition
of their society. In modern times race horse breeding, cow breeding to
increase meat and milk production are common.
After Darwin came a long procession of those who added to his theory.
Mutationists De Vries, Morgan, Bateson and others. Geneticists
Wright, Haldane and in the 1930;s Dobzaskys * Genetics and the
Origin of the Species* revitalized interest in Darwins theory.
Mythology of course is never far away, university disciplines such
as,
anthropology, history, phsycology, religion, politics, structural
linguistics and others are permeated with myths.
So I include present day *Evolution* as Mythological along with
both
of your descriptions of The End of the World. ( no disrespect
intended)
Don Matt
> > The end of the earth is destruction when the Sun runs out of hydrogen
> > and helium to fuse. Some perfection. All tht natural selection is for
> > naught, in the long run. The final state of the Kosmos is the cold and
> > the dark (heat death). Some perfection.
> >
> gets. Perfect cold, perfect darkness. Perfect destruction.
Once these cosmological arguments can't be empirically proved they
are nothing but a theory.
Darwin's theory of selection of species was supported by many
modern discoveries, like bacterial selection by antibiotics. The
species changes happens by chance, whith a gene mutation. This new
gene can be good to one environment, like a desert for example, but
could mean death in another, like during an ice age. So, Darwin's
theory has nothing related whith perfection and final purpose, only
adaption and selection.
Don.
Malenor
"jo domani" <arts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ccab9b50.02120...@posting.google.com...
> So I include present day *Evolution* as Mythological along with
> both
> of your descriptions of The End of the World. ( no disrespect
> intended)
>
Yes, it can be called a useful myth. No problem, it's just not
an accurate term. I had merely created an empirical metaphor for a
subject that is not empirical.
The argument has been revolving around the usefulness of
the idea. Kolker thinks it is not useful because all he needs
is efficient cause to explain things. I have argued that
teleology (final causation) is necessary for the systematization
required for science to be considered a science and not just
a group of disjointed observations and theories.
So I was not worried about the mythological aspect of my
metaphor of the perfectly adapted being, only worried that
I had not adequately reflected Darwinism with it.
Malenor
"Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82f24994.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > Bob Kolker
> > > The end of the earth is destruction when the Sun runs out of hydrogen
> > > and helium to fuse. Some perfection. All tht natural selection is for
> > > naught, in the long run. The final state of the Kosmos is the cold and
> > > the dark (heat death). Some perfection.
> > >
> > >Malenor
> > The end of the universe is a black hole, as near to perfection as it
> > gets. Perfect cold, perfect darkness. Perfect destruction.
>
>
> Once these cosmological arguments can't be empirically proved they
> are nothing but a theory.
Perfect coldness is nothing but a theory, but it is an empirical
possibility. Absolute zero is easily defined, just not easily obtained.
Perfect darkness is just the absence of all energy within the
visible spectrum, or perhaps the absence of any and all energy.
Again, easily defined, but a state of matter difficult to obtain.
Perfect destruction is simply my way of describing the action of
a black hole in not only reducing an object, such as a star or a
beam of light, to its constituent particles, but the fact that when
an object enters the event horizon, it may as well no longer exist
for us. It has literally gone out of existence -- "relatively" speaking.
> Darwin's theory of selection of species was supported by many
> modern discoveries, like bacterial selection by antibiotics. The
> species changes happens by chance, whith a gene mutation. This new
> gene can be good to one environment, like a desert for example, but
> could mean death in another, like during an ice age. So, Darwin's
> theory has nothing related whith perfection and final purpose, only
> adaption and selection.
>
A tendency toward perfection is implied in the progress toward
greater and greater efficiency and adaptation of a being.
"[W]ith respect to Nageli's doctrine of an innate tendency towards
perfection or progressive development, can it be said in the case of
these strongly pronounced variations, that the plants have been caught
in the act of progressing towards a higher state of development? On
the contrary, I should infer from the mere fact of the parts in question
differing or varying greatly on the same plant, that such modifications
were of extremely small importance to the plants themselves, of
whatever importance they may generally be to us for our classifications."
[...]
"[Yet], although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic
beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development,
THIS NECESSARILY FOLLOWS as I have attempted to show
in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural
selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a
high standard of organisation, is the degree to which the parts have
been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends
TOWARDS THIS END, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled
to perform their functions more efficiently." [3rd ed., chap 7;
emphasis mine.]
(The philosophical changes that occurred between the 1st and 3rd
editions of Origin must always be kept in mind. Perhaps you
or your source are referring to the more technical, less
philosophical, 1st edition.)
But I will agree with you to this extent: progressive perfection
does not dictate to every living being, natural selection does.
However, the tendency is toward progress, and the perfect
adaptation of species, by means various environmental
influences.
So Darwin has dismissed the notion of an *innate* tendency toward
perfectedness of the species, but he does not dismiss it within
the context of *his* theory of evolution by natural selection.
Also, you place too much emphasis on chance mutations. No
doubt those do occur, but they only explain divergences from
the pattern. They do not explain, on the other hand, why the
same species of deer in a forested area of Europe has smaller
antlers than the exact same species which inhabits a clear area.
This can only be explained by adaptation, by the fact that
antlers cannot grow as large in the woods, becoming a
hindrance to survival, and after a few generations, genetic
changes occur within the species promoting or preventing
antler growth.
I know, Darwin had no such knowledge of genetics. But
amazingly enough, he did not need it. Genetics can do
nothing more for Darwin than to prove a theory that was
created out of thousands of observations, deductions, and
finally, the induction of new laws of biology that bring
the diverse observations and hypotheses into a systematic
relationship with one another. But the systematization per se
must be, at least implicitly, guided by teleology, even if
Darwin never mentioned the term. He was, however, aware
of Aristotle, as made clear at the very beginning of his
preface to the third edition:
' "So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having
this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example,
grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing,
and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food;
since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result
of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there
appears to exist an adaptation to an END. Wheresoever, therefore,
all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened
like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were
preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted,
perished and still perish." We here see the principle of natural
selection shadowed forth...'
That's all I really need to say to prove the teleological nature
of Darwin's evolution by natural selection.
Tom S.
> > > The end of the earth is destruction when the Sun runs out of hydrogen
> > > and helium to fuse. Some perfection. All tht natural selection is for
> > > naught, in the long run. The final state of the Kosmos is the cold and
> > > the dark (heat death). Some perfection.
> > >
> > >Malenor
> > The end of the universe is a black hole, as near to perfection as it
> > gets. Perfect cold, perfect darkness. Perfect destruction.
>
>
> Once these cosmological arguments can't be empirically proved they
> are nothing but a theory.
> Darwin's theory of selection of species was supported by many
> modern discoveries, like bacterial selection by antibiotics.
There's just about as much to support the cosmological arguments as there is
to explain Darwin. MOF, there's fewer holes in the cosmological arguments.
Wanna try again, Don? Maybe you can make up as much crap in that regard as you
did making excuses for the destitution in South America.
Robert Kolker
Don Matt wrote:
> theory has nothing related whith perfection and final purpose, only
> adaption and selection.
That is it in a nutshell. Nature and chance shuffle up the genetic deck
and natural selection weeds out the bad results. Thus does genetic
makeup track the environment. There is no Purpose. There is no Perfection.
Perfection ha! Consider the lumbar region of the human spine and our
upright posture. A more miserable mismatch cannot be found in the
mammelian order. Some perfection (oh my aching back!).
Bob Kolker
Acar
>
>
>
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
> news:fwVI9.86295$%p6.88...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:RiSI9.2745$zS2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > an Aristotelian who argued for the ontological subsistence of
> > > the notion of final ends, only for its epistemological use-value
> > > for bringing systematization to the various sciences.
> >
> > If I understand you correctly (maybe I don't) you are saying that
> teleology
> > is a useful metaphor, or that we are wired to think teleologically, but
> that
> > teleology does not exist in fact. If so you need to explain why you seem
> to
> > believe that it is necessary "for bringing systematization to the
various
> > sciences." Is it "necessary" or simply helpful? If the latter, we ought
to
> > emphasize that it does not exist in fact.
> >
>
> The point is, not to conclude one way or the other, whether or not
> a final end actually exists, although one could argue that it possibly
> exists.
Anything can possibly exist if one is using "conventional" logic. :-)) Since
Objectivist logic is based on Objectivist axioms, more things can be
dismissed out of hand.
>Are we wired to think teleologically? "Wired" sounds too
> physical to me, but of the two alternatives you offered that's the one
> I'd choose.
>
> You cannot bring systematization to a theory without some kind
> of unalterable, epistemic "container" that regulates to each aspect
> of the theory by giving each its specific role in pushing the objective
> elements of the theory (animals, in the case of evolution) toward the
> final end. ("Pushing" isn't the right word, so don't hold me to it
please.)
The proper epistemic "container" is the "design", the way properties of
things have an effect on other things producing change. Wherever there is
change there is movement and selection. Change may be for greater staying
power or for lesser, so there is selection. The selective effect of those
changes is not aimed at going "somewhere" even if it does. Things interact
because of the way they are. The big question for which you are advocating
the (teleology) epistemologic container is "why?".
> > If there is a war and one family builds an effective nuclear shelter and
> > another one doesn't and there is a nuclear attack and one family
survives
> > and the other one doesn't, and a member of the surviving family invents
a
> > better method of mashing potatoes, would you say that there was a final
> end
> > in history for a better masher to be built?
> >
> > If there is a wind that breaks a tree and that tree falls on another
tree
> > and breaks it and that one also falls on another and so on a hundred
times
> > until the last tree destroys the garage of a home, would you say that
> there
> > was a final end aimed at the destruction of the garage?
> >
>
> No, the final end is represented at the end of time, when you find
> the final state of perfectedness of all things. In Darwin's system, it
would
> bring that being which is perfectly efficient at survival, of infinite
> complexity and intelligence, each part of its being perfectly adapted
> to the task of survival. It would be immortal, although theoretically
> mortal, but nothing could kill it.
It is true that selection implies that the best gets better. You refuse to
take a pattern or a trend without full acknowledgement, but stop short of
asking why. However in the process of acknowledging a trend you are
attributing purpose which begs the question of volitional action.
Objectivism, taking a strictly pragmatic approach, doesn't care why. It is
satisfied to say that "existence" just is. So their teleological proclivity
in my view is a little bit "mystical".
> Darwin made much of the environmental qualities surrounding each
> creature. The universe as it is now could not support an immortal
> being -- even the most successfully adapted being would eventually
> outgrows its environment, and die. So the universe itself would have
> to eventually, at some infinite point in time, arrive at whatever natural
> state could support the infinitely vast needs of such a being.
> Impossible in our empirical universe, for sure, but that's why teleology
> is only a rational discipline, not an empirical one, and it only has
> epistemic value, not practical value per se.
Again, IMO it's either an analogy or an acknowledgement of a volitional
process.
x
x
x
x
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> required for science to be considered a science and not just
> a group of disjointed observations and theories.
Just a bunch of theories that predict correctly and soundly ground our
engineering technology. The final figure of merit for a science is the
gadgets that it produces. That is what counts.
Aristotelean nonsense like Final Cause has been soundly purged from
physics which is one of the reasons that physics is our premier science.
On some days, I think it is the only science. All the others are sad
imitations and wannabees.
Aristotle produced a shitty physics of motion. It was a sad thing for
the world that so many people for so long was impressed by The
Philosopher.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> A tendency toward perfection is implied in the progress toward
> greater and greater efficiency and adaptation of a being.
Not so. Every successful organism is a kludge that fits the environment
and has mad a niche. Disabuse yourself of the idea of perfection.
Evolution has produced a human with a Big Brain and a Bad Back. Some
perfection. Fitness is sufficiency, not perfection. All survivors are
close enough for government work and far from perfect.
The human being has strength inferior to that of many species. Ditto for
speed, vision and hearing acuity. Our saving grace is our big brain
whose initial task was to sequence motion efficiently so that our
ancestors could throw rocks and sticks well enough to feed and defend
themselves. Those same brain circuits were later used to sing songs,
play music and count. For more on this theme see -The Throwing Madonna-
by Wm. Calvin.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> My guess is that you create software that works as perfectly
> as possible, with perfection the desired goal.
That is what I do, because I get paid to do it. Scientists get paid to
produce theories that predict correctly and can be used to engineer
gadgets. Perfection is not necessary. Being right is.
You will notice that modern theories are phenomenological. They try to
predict and describe correctly. They are not built to feret out the
Ultimate Truth of Being. And for good reason. We don't have the brains
or senses to do it. We have three pound brains which are good for
solving three pound problems. That is way we have a good theory of
gravity and a not so good theory of turbulence.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF56966...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> > required for science to be considered a science and not just
> > a group of disjointed observations and theories.
>
> Just a bunch of theories that predict correctly and soundly ground our
> engineering technology. The final figure of merit for a science is the
> gadgets that it produces. That is what counts.
>
No, what counts in the final analysis is what you choose to do with
those gadgets. I wasn't even talking about merit, but systematization.
You continually lecture me about off-topics.
> Aristotelean nonsense like Final Cause has been soundly purged from
> physics which is one of the reasons that physics is our premier science.
> On some days, I think it is the only science. All the others are sad
> imitations and wannabees.
>
You're still not addressing my point.
> Aristotle produced a shitty physics of motion. It was a sad thing for
> the world that so many people for so long was impressed by The
> Philosopher.
>
So.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF56BF3...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> >
> > A tendency toward perfection is implied in the progress toward
> > greater and greater efficiency and adaptation of a being.
>
> Not so. Every successful organism is a kludge that fits the environment
> and has mad a niche. Disabuse yourself of the idea of perfection.
> Evolution has produced a human with a Big Brain and a Bad Back. Some
> perfection. Fitness is sufficiency, not perfection. All survivors are
> close enough for government work and far from perfect.
>
It's not my usage of the idea, but Darwin's that you need to contend
with.
Good luck.
> The human being has strength inferior to that of many species. Ditto for
> speed, vision and hearing acuity. Our saving grace is our big brain
> whose initial task was to sequence motion efficiently so that our
> ancestors could throw rocks and sticks well enough to feed and defend
> themselves. Those same brain circuits were later used to sing songs,
> play music and count. For more on this theme see -The Throwing Madonna-
> by Wm. Calvin.
>
That's really neat.
Malenor
>
>
> Don Matt wrote:
> > theory has nothing related whith perfection and final purpose, only
> > adaption and selection.
>
> That is it in a nutshell.
Nope, sorry. Don was discussing evolution, but neglected to realize
that Darwin's theory evolved to include such concepts as perfection
and end-purposes.
> Nature and chance shuffle up the genetic deck
> and natural selection weeds out the bad results. Thus does genetic
> makeup track the environment. There is no Purpose. There is no Perfection.
>
> Perfection ha! Consider the lumbar region of the human spine and our
> upright posture. A more miserable mismatch cannot be found in the
> mammelian order. Some perfection (oh my aching back!).
>
You're thinking in terms of ends, in terms of the human being as the
final product of nature. Then you're claiming, on the grounds of
teleology, that perfection is not the theoretical end-result of evolution
because the human being, which you project to be the nature's
final product, is an imperfect being.
You will reject that interpretation, but in fact it is seen in your
lumbar example. There is the possibility of perfection, and that
would be, in this case, a human with an unproblematic posture,
only nature, i.e., natural selection, hasn't produced it yet.
Lesson: the way things are do not necessarily indicate the
way they have to be or always will be, and do not prove or
disprove teleology.
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> It's not my usage of the idea, but Darwin's that you need to contend
> with.
Darwin's work has been surpassed by modern genetics. The Old
Evelutionary theory a la Darwin is a thing of the past.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> Nope, sorry. Don was discussing evolution, but neglected to realize
> that Darwin's theory evolved to include such concepts as perfection
> and end-purposes.
Darwin asked the question: How do new species appear and old ones become
extinct. He produced the outline of an answer. Look at the title: "The
Origin of Species....".
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:%QdJ9.87409$%p6.94...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Teleology has no purpose; it is just there.
"Design" is a dangerous word for you to use because of its teleological
implications. If you stop and think about it, that word is completely
epistemic, subjective in the sense of how our minds interpret the world.
Things only have the design we place upon them. There is no real
distinction between having a design and having being designed.
> >
> > No, the final end is represented at the end of time, when you find
> > the final state of perfectedness of all things. In Darwin's system, it
> would
> > bring that being which is perfectly efficient at survival, of infinite
> > complexity and intelligence, each part of its being perfectly adapted
> > to the task of survival. It would be immortal, although theoretically
> > mortal, but nothing could kill it.
>
> It is true that selection implies that the best gets better. You refuse to
> take a pattern or a trend without full acknowledgement, but stop short of
> asking why. However in the process of acknowledging a trend you are
> attributing purpose which begs the question of volitional action.
> Objectivism, taking a strictly pragmatic approach, doesn't care why. It is
> satisfied to say that "existence" just is. So their teleological
proclivity
> in my view is a little bit "mystical".
>
If the universe appears to have been brought about purposefully,
then one might as well attribute purpose to it even if there is none.
You don't know if teleology is a force of nature any more than you
know that causality is a law of nature. But that doesn't stop
Objectivists from declaring causality an absolute. If it is
absolute, then some power greater than nature must have put it
there.
> > Darwin made much of the environmental qualities surrounding each
> > creature. The universe as it is now could not support an immortal
> > being -- even the most successfully adapted being would eventually
> > outgrows its environment, and die. So the universe itself would have
> > to eventually, at some infinite point in time, arrive at whatever
natural
> > state could support the infinitely vast needs of such a being.
> > Impossible in our empirical universe, for sure, but that's why teleology
> > is only a rational discipline, not an empirical one, and it only has
> > epistemic value, not practical value per se.
>
> Again, IMO it's either an analogy or an acknowledgement of a volitional
> process.
>
And these false alternatives are based on what?
Don Matt
> But I will agree with you to this extent: progressive perfection
> does not dictate to every living being, natural selection does.
> However, the tendency is toward progress, and the perfect
> adaptation of species, by means various environmental
> influences.
According to Darwin's theory, the adaptation is not accumulative. I
mean, if in a specific environment a long neck is an advantage in
another one, whith only short vegetables, it will probably be a very
big problem. So, progressively, the members of this specie whith
shorter necks will be selected to survive, and the resoult will not be
into direction of a perfect biological specie but only of a different
specie, adapted to a new specific environment.
> So Darwin has dismissed the notion of an *innate* tendency toward
> perfectedness of the species, but he does not dismiss it within
> the context of *his* theory of evolution by natural selection.
>
> Also, you place too much emphasis on chance mutations. No
> doubt those do occur, but they only explain divergences from
> the pattern. They do not explain, on the other hand, why the
> same species of deer in a forested area of Europe has smaller
> antlers than the exact same species which inhabits a clear area.
> This can only be explained by adaptation, by the fact that
> antlers cannot grow as large in the woods, becoming a
> hindrance to survival, and after a few generations, genetic
> changes occur within the species promoting or preventing
> antler growth.
>
It愀 an excellent point. I believe Darwin knew, by intuition, that
his theory didn't explained everything related whith how biological
organisms come from one form to another. Perhaps he described the
mecanism, which is natural selection, he didn't discribed what caused
organisms to be different from one another. The explanation came later
whith genetics, and so the idea that individuals became different by
genetic mutations, which should occur by chance.
Being honest, this official explanation is not good to bring me
intelectual satisfaction. Perhaps is clear that single mutations may
bring advantage to some simple species like bacteria, mutations in
Medicine only bring a new desease and I am not aware of any record of
a single (one gene) human mutation which has brought an advantage. A
consistent organic change in a more developed specie could only be
obtained whith an union of mutations in many different genes, which
should be coordenated to a specific direction, to an end. What is the
cause of this is hardly explained only by probability.
> I know, Darwin had no such knowledge of genetics. But
> amazingly enough, he did not need it. Genetics can do
> nothing more for Darwin than to prove a theory that was
> created out of thousands of observations, deductions, and
> finally, the induction of new laws of biology that bring
> the diverse observations and hypotheses into a systematic
> relationship with one another.
That's true and is just related whith what I was mentionig.
But the systematization per se
> must be, at least implicitly, guided by teleology, even if
> Darwin never mentioned the term. He was, however, aware
> of Aristotle, as made clear at the very beginning of his
> preface to the third edition:
> > ' "So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having
> this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example,
> grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing,(....)
>
And what one would say about human brain? It's change from its
ancient state in Homus Neanderthalensis to the more complex stage
whith Homo Sapiens happened in history relatively recently. The most
intersting is that this change occured in way that one could say
similar to a "jump". It had no preview in natural history and occured
relatively fast. And it's amazing how this brain change almost turned
the biological mutation not necessary to humanity. Today our
tecnologycal ability turned mankind able to adapt to many extreme
environmental conditions. And Genoma's project is about to give us
unmaginable opportunities.
The possibility that the complex human brain was not the resoult of
simple probability, but has a teleological nature, certainly occured
in Darwin's mind.
Unhappily one must admit that his theory failed to prove it and
subsequent theories didn't take this hypothesis seriously. But is not
uncommon in science that an intution about something precede the
complete and demonstrated scientific theory.
Don.
Robert Kolker
Don Matt wrote:
> And what one would say about human brain? It's change from its
> ancient state in Homus Neanderthalensis to the more complex stage
> whith Homo Sapiens happened in history relatively recently. The most
> intersting is that this change occured in way that one could say
> similar to a "jump".
So? It was still by a chance genetic variation. Lamarkian evolution has
been totally discredited. All of Lysenko.s projects failed.
> It had no preview in natural history and occured
> relatively fast.
At some point, the opposible thumb in primates happened "all of sudden"
and pretty fast.
And it's amazing how this brain change almost turned
> the biological mutation not necessary to humanity.
Isn't it wonderful! We evolved a nose and laterally extending ears just
to hold up our glasses!
Bob Kolker
Jack Black
>
> I have just grepped the 3-rd edition of "The Origin of Species..." by
> Charles Darwin, for an occurance of the word "evolution". Not a single
> occurence of that word.
>
> Take a look for yourselves at
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/glossary.html
>
> use the grep function or the windows find function.
Jacques Barzun wrote:
"The word "evolution" does not occur in the first edition
of the _Origin of Species_ and Darwin did not use it until
some years afterwards. But the idea it denotes had been
put forward and discussed in Europe for at least a hundred
years before 1859. These "sources" of evolutionary thinking
may be reduced to four: German philosophy, geological and
astronomic evolution, biological evolution proper, and the
new history - and the greatest of these is history."
Jacques Barzun, _Darwin, Marx, Wagner_ (Little Brown: 1941) p.43
jo domani
> Lesson: the way things are do not necessarily indicate the
> way they have to be or always will be, and do not prove or
> disprove teleology.
I understand you are describing variance , I agree and will
say accordingly, Darwins theory died with him as do all the
theories of dead philosophers. What then happens is those who
follow add, correctly or otherwise, their own comments as is
happening here. You and I would have more understanding of
genetics, be it however miniscule, than Darwin, why then drag
him into the 21st century?
As for proof or disproof, it is irelevant and indeed can be an
impediment if made a stumbling block in the case of scientific
or philosophic progress. For example, often when developing a
new product it becomes neccessary to ignore an unsolvable item
and carry on to the next step, finding the prementioned item no
longer exsists!
Acar wrote:
> > Objectivist logic is based on Objectivist axioms,
> > more things can be dismissed out of hand.
Only by Objectivists!
Here we have emphasised the total misuse of Invariance by those
who follow the philosophy of a dead philosopher. By creating
their own axioms, absolutisms and ultimate values they are fixed
in the space and time of the past. A new philosophic reasoning
which takes into account knowledge gained day by day will leave
such ones behind. Each new age has it's own Philosophers.
Robert Kolker
jo domani wrote:
> in the space and time of the past. A new philosophic reasoning
> which takes into account knowledge gained day by day will leave
> such ones behind. Each new age has it's own Philosophers.
But the idea of variation of genetic makeup and natural selection has
never been falsified. In that sense, Darwin lives. Charles Darwin never
had the knowledge of just how the characteristics of organisms are
transmitted to their descendents, but he got the "big picture" right. A
combination of crap-shoot chance and weeding out by nature has made us
what we are. Since genetic variation is pure chance, are at least was,
until humans started fiddling with genomes we are a product of blind
luck (gentically speaking). Now that humans are learning how genomes
work, in the not too distant future, genetic variation will be as much a
matter of art and engineering, as it is chance. Ironically we shall
acheiver Lamarkian Evolution at the genetic level. But right now, it is
a crap-shoot.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"jo domani" <arts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ccab9b50.02121...@posting.google.com...
> Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Lesson: the way things are do not necessarily indicate the
> > way they have to be or always will be, and do not prove or
> > disprove teleology.
>
> I understand you are describing variance , I agree and will
> say accordingly, Darwins theory died with him as do all the
> theories of dead philosophers.
Darwin was a philosopher?
> What then happens is those who
> follow add, correctly or otherwise, their own comments as is
> happening here. You and I would have more understanding of
> genetics, be it however miniscule, than Darwin, why then drag
> him into the 21st century?
>
We add our own comments, or interpretation, but no substance
to the original idea. If genetic research does not bear Darwin
out, then something is wrong with the research.
> As for proof or disproof, it is irelevant and indeed can be an
> impediment if made a stumbling block in the case of scientific
> or philosophic progress. For example, often when developing a
> new product it becomes neccessary to ignore an unsolvable item
> and carry on to the next step, finding the prementioned item no
> longer exsists!
>
The lack of physical proof is only telling to positivists when
it comes to theories they disapprove of -- but with theories
they approve of, the lack of proof doesn't phase them at all.
Malenor
"Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82f24994.02121...@posting.google.com...
> Malenor:
> > But I will agree with you to this extent: progressive perfection
> > does not dictate to every living being, natural selection does.
> > However, the tendency is toward progress, and the perfect
> > adaptation of species, by means various environmental
> > influences.
>
> According to Darwin's theory, the adaptation is not accumulative. I
> mean, if in a specific environment a long neck is an advantage in
> another one, whith only short vegetables, it will probably be a very
> big problem. So, progressively, the members of this specie whith
> shorter necks will be selected to survive, and the resoult will not be
> into direction of a perfect biological specie but only of a different
> specie, adapted to a new specific environment.
>
You can pick and choose any examples to make your point. I have
already mentioned deer with shorter and larger antlers in a previous
post. But on a wider scale, there is an observable progression
of greater biological complexity and efficiency, an accumulation
of capacities as it were, from simple one-celled organisms to man.
The latter isn't an observation original with Darwin, but as I have
read there was a certain difficulty with that view which Darwin
resolved. The difficulty is this: if the tendency is away from the
simple and toward the complex, then why are there still
one-celled organisms around?
Has anybody here actually looked into Origin of Species even
briefly? I have read a lot, not the whole thing, too much detail
about flora, fauna, and rock formations. But it seems that I
have read more than most of you.
Darwin's purpose was not to explain how variations from one species
to the next and how the individuation of a new species finally occur,
but only to show *that* they occur, not only by adducing physical
evidence -- this would be partly contingent upon finding infinitely fine
gradations of change from one species to the next, and limited by
the very incomplete fossil record -- but to introduce, a priori, pure
theory that enables the evidence as it stands to be systematized in
terms of concepts not derived from observation. The combination
of evidence and theory makes for a formidable intellectual position
which has not been put down to this day. In fact, religions which
always held to the theory that species were generated ex nihil have
found themselves in the position of having to adjust their views to
Darwin's. And they have done so despite the fact that positivism
offers its own explanation for evolution, an explanation which one
would think would be more palatable to religions in general -- the
old idea of spontaneous generation, only this time by random
mutations, or to put it more honestly, miracles. How do we explain
this choice? It is highly likely that most religions have a far greater
intellectual perspective on ideas than positivism, and a far greater
respect for the intellect than Objectivists would have you believe.
> > I know, Darwin had no such knowledge of genetics. But
> > amazingly enough, he did not need it. Genetics can do
> > nothing more for Darwin than to prove a theory that was
> > created out of thousands of observations, deductions, and
> > finally, the induction of new laws of biology that bring
> > the diverse observations and hypotheses into a systematic
> > relationship with one another.
>
> That's true and is just related whith what I was mentionig.
>
Thinkers and philosophers of the past got along quite well
with far less evidence than is given today by advances in
technology, simply by pursuing a course that led them back
and forth into the realm of philosophy, then into physical
evidence, and back into the a priori again. The fact
that evidence itself does not give the systematization based
on a belief in a natural *order* of things and not a chaotic
flux, invokes the necessity of finding a priori evidence of such
systematization. In the present day, however, positivism has
declared the a priori a bankrupted intellectual tradition to be
supplanted by evidence alone, with systems held together by
a few strands of faith that the system won't all fly apart again
under the influence of even just a little more evidence. But
Darwinism, held together by philosophy and not by faith,
has thus far withstood the test of time and positivistic
plunderings of the a priori, and has even for the most part
transformed centuries-old religious dogma. But this is really
no surprise, as philosophy grew out of religion (as did physics).
The combination of physical evidence and philosophy is
undeniable except to those positivistic primitives who believe
in returning to a pre-scientific philosophical perspective, who
deny Aristotlean logic in order to revert to Democritus and
his spinning, whirling, epistemic chaos.
> But the systematization per se
> > must be, at least implicitly, guided by teleology, even if
> > Darwin never mentioned the term. He was, however, aware
> > of Aristotle, as made clear at the very beginning of his
> > preface to the third edition:
> > > ' "So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having
> > this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example,
> > grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing,(....)
> >
> And what one would say about human brain? It's change from its
> ancient state in Homus Neanderthalensis to the more complex stage
> whith Homo Sapiens happened in history relatively recently.
I hate to nitpick this, but we aren't derived from Neanderthal man,
a species of hominid that went extinct about 30,000 years ago.
(Although there are many who argue that there was some inter-breeding
between the neanderthal and proto-modern man. But in the long
run, brains won out over brawn.)
> The most
> intersting is that this change occured in way that one could say
> similar to a "jump". It had no preview in natural history and occured
> relatively fast. And it's amazing how this brain change almost turned
> the biological mutation not necessary to humanity. Today our
> tecnologycal ability turned mankind able to adapt to many extreme
> environmental conditions. And Genoma's project is about to give us
> unmaginable opportunities.
> The possibility that the complex human brain was not the resoult of
> simple probability, but has a teleological nature, certainly occured
> in Darwin's mind.
> Unhappily one must admit that his theory failed to prove it and
> subsequent theories didn't take this hypothesis seriously. But is not
> uncommon in science that an intution about something precede the
> complete and demonstrated scientific theory.
>
Your theory that Darwin arrived at his theory through some sort of
intuitive insight is wildly inadequate to explain a monumental intellectual
achievement such as The Origin of Species. Modern positivism has
simply rejuvenated the idea of miraculous spontaneous generation and
re-labeled it "random mutation." But then, it seems that positivism
tries to undo all the intellectual advances made up to the time of
its perverse, stagnant, anti-intellectual intrusions into the sciences,
its tentacles weaving their way even through the humanities leaving
behind nothing but destruction. But positivism has not supplanted
any philosophical theory, it only distorts its messages and offers
nothing in return but intellectual nihilism.
The generation of new species explained as happenstance does not
explain why species do indeed progress. Random variations in
color and unimportant details only account for variations of races
within species (for example, the red-shafted and yellow-shafted
flickers).
Darwin does not explain species evolution by means of straight
genetic lineage from, say, ape to man. The pictorial representations
of this process you may have seen do no justice to evolution theory.
As Darwin wrote in chapter 7 of Origin (3rd ed.), anyone who believes
in spontaneous generation (such as occur with random mutations)
would have to admit that, in order for this trait to become particular
to that species, it would have to occur simultaneously amongst
various individuals. Moreover, such a transformation would leave
its traces in the embryonic stages of an individual's development,
rather than the extremely gradual development through which
an embryo actually progresses. The positivistic conception of
evolution explains nothing, but leaves all such explanations to the
realm of the religious.
"Everyone who believes in slow and gradual evolution, will of
course admit that specific changes may have been as abrupt and
as great as any single variation which we meet with under nature,
or even under domestication. But as species are more variable
when domesticated or cultivated than under their natural conditions,
it is not probable that such great and abrupt variations have often
occurred under nature, as are known occasionally to arise under
domestication. Of these latter variations several may be attributed to
reversion; and the characters which thus reappear were, it is probable,
in many cases at first gained in a gradual manner. A still greater number
must be called monstrosities, such as six-fingered men, porcupine men,
Ancon sheep, Niata cattle, etc.; and as they are widely different in
character from natural species, they throw very little light on our subject.
Excluding such cases of abrupt variations, the few which remain would
at best constitute, if found in a state of nature, doubtful species, closely
related to their parental types."
Besides, your example of the human brain was not your best effort.
The fossil record shows a gradual increase in skull size to accommodate
the larger brain, albeit this increase is not infinitely gradated. But
such omissions may as well be the result of the incompleteness of
the fossil record. However, I have never known scientists to rely on
perfectly detailed physical evidence, much of the time this is not even
forthcoming, and the scientist will simply fill in the gaps from out of his
own imagination in order to make any progress at all. Joe Domani
explained as much in a recent post to this thread about invariance
when he stated that, in the development of a product (such as a new
theory), problems can often be ignored in favor of progress, and then
those problems manage to resolve themselves anyway.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF60013...@attbi.com...
You never know until you've looked into the matter, which I sincerely doubt
you have.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF6BD76...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Don Matt wrote:
> > And what one would say about human brain? It's change from its
> > ancient state in Homus Neanderthalensis to the more complex stage
> > whith Homo Sapiens happened in history relatively recently. The most
> > intersting is that this change occured in way that one could say
> > similar to a "jump".
>
> So? It was still by a chance genetic variation. Lamarkian evolution has
> been totally discredited.
But what you don't seem to realize is that Lamark was displaced
by Darwin, not by modern genetics.
All of Lysenko.s projects failed.
>
> > It had no preview in natural history and occured
> > relatively fast.
>
> At some point, the opposible thumb in primates happened "all of sudden"
> and pretty fast.
>
That observation is based on the fossil record, which is incomplete.
>
>
> And it's amazing how this brain change almost turned
> > the biological mutation not necessary to humanity.
>
> Isn't it wonderful! We evolved a nose and laterally extending ears just
> to hold up our glasses!
>
The shape of the nose, in fact the shape of the whole face, came about
due to the fact that the monkey face was shaped for breastfeeding.
As the shape of the breasts changed, so did the faces.
But your ears, at any rate, were apparently not made for listening,
so holding onto glasses is about the only thing they're good for.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF56D47...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Malenor wrote:
> >
> > My guess is that you create software that works as perfectly
> > as possible, with perfection the desired goal.
>
> That is what I do, because I get paid to do it. Scientists get paid to
> produce theories that predict correctly and can be used to engineer
> gadgets. Perfection is not necessary. Being right is.
>
You're distorting my argument, as usual. I'm not talking about
building junk.
> You will notice that modern theories are phenomenological. They try to
> predict and describe correctly. They are not built to feret out the
> Ultimate Truth of Being. And for good reason. We don't have the brains
> or senses to do it. We have three pound brains which are good for
> solving three pound problems. That is way we have a good theory of
> gravity and a not so good theory of turbulence.
>
Ultimate Truth has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
You're shadow-boxing with yourself.
Acar
> > The proper epistemic "container" is the "design", the way properties of
> > things have an effect on other things producing change. Wherever there
is
> > change there is movement and selection. Change may be for greater
staying
> > power or for lesser, so there is selection. The selective effect of
those
> > changes is not aimed at going "somewhere" even if it does. Things
interact
> > because of the way they are. The big question for which you are
advocating
> > the (teleology) epistemologic container is "why?".
> >
> Teleology has no purpose; it is just there.
I sense a contradiction or at least a paradox : final end without purpose.
You posses a capacity for abstraction which leaves the rest us carping at
phrases without actually "getting" at the concept that you are trying to put
across. But I still think that your use of teleology as a way to think about
things working together is actually based on the human mind's commitment to
cause and effect. It's how our minds work and we can not shake it. That is
why religion is secondary to human nature and also why people will always
believe in sin, punishment and redemption. Cause and effect is the skelton
of logic, which is the link between our minds and reality. It is true that
we have the capacity to abstract in terms of what if? so that we can even
question not just cause and effect but even our own existence, but when we
come back to function we must fall back on causality. This cause and effect
thing (your real envelope) is what makes science possible in the same way
that you see teleology as making science possible. That is why I say that
when you invoke teleology as an epistemological device, you are actually
"evading" the "why" question.
> "Design" is a dangerous word for you to use because of its teleological
> implications. If you stop and think about it, that word is completely
> epistemic, subjective in the sense of how our minds interpret the world.
> Things only have the design we place upon them. There is no real
> distinction between having a design and having being designed.
No more dangerous than teleology if it is an epistemological "envelope".
(your term).
> If the universe appears to have been brought about purposefully,
> then one might as well attribute purpose to it even if there is none.
> You don't know if teleology is a force of nature any more than you
> know that causality is a law of nature.
It is easier to expalin teleology away as force of nature than it it would
to explain causality away. It is easier to think of the universe
functioning without teleology that to to think of it functioning without
causality. I think that teleology is the stepchild of causality. Possibly
useful in the sense that you mention, but quite dangerous.
> But that doesn't stop
> Objectivists from declaring causality an absolute.
There is a huge paradox there. Objectivists are big on causality but asking
"why the Universe" is a no-no."
> If it is
> absolute, then some power greater than nature must have put it
> there.
You can't have teleology without causality. Whatever you need to explain one
you also need to explain the other.
> > > Darwin made much of the environmental qualities surrounding each
> > > creature. The universe as it is now could not support an immortal
> > > being -- even the most successfully adapted being would eventually
> > > outgrows its environment, and die. So the universe itself would have
> > > to eventually, at some infinite point in time, arrive at whatever
> natural
> > > state could support the infinitely vast needs of such a being.
> > > Impossible in our empirical universe, for sure, but that's why
teleology
> > > is only a rational discipline, not an empirical one, and it only has
> > > epistemic value, not practical value per se.
> >
> > Again, IMO it's either an analogy or an acknowledgement of a volitional
> > process.
> >
>
> And these false alternatives are based on what?
You said it yourself - a power higher than nature.
x
x
x
x
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> You never know until you've looked into the matter, which I sincerely doubt
> you have.
>
Ah but I have. Darwin's theory is still held in the broad outline, but
his failure to produce a mechanism to explain variation by inheritence
prevented it from being an -effective- theory. Now we know better how
variations occur. The heart of modern evolutionary theory is now in the
genetics of evolution.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>>Isn't it wonderful! We evolved a nose and laterally extending ears just
>>to hold up our glasses!
>>
>
>
> The shape of the nose, in fact the shape of the whole face, came about
> due to the fact that the monkey face was shaped for breastfeeding.
> As the shape of the breasts changed, so did the faces.
> But your ears, at any rate, were apparently not made for listening,
> so holding onto glasses is about the only thing they're good for.
I think you are somewhat humor impaired. I was jesting at the notion
that changes to our bodies (genetically) are cause by our needs. Not so.
Changes to our bodies (genetically) are driven by success at
reproduction and only that. Nature does not care one bit about us (so to
speak) after we pass the age of breeding.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF8A692...@attbi.com...
That's not true, at least not of men. They are capable of breeding
forever. Women have such limits, and yet, for some strange reason,
their average lifespan is longer than men's.
I know what theory you're referring to, but you got it wrong.
Diseases tend to strike you the older you get because those
diseases which strike and kill younger people also obviate
the tendency for the individual's genetic proneness to those
diseases to be passed down to a new generation. This is,
of course, true only for diseases which are based on genetics,
such as cancers.
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF8A611...@attbi.com...
If it's a theory still held in broad outline, then it's still held totally.
You are only adding a genetic mechanism to the "story." Darwin
did not fail to produce a mechanism, he did not try, perhaps he
did not even feel the need to try. It was an age when thinkers
made great advances in knowledge, not from empirical facts
alone, but also with a great deal of purely rational speculation.
And I suggest that, without such guidance, your physics will
go nowhere, and slowly die out, as it is the mind which
breathes life into the sciences, not the facts of reality.
Consider this: what, in reality, did Darwin accomplish without
the aid of genetic science? He completely overturned
religion's hold over the story of the Genesis of life on Earth.
What has genetics accomplished in the realm of ideas?
Nothing.
It is from such ideas that real intellectual progress is made.
Genetics today would be nothing, it would not even be a
fantasy, if Darwin had not first overthrown religious faith
in the battle for the realm of ideas.
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:o4WJ9.103145$%p6.10...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RcxJ9.1318$fM1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I sense a contradiction or at least a paradox : final end without purpose.
> You posses a capacity for abstraction which leaves the rest us carping at
> phrases without actually "getting" at the concept that you are trying to
put
> across. But I still think that your use of teleology as a way to think
about
> things working together is actually based on the human mind's commitment
to
> cause and effect. It's how our minds work and we can not shake it. That is
> why religion is secondary to human nature and also why people will always
> believe in sin, punishment and redemption. Cause and effect is the skelton
> of logic, which is the link between our minds and reality.
A very Objectivist thing for you to state. And it is a tenuous link, based
on
the hope that causality truly is a law and not merely a tendency of nature.
Your links are disconnected on a fundamental level, with nothing to
keep them together. No system, no coherence, only a correspondence
that must continue to correspond or else all knowledge is lost.
Teleology is that which holds the links in place.
> It is true that
> we have the capacity to abstract in terms of what if? so that we can even
> question not just cause and effect but even our own existence, but when we
> come back to function we must fall back on causality. This cause and
effect
> thing (your real envelope) is what makes science possible in the same way
> that you see teleology as making science possible. That is why I say that
> when you invoke teleology as an epistemological device, you are actually
> "evading" the "why" question.
>
Causality alone makes science probable. Causality with teleology brings
certainty on a high level of generality, although it may not speak to
any definite knowledge on the level of particulars. On that level,
however, it aids us in forming hypotheses.
> > "Design" is a dangerous word for you to use because of its teleological
> > implications. If you stop and think about it, that word is completely
> > epistemic, subjective in the sense of how our minds interpret the world.
> > Things only have the design we place upon them. There is no real
> > distinction between having a design and having being designed.
>
> No more dangerous than teleology if it is an epistemological "envelope".
> (your term).
>
I said it was dangerous for you because it is to use a form of
teleology in an attempt to deny it. The concept of "design" begs the
question, For what purpose?
> > If the universe appears to have been brought about purposefully,
> > then one might as well attribute purpose to it even if there is none.
> > You don't know if teleology is a force of nature any more than you
> > know that causality is a law of nature.
>
> It is easier to expalin teleology away as force of nature than it it would
> to explain causality away. It is easier to think of the universe
> functioning without teleology that to to think of it functioning without
> causality. I think that teleology is the stepchild of causality. Possibly
> useful in the sense that you mention, but quite dangerous.
>
It is easier to avoid asking Why?, and simply believe.
> > But that doesn't stop
> > Objectivists from declaring causality an absolute.
>
> There is a huge paradox there. Objectivists are big on causality but
asking
> "why the Universe" is a no-no."
>
Teleology basically asks the question, "Why causality?"
> > If it is absolute, then some power greater than nature must have put it
> > there.
>
> You can't have teleology without causality. Whatever you need to explain
one
> you also need to explain the other.
>
You can have causality without teleology, but then it is mere,
unquestionable dogma.
> > > Again, IMO it's either an analogy or an acknowledgement of a
volitional
> > > process.
> > >
> >
> > And these false alternatives are based on what?
>
> You said it yourself - a power higher than nature.
>
Which is yourself.
Robert Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> It is from such ideas that real intellectual progress is made.
> Genetics today would be nothing, it would not even be a
> fantasy, if Darwin had not first overthrown religious faith
> in the battle for the realm of ideas.
Not so. Mendel and later, De Vries found the mechanisms for inheritence
independent of any evolutionary researches. DNA (Watson and Crick) was
found without any central interest in evolution as such.
Mendel worked independent of Darwin and Darwin had not got around to
reading any of Mendel's papers (which were published in an obscure
journal).
People have been interested in specialized and selective breeding of
animals and plants independent of evolutionary interests (see the story
of Jacob in the Bible). In fact, it was selective breeding along with
Malthus' works that got Darwin's attention.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DF9E60B...@attbi.com...
Central to my statement was the realm of ideas over theories and
experiments, philosophy over science. Some thinkers, Darwin along
with many others, had to win the battle for ideas against religion, and
that these ideas had to come prior to research.
Don Matt
> >>Isn't it wonderful! We evolved a nose and laterally extending ears just
> >>to hold up our glasses!
> > due to the fact that the monkey face was shaped for breastfeeding.
> > As the shape of the breasts changed, so did the faces.
> > But your ears, at any rate, were apparently not made for listening,
> > so holding onto glasses is about the only thing they're good for.
>
> I think you are somewhat humor impaired. I was jesting at the notion
> that changes to our bodies (genetically) are cause by our needs. Not so.
> Changes to our bodies (genetically) are driven by success at
> reproduction and only that.
As you did some emphasis by yourself, today science tells us that
only inherited changes in our bodies happen by chance. Except in
unhealthy people, every cell of our body only change directed to our
needs, to a specific end. Our body has an innate intelligency who
directs all celular efforts to serve the whole stability necessary to
life. So, a person who only do intelectual work will not have strong
muscles once they are not necessary to the body. A person who lives in
higher lands will have a higher red blood cell count (the ones
responsible for transport of oxigen) than a person who lives on sea
level (where there is more oxigen). But there is more. There is some
consistent data that supports that our emotions and thoughts do have
an important role in the body´s changes that happen during a
lifetime. In pediatry, is well known that children who have a
psicologycal trauma grow less and slower than happy children. The
placebo, which is a medication considered to be innocuos, is used in
control groups when one tests a new drug. The point is that placebo,
despite what one would expect, do have a measureable effect, sometimes
as high as the drug in test. If we understand that our mind can make
changes in our body, we must admit that our body follows some rules
related whith "untouchable concepts".
Today we also have ecologycal studies. They have shown us that every
organism, just like the cells of a body, play an important role in the
whole stability of the ecologycal system. That´s why we can´t
exterminate all snakes whithout having a huge growth in rat population
(and related deseases). In fact, we can not think in an organism
whithout its relation whith the environment and other species as we
can not think about an environment whithout considering the organism
that live in it. I dare say that as environment continues to change
one could assume philosophically that species, in order to keep the
system stable, must adapt.
About the role of environment in changes that occur in species one
must note that both Lamarck and Darwin had simmilar point of view.
Both admited that occurs adaptative change in lineages, driven by
environmental change, during long periods of time. The difference is
that while Lamarck believed in "use and desuse" Darwin coined the
theory of natural selection as a mechanism that guides adaption of
species. While Lamarck tried to explain WHY organisms became different
at first time, Darwin, who consistently proved to be right, only
limited to explain how (natural selection). As we already mentioned in
other posts it was not Darwin, but modern genetics, that tried to
explain why species change in terms of random genetical mutations. For
me, more than this, is important that the theory of random genetical
mutations simply doesn´t fit well to complex organisms, where a
consistent organic change should envolve the coordenated mutation of
many genes.
When one consider our innate body´s intelligence to change in accord
whith our needs and the complex regulatory ability of ecologycal
systems I think is difficult to believe that what causes organisms to
change is only a random mechanism. Not only this mechanism lack
scientific demonstration but the whole of evidence is directed to
another point.
Nature does not care one bit about us (so to
> speak) after we pass the age of breeding.
>
Exactly the opposite of it. When we pass the age of breeding we start
to destroy nature, the one who created conditions for our sustained
existence.
Don.
grammarian
(site devoted to biochemist/anti-Darwinist Michael Behe, author of
"Darwin's Black Box")
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho33.htm
(article on physicist/anti-Darwinist Hubert Yockey, and his book
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology")