Why 'survival of the fittest' is not a tautology
Iain
I think I've got to the bottom of the Creationists' confusion on this
matter, and why they assert that SofF is a 'tautology'.
‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a tautology, for it is not even a
complete statement. Rather, it is an answer to an implied question.
‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a way of saying ‘the fittest
survive’ (a complete claim that may appear tautological).
‘Survival of the fittest’ is short for ‘the survival of the fittest is
what determines the course of evolution’. It’s an answer to the
implied question: “what determines the course of evolution?”. Answer:
‘survival of the fittest’. This statement does not even have the
illusion of tautology.
‘Fit’ implies a hidden variable: a thing being befitted. To be fit is
to befit something. In the case of evolution, the environment is the
thing being befitted. As the environment changes, so the significance
of fitness changes.
For example, it is not at all tautological to say “the course of
giraffe evolution was influenced by the fact that longer-necked
animals are more likely to survive in an environment that contains
tall trees”. The second part may be obvious (though not tautological),
but the claim that this is why giraffes have long necks is neither
obvious nor tautological.
In more vivid terms, ‘survival of the fittest’ just means that for
each generation, the environment affects which members of a species
reproduce, and that this affects the course of the species’ evolution.
The evolution itself happens by default, for no individual organism
reproduces itself with 100% accuracy.
--Iain
Paul J Gans
Here's a slightly alternative view:
Given a constant environment (ha!) I've always taken "survival
of the fittest" to be a definition of fittest. Those that survive
to reproduce, on averge, are more fit than those that don't survive
to reproduce.
Since I take imperfect replication as an axiom, the rest follows.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
David Hare-Scott
> Here's a slightly alternative view:
>
> Given a constant environment (ha!) I've always taken "survival
> of the fittest" to be a definition of fittest. Those that survive
> to reproduce, on averge, are more fit than those that don't survive
> to reproduce.
>
> Since I take imperfect replication as an axiom, the rest follows.
I think your explanation is simpler and more concise. SOTF is a definition
of fitness and only resembles a tautology when taken to be a statement
explaining or defining evolution over all - which it isn't unless you like
straw men.
David
Zaius
"Survival of the fittest" may be a tautology, but that's not what made
Darwin famous. What shook the world was the connection between
fitness, variation, reproduction and change. If you want a "theory"
that's nothing but tautology, let's go with "Designed things have
Designers."
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
Is that tautological? Not at all - the races are a way of determining
the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of time.
So, too, does natural selection show which organisms reproduce the
most successfully - generally the ones most suited to their
environment.
The ones that reproduce most successfully do so for a reason - and
it's not because they reproduce the most successfully; it's because
they can handle the cold better, or find food most efficiently, or
attract the strongest mates, or avoid the predators better than their
peers.
Unless the Creationists can successfully argue that winning a race is
a mere tautology, then it's a bogus claim. But we all knew that.
Kermit
Rolf
What's more; the concept was well established long before Darwin:
Darwin and earlier naturalists, including Titus Lucretius in 55 B.C. and
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck in 1809 emphasized that competition favored the
fittest. (W.F. Loomis in "Life As It Is")
Rolf
> Kermit
Iain
But it's not.
Survival of the fittest is not a way of claiming 'the fittest
survive'. This was already known. The phrase is a way of identifying
this fact as the operative one in evolution, not merely to claim that
the fact is true.
--Iain
Iain
It' not a definition.
It's not a claim (therefore not a tautology).
It's a name given to a phenomenon.
--Iain
rmj
I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
Is that tautological? Not at all - the races are a way of determining
the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of time.
It is a tautology. The winner of a race is characterized as fastest.
Friar Broccoli
Nice. From now on, I will use the more awkward:
"Victory of the fastest"
unrestra...@hotmail.com
The ones who survive (actually, reproduce most successfully) are not
explained by survival, but by other traits. It is not uncommon for
scientists to say - why the heck is this particular organism <points>
so successful? If it were merely a tautology/definition, it would not
be an issue.
Same as in a race - the winners are not the winners because they win,
but because:
they're older (or younger),
or have trained harder,
or have trained smarter,
or have a better build for that particular race, etc.
One necessarily offers different criteria for different races:
relay, distance, obstacle course, most improved student, etc.
One could even have a race in which the winners were the slowest ones.
If motivation is a problem, just announce that
"The slowest runners will be declared the winners, then they will be
shot."
"On your mark, get set, go!"
For all of these different races, one could easily get different
winners. Looking back on this, it occurs to me that natural selection
would even choose these different winners, by the same criteria listed
above, under various natural circumstances.
Even if you said that the winner of a race with criteria X is the
*definition of this kind of runner,it would still be measuring
something real. Might as well claim that nothing is real, because
anything we talk about can be defined, which are merely tautologies.
Which of course is what Creationists do.
Kermit
Paul J Gans
Thank you.
But straw men have their place. For example when arguing with
straw creationists.
Paul J Gans
>It' not a definition.
I can see that. But again my point of view is that "fittest"
is undefined. Further, since it is clear that in individual
situations, the most fit speciman does not necessarily survive
while the lesser fit one does, it is only a definition in the
average sense. Nevertheless, the term needs defining.
Paul J Gans
>On Jan 3, 8:31 am, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>> I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
>>
>> Is that tautological? Not at all - the races are a way of determining
>> the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of time.
>>
>> It is a tautology. The winner of a race is characterized as fastest.
>The ones who survive (actually, reproduce most successfully) are not
>explained by survival, but by other traits. It is not uncommon for
>scientists to say - why the heck is this particular organism <points>
>so successful? If it were merely a tautology/definition, it would not
>be an issue.
I cannot agree. This is retrospective defining, not prospective.
You cannot look at a bunch of rats, people, oak trees, etc., and
determing *ahead of time* which will survive. We can only examine
the survivors *after* they have been dubbed survivors to see what
traits they have in common.
And, of course, these traits will differ at different times and
under different conditions.
In other words, there is no unique predetermined set of traits
that guarantees survival. This is why I take "fittest" as the
term needing definition. It can't be defined by traits ahead
of time.
Glenn
some kind of logical fallacy?
And why would you show your total ignorance of such a basic
evolutionary concept as natural selection
in front of your fellow evolutionists, and make claims about what you
all know, unless you
were a total moron?
Friar Broccoli
But if that is the case then surely "survival of the fittest" is a
tautology, since you are simply repeating the same idea twice
with "survival" and "fittest" being the same thing.
I wonder if we shouldn't just throw this expression out
and say what is really intended is something like:
- "those that reproduce are selected"
which clearly indicates that replication is the method of
selection.
Glenn
right?
You all couldn't be this stupid, or have been here this long and still
be this ignorant and illogical.
Friar Broccoli
Don't know about the others, but I really am this stupid.
I never stop questioning my beliefs and assumptions.
Would my doubts end if I became a creationist?
Zaius
"Survival of the fittest" is like "black hole"; both are metaphors.
They serve as shorthand to refer to a theory. "Natural Selection" gets
closer to the actual theory. You can't say which rats/people/trees
will survive, but you can list the selective pressures they will face.
Not every surviving trait is selected. Genetic drift explains some
features better. It's useful to argue about a surviving trait being
selected or not. You learn things by exploring why a trait was
selected. It's silly to argue if a selected trait is really more fit.
Andre Lieven
<Ad Hominem Alone Loony Fundy Projection>
Thank you for further admitting that you have NO knowledge to offer.
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
reasonable
doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a
process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be
doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are
resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry.
By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly
need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution
as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are
constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary
mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except
in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March
1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg
ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Andre
Jeffrey Turner
They are helpful if you get into a fight with some apple trees.
--Jeff
--
"War is something absurd, useless, that
nothing can justify."
Louis de Cazenave of the Fifth Senegalese Rifles,
one of the last two living French veterans of
World War I.
Jeffrey Turner
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but
that's the way to bet."
Iain
Certainly. Moreover, I just created scores of sentences that jointly
correct a common Creationist fallacy.
> And why would you show your total ignorance of such a basic
> evolutionary concept as natural selection
Namely?
> in front of your fellow evolutionists, and make claims about what you
> all know, unless you
> were a total moron?
Expalin yourself.
--Iain
Friar Broccoli
.
Can I take this as agreement that the SoF expression
should be thrown out?
> You can't say which rats/people/trees
> will survive, but you can list the selective pressures they will face.
OK
> Not every surviving trait is selected.
I assume you meant "positively selected".
> Genetic drift explains some features better.
.
This statement:
> It's useful to argue about a surviving trait being
> selected or not. You learn things by exploring why a trait was
> selected.
and this statement:
> It's silly to argue if a selected trait is really more fit.
appear to me to be contradictory.
If fitness means -best able to survive in a specific environment-
then surely those surviving traits have been measured for fitness.
I think fitness really is a valid measure.
The problem I see is that:
- ability to survive and
- fitness
really do appear to mean the same thing.
Friar Broccoli
> I think I've got to the bottom of the Creationists' confusion on this
> matter, and why they assert that SofF is a 'tautology'.
>
> ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a tautology, for it is not even a
> complete statement. Rather, it is an answer to an implied question.
>
> ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a way of saying ‘the fittest
> survive’ (a complete claim that may appear tautological).
>
> ‘Survival of the fittest’ is short for ‘the survival of the fittest is
> what determines the course of evolution’.
The problem I see with this analysis is that the above could be
shortened to:
"the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
Paul J Gans
Sure. But the old saying conveys something more, and that
is that on average the survivors are better suited (fit) for
their environment than the original population.
Survival alone won't do it because survival is often a matter
of accident. It is only in the aggregate that we can claim
fitness, or so I'd think.
Paul J Gans
He doesn't understand. In fact, if one thinks about it,
imperfect replication means that not all members of a
group in a particular niche are equally genetically equipped.
From this we can deduce that there will be differential survival.
From that we can deduce that after some generations there will
be genetic differences between the current population and the
original population.
Now creationists claim that this is simply evolution within kinds
or some such fluff. They *assume* that there is a natural limit
to the kind of variation imperfect reproduction can produce.
However, they never offer any proof of that, nor has any turned
up. The frequent claim that you never saw a horse give birth to
a bat (or the equivalent) is their claim for the inviolability
of a kind.
Evolutionists do not assume any such thing, because there is no
evidence for it. Creationists won't engage on this point.
That, in a somewhat oversimplified nutshell, is the essence of
the entire creationist debate.
And to think it all comes from suvival of the fittest!
Friar Broccoli
Where fitness is a variable that stands in for whatever
set of characteristics permitted survival in that particular
environment.
I really do tie myself up in knots over simple questions.
I wonder if it will look this simple tomorrow?
Paul J Gans
Curious. I've got the same problem... ;-0
Kent Paul Dolan
I never stop questioning my beliefs and assumptions.
> Would my doubts end if I became a creationist?
Yes they would.
The lobotomy knife you need is over there on the
table, provided free courtesy of the Discovery
Institute for use of anyone with an IQ exceeding
that of a midge.
Enjoy hacking away!
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> The problem I see is that:
> - ability to survive and
> - fitness
> really do appear to mean the same thing.
Not really. Fitness is a summary measure,
ability to survive is the name of a
collection:
I can outrun the tiger.
I can see the lion in the dry grass.
I can chase down the pig for prey.
I am resistant to disease.
I am fertile.
I can give good advice to the tribe.
I am attractive to the opposite gender.
I can plan a mammoth hunt.
and so forth, are all individual "abilities
to survive and reproduce".
Fitness abstracts them into a single metric,
but usually a statistical one since the
environment acts a bit stochastically.
A fitness would look like: "compounded
probability of leaving each additional
offspring starting at zero offspring is
80%", not like "will leave 3 offspring".
xanthian, who does this sort of stuff in
computers -- for fun.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Jan 3, 8:31 am, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> >> I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
>
> >> Is that tautological? Not at all - the races are a way of determining
> >> the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of time.
>
> >> It is a tautology. The winner of a race is characterized as fastest.
> >The ones who survive (actually, reproduce most successfully) are not
> >explained by survival, but by other traits. It is not uncommon for
> >scientists to say - why the heck is this particular organism <points>
> >so successful? If it were merely a tautology/definition, it would not
> >be an issue.
>
> I cannot agree. This is retrospective defining, not prospective.
> You cannot look at a bunch of rats, people, oak trees, etc., and
> determing *ahead of time* which will survive. We can only examine
> the survivors *after* they have been dubbed survivors to see what
> traits they have in common.
Yes. But the traits - which we won't know until the dust settles -
are defined by the collective characteristics of the progeny. They are
not defined by the fact of their survival, they are *identified by
their survival.
Scientists can sometimes identify traits ahead of time which will
provide reproductive advantages - heck, I'm sure I've read of studies
where they test a particular prediction. All of the characteristics
exist ahead of time, it's just that we usually can't identify them
until after the fact.
Yes?
>
> And, of course, these traits will differ at different times and
> under different conditions.
Yup. There are no traits which work for all organisms, or in fact any
particular species in all circumstances. There is a mutation which
make some humans (and Brahma bulls) exceptionally muscular and strong.
Why wasn't it selected for? Maybe it requires more food, or slows down
the mutant human enough in the long run (literally - the long run,
chasing down the prey) so it hasn't been an advantage (until, perhaps,
recently). It's not until we see how traits play out in *that
*generations' environment, in concert with the other traits of that
organism, before we know if they're advantageous.
>
> In other words, there is no unique predetermined set of traits
> that guarantees survival. This is why I take "fittest" as the
> term needing definition. It can't be defined by traits ahead
> of time.
Correct, IIUIC.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I dunno. Can you specify what you think the problem is?
> And why would you show your total ignorance of such a basic
> evolutionary concept as natural selection
Educate me. Please explain where you think I missed the boat.
> in front of your fellow evolutionists, and make claims about what you
> all know, unless you were a total moron?
See, I'm so dull witted that I can't find where you think I
specifically messed up. Did you forget to mention it, or am I looking
right at it?
Kermit
rmj
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a865208-0f13-4d67...@h41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Likewise science has not offerred proof for (or even posited plausible
pathways) for the rise of any innovative biological feature through point
mutations? At best there are the experiments with bacteria that resurrect
former functions.
>>
>> Evolutionists do not assume any such thing, because there is no
>> evidence for it. Creationists won't engage on this point.
>>
>> That, in a somewhat oversimplified nutshell, is the essence of
>> the entire creationist debate.
>>
>> And to think it all comes from suvival of the fittest!
>
> Where fitness is a variable that stands in for whatever
> set of characteristics permitted survival in that particular
> environment.
Or in other words, survival of the we don't know what.
rmj
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:gjpft8$191$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> The problem I see is that:
>> - ability to survive and
>> - fitness
>> really do appear to mean the same thing.
>
> Not really. Fitness is a summary measure,
> ability to survive is the name of a
> collection:
>
> I can outrun the tiger.
>
> I can see the lion in the dry grass.
>
> I can chase down the pig for prey.
>
> I am resistant to disease.
>
> I am fertile.
>
> I can give good advice to the tribe.
>
> I am attractive to the opposite gender.
>
> I can plan a mammoth hunt.
>
> and so forth, are all individual "abilities
> to survive and reproduce".
You cannot be sure of the truth of any of these (except being fertile).
Human beings can't outrun tigers and yet are doing fine. Resistance to
disease, while it seems useful, may have incumbent and onerous metabolic
costs.
And even infertility need not be negative if it is compensated with an urge
to protect and nurture close relatives.
One cannot positively enumerate traits of fitness, only point out obvious
negative ones like being born dead.
rmj
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:b5f519a6-e811-45a6...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Since evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency and since this
means that every birth or death is evolution, your statement is trivial.
By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly
need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution
as history that can withstand critical examination.
For creationism that is true, but it is false for the idea that Mind
participates in evolutionary direction.
rmj
shortened to:
"the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
Wouldn't "the ability to reproduce" be better? Yet even this is not
absolutely true. Consider a species that endures an abnormally severe
drought in a region for a decade. Those that can handle the lack of water
best will predominate. Now the rains return and those survivors do okay but
they do not thrive, and in the next year or later some members of the
species who did not suffer by the drought migrate into the region, and
predominate.
The drought survivors had the ability to survive and the ability to
reproduce, but were eliminated. And this in a miniscule amount of time
geologically speaking.
Iain
> On Jan 2, 4:51 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I've got to the bottom of the Creationists' confusion on this
> > matter, and why they assert that SofF is a 'tautology'.
>
> > ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a tautology, for it is not even a
> > complete statement. Rather, it is an answer to an implied question.
>
> > ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a way of saying ‘the fittest
> > survive’ (a complete claim that may appear tautological).
>
> > ‘Survival of the fittest’ is short for ‘the survival of the fittest is
> > what determines the course of evolution’.
>
> The problem I see with this analysis is that the above could be
> shortened to:
>
> "the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
>
> I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
It implies the existence of a befittee.
The environment sets the prerequisits of survival. Survival entails
different things, in different environments -- hence a variety of
structures.
--Iain
Iain
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's purely subjective.
Objectively, each new individual is an innovation because each one is
unique(as are most of its constituent parts).
What's subjective, is how you personally like to carve up the organism
into 'features'.
--Iain
Friar Broccoli
> On Jan 4, 12:07 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 4:51 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think I've got to the bottom of the Creationists' confusion on this
> > > matter, and why they assert that SofF is a 'tautology'.
>
> > > ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a tautology, for it is not even a
> > > complete statement. Rather, it is an answer to an implied question.
>
> > > ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a way of saying ‘the fittest
> > > survive’ (a complete claim that may appear tautological).
>
> > > ‘Survival of the fittest’ is short for ‘the survival of the fittest is
> > > what determines the course of evolution’.
>
> > The problem I see with this analysis is that the above could be
> > shortened to:
>
> > "the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
>
> > I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
>
> It implies the existence of a befittee.
I am looking at things a bit differently this morning, but I
remain at least somewhat skeptical of this model.
I think the existence of a befittee (an organic line being modified
by evolution) follows naturally from survive (something
must be doing the surviving).
I go back to Kermit's line: fitness adds a menu of characteristics
some of which are "selected" and some "rejected" by evolution
for use by the following generation.
Friar Broccoli
>> The problem I see with this analysis is that the above could be
>> shortened to:
>>
>> "the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
>>
>> I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
> Wouldn't "the ability to reproduce" be better?
Yes, I completely agree. I kept survive only because we
were discussing the phrase "survival of the fittest". I
personally prefer something like "replication of the best
adapted"
> Yet even this is not absolutely true. Consider a species that
> endures an abnormally severe drought in a region for a decade.
> Those that can handle the lack of water best will predominate.
> Now the rains return and those survivors do okay but they do
> not thrive, and in the next year or later some members of the
> species who did not suffer by the drought migrate into the
> region, and predominate.
> The drought survivors had the ability to survive and the
> ability to reproduce, but were eliminated. And this in a
> miniscule amount of time geologically speaking.
I don't think any evolutionist would deny that luck (mostly bad)
plays a huge role in evolution.
I also wanted to ask about a point you made here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9fd4ab8e1bc0b238
Paul J Gans said:
>> However, they never offer any proof of that, nor has any
>> turned up. The frequent claim that you never saw a horse
>> give birth to a bat (or the equivalent) is their claim for
>> the inviolability of a kind.
You replied:
> Likewise science has not offerred proof for (or even posited
> plausible pathways) for the rise of any innovative biological
> feature through point mutations? At best there are the
> experiments with bacteria that resurrect former functions.
I could not tell if this is your position or if you were simply
presenting another ridiculous creationist position. It is a
long time since we have had an exchange, but as I recall you
accept the tree of descent, but reject selection from "natural"
variation. Could you clarify please?
Paul J Gans
>On Jan 3, 12:35 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >On Jan 3, 8:31 am, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>> >> I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
>>
>> >> Is that tautological? Not at all - the races are a way of determining
>> >> the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of time.
>>
>> >> It is a tautology. The winner of a race is characterized as fastest.
>> >The ones who survive (actually, reproduce most successfully) are not
>> >explained by survival, but by other traits. It is not uncommon for
>> >scientists to say - why the heck is this particular organism <points>
>> >so successful? If it were merely a tautology/definition, it would not
>> >be an issue.
>>
>> I cannot agree. This is retrospective defining, not prospective.
>> You cannot look at a bunch of rats, people, oak trees, etc., and
>> determing *ahead of time* which will survive. We can only examine
>> the survivors *after* they have been dubbed survivors to see what
>> traits they have in common.
>Yes. But the traits - which we won't know until the dust settles -
>are defined by the collective characteristics of the progeny. They are
>not defined by the fact of their survival, they are *identified by
>their survival.
Exactly, which is why I take "survival of the fittest" as the
definition of fitness. They and their traits are identified
by their survival.
>Scientists can sometimes identify traits ahead of time which will
>provide reproductive advantages - heck, I'm sure I've read of studies
>where they test a particular prediction. All of the characteristics
>exist ahead of time, it's just that we usually can't identify them
>until after the fact.
>Yes?
Yes, my view exactly.
>> And, of course, these traits will differ at different times and
>> under different conditions.
>Yup. There are no traits which work for all organisms, or in fact any
>particular species in all circumstances. There is a mutation which
>make some humans (and Brahma bulls) exceptionally muscular and strong.
>Why wasn't it selected for? Maybe it requires more food, or slows down
>the mutant human enough in the long run (literally - the long run,
>chasing down the prey) so it hasn't been an advantage (until, perhaps,
>recently). It's not until we see how traits play out in *that
>*generations' environment, in concert with the other traits of that
>organism, before we know if they're advantageous.
>>
>> In other words, there is no unique predetermined set of traits
>> that guarantees survival. This is why I take "fittest" as the
>> term needing definition. It can't be defined by traits ahead
>> of time.
>Correct, IIUIC.
We mainly agree, I think.
Paul J Gans
You messed up. If you can't predict the date and hour at which
Krakatoa will next explode, you don't have any idea about geology
and hence God did it.
And since you can't predict the exact details of when the next
mammalian species will appear, complete with a picture of what
it will look like, you don't have any idea about evolution and
hence God did it.
See? It isn't a theory unless it can predict those things.
Paul J Gans
>The problem I see with this analysis is that the above could be
>shortened to:
>"the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
>I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
Don't worry about it. You need to understand more basic things.
>Wouldn't "the ability to reproduce" be better? Yet even this is not
>absolutely true. Consider a species that endures an abnormally severe
>drought in a region for a decade. Those that can handle the lack of water
>best will predominate. Now the rains return and those survivors do okay but
>they do not thrive, and in the next year or later some members of the
>species who did not suffer by the drought migrate into the region, and
>predominate.
>The drought survivors had the ability to survive and the ability to
>reproduce, but were eliminated. And this in a miniscule amount of time
>geologically speaking.
Your scenario could happen. But here's another. Alternating
cycles of wet and dry end up producing a species that can
endure both.
Now imagine a scenario where the climate turns dry and what was
once woods turns to open plains. Now the inhabitants have to
chase down dinner and not pick it off trees. What do you end
up with?
If you are looking for evolution to produce an entirely new
phylum you will be sadly disappointed. All it takes is one
trip to a decent natural history museum to realize that
essentially all quadrupeds, mammalian or reptillian, have
the same basic body plan. They differ only in the details.
Think on this.
TomS
<gjqtao$76k$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>
>unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>On Jan 3, 1:22=C2=A0pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 12:12=C2=A0am, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Jan 2, 1:51=C2=A0pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > I think I've got to the bottom of the Creationists' confusion on t=
>his
>>> > > matter, and why they assert that SofF is a 'tautology'.
>>>
>it is not even a
>.
>>>
>>> > > =E2=80=98Survival of the fittest=E2=80=99 is not a way of saying =E2=
>=80=98the fittest
>>> > > survive=E2=80=99 (a complete claim that may appear tautological).
>>>
>>> > > =E2=80=98Survival of the fittest=E2=80=99 is short for =E2=80=98th=
>e survival of the fittest is
>answer to the
>>> > > implied question: =E2=80=9Cwhat determines the course of evolution=
>?=E2=80=9D. Answer:
>>> > > =E2=80=98survival of the fittest=E2=80=99. This statement does not=
> even have the
>>> > > illusion of tautology.
>>>
>itted. To be fit is
>he
>>> > > thing being befitted. As the environment changes, so the significa=
>nce
>>> > > of fitness changes.
>>>
>>> > > For example, it is not at all tautological to say =E2=80=9Cthe cou=
>rse of
>>> > > giraffe evolution was influenced by the fact that longer-necked
>>> > > animals are more likely to survive in an environment that contains
>utological),
>>> > > but the claim that this is why giraffes have long necks is neither
>>> > > obvious nor tautological.
>>>
>t means that for
>>> > > each generation, the environment affects which members of a specie=
>s
>>> > > reproduce, and that this affects the course of the species=E2=80=99=
> evolution.
>>> > > The evolution itself happens by default, for no individual organis=
>m
>>> > > reproduces itself with 100% accuracy.
>>>
>>> > > --Iain
>>>
>>> > I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
>>>
>g
>>> > the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of time.
>>>
>>> > So, too, does natural selection show which organisms reproduce the
>>> > most successfully - generally the ones most suited to their
>>> > environment.
>>>
>>> > The ones that reproduce most successfully do so for a reason - and
>>> > it's not because they reproduce the most successfully; it's because
>>> > they can handle the cold better, or find food most efficiently, or
>n their
>>> > peers.
>>>
>>> > Unless the Creationists can successfully argue that winning a race i=
>s
>>> > a mere tautology, then it's a bogus claim. But we all knew that.
>>>
>>> Can't you evolutionists even finish one sentence without committing
>>> some kind of logical fallacy?
>
>>I dunno. Can you specify what you think the problem is?
>
>>> And why would you show your total ignorance of such a basic
>>> evolutionary concept as natural selection
>
>>Educate me. Please explain where you think I missed the boat.
>
>>> in front of your fellow evolutionists, and make claims about what you
>>> all know, unless you were a total moron?
>
>>See, I'm so dull witted that I can't find where you think I
>>specifically messed up. Did you forget to mention it, or am I looking
>>right at it?
>
>You messed up. If you can't predict the date and hour at which
>Krakatoa will next explode, you don't have any idea about geology
>and hence God did it.
>
>And since you can't predict the exact details of when the next
>mammalian species will appear, complete with a picture of what
>it will look like, you don't have any idea about evolution and
>hence God did it.
>
>See? It isn't a theory unless it can predict those things.
"If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does
not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be
banished."
Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box", page 186
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Paul J Gans
I'll note that I've never known of a case of two organisms
differing only by a point mutation. Inaccurate reproduction
ensures that there are lots of differences between seemingly
identical individuals. Even identical twins are not identical
in total detail.
Andre Lieven
up the attributation lines. Have proper attributation lines
is a courtesy so that it is clear who said, and replied, to
what.
A failure to do this means that many, including myself,
will not bother to read what you could not bother to
properly write.
On Jan 4, 12:57 am, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
ONLY if you can prove your claim that such change occurs in every
birth and death, and is meaningful in species adaptation.
Get busy on backing up your ASSertion...
> By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly
> need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution
> as history that can withstand critical examination.
There are no alternatives to evolution that meet the tests of what
is science.
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we
find
that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court
takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three
different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a
determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the
centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived
dualism
that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative
attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
(page 64)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
rmj
>First of all, FIX your newsreader, because it is messing
up the attributation lines. Have proper attributation lines
is a courtesy so that it is clear who said, and replied, to
what.
>A failure to do this means that many, including myself,
will not bother to read what you could not bother to
properly write.
Sorry for that, but how does one fix Outlook Express to treat it properly.
Sometimes it puts in the > and sometimes it does not. This time it did not.
You do not grasp the subject. It is a mathematical certainty that if an
individual dies then the allele frequencies of the population change.
rmj
You have a good memory, except I don't reject natural selection through
random mutation, rather I see it as only one mechanism, and likely it is not
the most important. Certainly for human evolution, the mind has come into
play, and I believe also that this is true for mammals, birds and many other
creatures. Oh, and by mind, I include the Divine.
rmj
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gjqu1r$76k$7...@reader1.panix.com...
> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>>The problem I see with this analysis is that the above could be
>>shortened to:
>
>>"the ability to survive is what determines the course of evolution"
>
>>I cannot see that the word "fittest" adds anything to the meaning.
>
> Don't worry about it. You need to understand more basic things.
>
>>Wouldn't "the ability to reproduce" be better? Yet even this is not
>>absolutely true. Consider a species that endures an abnormally severe
>>drought in a region for a decade. Those that can handle the lack of water
>>best will predominate. Now the rains return and those survivors do okay
>>but
>>they do not thrive, and in the next year or later some members of the
>>species who did not suffer by the drought migrate into the region, and
>>predominate.
>
>>The drought survivors had the ability to survive and the ability to
>>reproduce, but were eliminated. And this in a miniscule amount of time
>>geologically speaking.
>
> Your scenario could happen. But here's another. Alternating
> cycles of wet and dry end up producing a species that can
> endure both.
Easy to imagine using vague concepts, but an attempt to posit a pathway on
how a change occurs has yet to be accomplished.
>
> Now imagine a scenario where the climate turns dry and what was
> once woods turns to open plains. Now the inhabitants have to
> chase down dinner and not pick it off trees. What do you end
> up with?
>
> If you are looking for evolution to produce an entirely new
> phylum you will be sadly disappointed. All it takes is one
> trip to a decent natural history museum to realize that
> essentially all quadrupeds, mammalian or reptillian, have
> the same basic body plan. They differ only in the details.
The difference between gills and lungs does not seem to be details. Having
feathers and not having feathers is not a detail.
As to the woods turning to open plains, survival does not necessarily depend
on genetic evolution; a change in behavior might suffice. So I don't see
what you are saying.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
>
> up the attributation lines. Have proper attributation lines
> is a courtesy so that it is clear who said, and replied, to
> what.
>
> >A failure to do this means that many, including myself,
>
> will not bother to read what you could not bother to
> properly write.
>
> Sorry for that, but how does one fix Outlook Express to treat it properly.
Damn if I know, as I don't use that piece of crap.
Its YOUR computer, so the burden to LEARN how to properly operate
it is all YOURS, as well.
Since you added no comments on the actual topic, your
concession that your claims were 100% wrong is noted and
appreciated.
Andre
Friar Broccoli
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
While I don't really have a problem with this position, I do think
your emphasis on selection from designed characteristics over
selection from randomly mutated elements is misplaced.
If design really was the primary mechanism for evolution, why is
the process so slow? Why for example did God spend 2 billion
years getting bacteria right before starting to work on us
multi-cellular creatures?
Also if design is the primary mechanism why do so many species
go extinct?
Consider that:
- 177 (known) species of canids out of 214 have gone extinct
since Hesperocyonine dogs first showed up in the fossil
record 40 million years ago.
- every one of perhaps a thousand Ornithischian dinosaur
species are now gone.
- More than 15,000 species of Trilobites lived over a period
of almost 300 million years. This entire class of animals
comprising
nine orders went extinct 250 million years ago.
How can design be the primary mechanism given these facts?
Mike Painter
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Here's a slightly alternative view:
>>
>> Given a constant environment (ha!) I've always taken "survival
>> of the fittest" to be a definition of fittest. Those that survive
>> to reproduce, on averge, are more fit than those that don't survive
>> to reproduce.
>>
>> Since I take imperfect replication as an axiom, the rest follows.
>
> I think your explanation is simpler and more concise. SOTF is a
> definition of fitness and only resembles a tautology when taken to be
> a statement explaining or defining evolution over all - which it
> isn't unless you like straw men.
>
> David
It always seems to me that it's more like the guys being chased by a bear.
All you have to be is a little faster than the slowest guy to survive.
TomS
<09d59a54-edd0-4ce2...@e22g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."
"One question may possibly have dwelt in the reader's mind during
the perusal of these observations, namely, Why should not the Deity
have given to the animal the faculty of vision at once? Why this
circuitous perception; the ministry of so many means; an element
provided for the purpose; reflected from opaque substances,
refracted through transparent ones; and both according to precise
laws; then, a complex organ, an intricate and artificial apparatus,
in order, by the operation of this element, and in conformity with
the restrictions of these laws, to produce an image upon a membrane
communicating with the brain? Wherefore all this? Why make the
difficulty in order to surmount it? If to perceive objects by some
other mode than that of touch, or objects which lay out of the reach
of that sense, were the thing proposed; could not a simple volition
of the Creator have communicated the capacity? Why resort to
contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very
definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have
recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint,
defect of power. This question belongs to the other senses, as well
as to sight; to the general functions of animal life, as nutrition,
secretion, respiration; to the conomy of vegetables; and indeed to
almost all the operations of nature. The question, therefore, is of
very wide extent; and amongst other answers which may be given to it;
beside reasons of which probably we are ignorant, one answer is this:
It is only by the display of contrivance, that the existence, the
agency, the wisdom of the Deity, could be testified to his rational
creatures."
William Paley
Natural Theology
Chapter III, pages 38-40
I am not aware of whether Paley considered the next question, about
his proposed solution: Why resort to contrivance, where power is
omnipotent, when it comes to testifying to the wisdom of the Deity?
Wouldn't it be better to testify to the wisdom of the Deity directly,
rather than giving the impression that the Deity is reliant on
contrivance?
RAM
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Then it is a very empirically misinformed mind. Get rid of it.
RAM
Paul J Gans
There you go. That's it exactly.
Paul J Gans
>You have a good memory, except I don't reject natural selection through
>random mutation, rather I see it as only one mechanism, and likely it is not
>the most important. Certainly for human evolution, the mind has come into
>play, and I believe also that this is true for mammals, birds and many other
>creatures. Oh, and by mind, I include the Divine.
"the mind has come into play," eh? With that you join
the tin foil hat brigade.
You list three things, natural selection, the mind, and the Divine.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the second or the third.
It comes down to the simple fact that you *feel* that the mind
or the divine ought to play a role.
We don't do science based on feelings.
Paul J Gans
If the threat is bears, then being fast is a pro-survival trait.
No doubt about it.
Paul J Gans
Layoffs in the design team? General Motors ran the project?
Too many changes in the specs after the contract was let?
Computer failure?
Take your pick.
Paul J Gans
Nonsense.
>> Now imagine a scenario where the climate turns dry and what was
>> once woods turns to open plains. Now the inhabitants have to
>> chase down dinner and not pick it off trees. What do you end
>> up with?
>>
>> If you are looking for evolution to produce an entirely new
>> phylum you will be sadly disappointed. All it takes is one
>> trip to a decent natural history museum to realize that
>> essentially all quadrupeds, mammalian or reptillian, have
>> the same basic body plan. They differ only in the details.
>The difference between gills and lungs does not seem to be details. Having
>feathers and not having feathers is not a detail.
>As to the woods turning to open plains, survival does not necessarily depend
>on genetic evolution; a change in behavior might suffice. So I don't see
>what you are saying.
I am saying that they are all one "kind". And many creationists
allow that evolution works within kinds, right?
As for survival, you are just postulating that "a change in
behavior might suffice." You have no evidence.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
The marketing department was in charge of the design.
Paul J Gans
Paley was a lot less dumb than many modern creationists. He
started from the position that God exists and created the
world. From that he tried to fit evolution in and didn't
like the result.
Bad assumptions --> bad conclusions.
TomS
<gjrn2l$6uo$7...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
I wonder how many modern followers of Paley have read much of
his "Natural Theology".
Friar Broccoli
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 01:14:08 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com>
Then in revenge the engineering department wrote the
Users Guide.
William Morse
> On Jan 3, 3:35 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >On Jan 3, 8:31 am, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>> >> I see it as analogous to "The fastest runners win the race".
>>
>> >> Is that tautological? Not at all - the races are a way of
>> >> determining the runners that cover the ground in the least amount of
>> >> time.
>>
>> >> It is a tautology. The winner of a race is characterized as fastest.
>
>> >The ones who survive (actually, reproduce most successfully) are not
>> >explained by survival, but by other traits. It is not uncommon for
>> >scientists to say - why the heck is this particular organism <points>
>> >so successful? If it were merely a tautology/definition, it would not
>> >be an issue.
>>
>> I cannot agree. This is retrospective defining, not prospective. You
>> cannot look at a bunch of rats, people, oak trees, etc., and determing
>> *ahead of time* which will survive. We can only examine the survivors
>> *after* they have been dubbed survivors to see what traits they have in
>> common.
>>
>> And, of course, these traits will differ at different times and under
>> different conditions.
>>
>> In other words, there is no unique predetermined set of traits that
>> guarantees survival. This is why I take "fittest" as the term needing
>> definition. It can't be defined by traits ahead of time.
>
> But if that is the case then surely "survival of the fittest" is a
> tautology, since you are simply repeating the same idea twice with
> "survival" and "fittest" being the same thing.
Bingo! Yes, "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, and is therefore
true by definition. The keys which turn "survival of the fittest" into
evolution are that differences in fitness are heritable, and that the
fitness environment does not change on the time scale of reproduction.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John S. Wilkins
The market changed. There's no call for most of the canids these days,
and mass production makes one species the only affordable kind.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
rmj
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gjrmlq$6uo$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>>You have a good memory, except I don't reject natural selection through
>>random mutation, rather I see it as only one mechanism, and likely it is
>>not
>>the most important. Certainly for human evolution, the mind has come into
>>play, and I believe also that this is true for mammals, birds and many
>>other
>>creatures. Oh, and by mind, I include the Divine.
>
> "the mind has come into play," eh? With that you join
> the tin foil hat brigade.
>
> You list three things, natural selection, the mind, and the Divine.
> There is no evidence whatsoever for the second or the third.
I am certain that creatures have minds.
>
> It comes down to the simple fact that you *feel* that the mind
> or the divine ought to play a role.
>
> We don't do science based on feelings.
Of course science is not the sole means to knowledge. The study of history
is of value. Experience is of value. What is fundamental is not science but
the evidence that one evaluates. If one excludes some evidence based on
uncertain assumptions then one will miss the target at times. How can one be
sure that the mind is uninvolved in evolution? Could not some individual of
a ground dwelling species have had an inspiration to climb a tree, find an
additional source of nutrition, and have been imitated by others of his
species; this would have been a dramatic change. Yet for the limited
scientific view of evolution it is irrelevant because it would determine the
value of new genetic changes (e.g. more efficient claws for climbing) and
deny the scientific dogma that random mutations must precede any
evolutionary change.
rmj
You could provide an example.
>
>>> Now imagine a scenario where the climate turns dry and what was
>>> once woods turns to open plains. Now the inhabitants have to
>>> chase down dinner and not pick it off trees. What do you end
>>> up with?
>>>
>>> If you are looking for evolution to produce an entirely new
>>> phylum you will be sadly disappointed. All it takes is one
>>> trip to a decent natural history museum to realize that
>>> essentially all quadrupeds, mammalian or reptillian, have
>>> the same basic body plan. They differ only in the details.
>
>>The difference between gills and lungs does not seem to be details. Having
>>feathers and not having feathers is not a detail.
>>As to the woods turning to open plains, survival does not necessarily
>>depend
>>on genetic evolution; a change in behavior might suffice. So I don't see
>>what you are saying.
>
> I am saying that they are all one "kind". And many creationists
> allow that evolution works within kinds, right?
>
> As for survival, you are just postulating that "a change in
> behavior might suffice." You have no evidence.
You have no evidence that behavior cannot lead to evolutionary change, but
cling to the dogmatics of evolutionary science. Do you thing it was a point
mutation that led to the seagull dropping a mussel (clam?) from the air to
break the shell and get food?
rmj
I have some difficulty with the word "designed". I am thinking more in terms
of seeing and pursuing the opportunities at hand.
>
> If design really was the primary mechanism for evolution, why is
> the process so slow? Why for example did God spend 2 billion
> years getting bacteria right before starting to work on us
> multi-cellular creatures?
As a friar you would know that God is outside time. Was it Augustine
(probably not) who said a million years was like a day to the Divine.
>
> Also if design is the primary mechanism why do so many species
> go extinct?
>
> Consider that:
> - 177 (known) species of canids out of 214 have gone extinct
> since Hesperocyonine dogs first showed up in the fossil
> record 40 million years ago.
> - every one of perhaps a thousand Ornithischian dinosaur
> species are now gone.
> - More than 15,000 species of Trilobites lived over a period
> of almost 300 million years. This entire class of animals
> comprising
> nine orders went extinct 250 million years ago.
>
> How can design be the primary mechanism given these facts?
Again, I did not use the word design. But even assuming that a designer is
micromanaging, would it be unexpected to abandon the old when something more
pleasing is formed.
>
Friar Broccoli
.
By "opportunities at hand" do you mean: Selecting the best
adapted from the pool of variants created by random mutations? :-)
>> If design really was the primary mechanism for evolution, why is
>> the process so slow? Why for example did God spend 2 billion
>> years getting bacteria right before starting to work on us
>> multi-cellular creatures?
> As a friar you would know that God is outside time. Was it
> Augustine (probably not) who said a million years was like a
> day to the Divine.
I did not intend my reference to time as abstract or
philosophical (to explain say God's foreknowledge) I meant to
refer to a counting of (say chemical) events.
Such a vast stretch of time would it seems generate more than
enough events to make selection from random mutations
plausible. If regular intervention/guiding was going on
such a vast span would appear entirely unnecessary.
>> Also if design is the primary mechanism why do so many species
>> go extinct?
>
>> Consider that:
>> - 177 (known) species of canids out of 214 have gone extinct
>> since Hesperocyonine dogs first showed up in the fossil
>> record 40 million years ago.
>> - every one of perhaps a thousand Ornithischian dinosaur
>> species are now gone.
>> - More than 15,000 species of Trilobites lived over a period
>> of almost 300 million years. This entire class of animals
>> comprising nine orders went extinct 250 million years ago.
>
>> How can design be the primary mechanism given these facts?
.
> Again, I did not use the word design. But even assuming that a
> designer is micromanaging, would it be unexpected to abandon
> the old when something more pleasing is formed.
To my mind this point appears to contradict your previous one.
If God is outside time, then He knows in advance that calcite
crystal eye lenses just aren't going anywhere. So why create
roughly 15,000 species that use them and then wipe them all
from the face of the earth?
For me the inescapable conclusion is that God really is using
Natural Selection from variation generated by random mutations
to do the overwhelming majority (if not all) His work.
Paul J Gans
>"On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 01:17:09 +0000 (UTC), in article
><gjrn2l$6uo$7...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>>Paley was a lot less dumb than many modern creationists. He
>>started from the position that God exists and created the
>>world. From that he tried to fit evolution in and didn't
>>like the result.
>>
>>Bad assumptions --> bad conclusions.
>>
>I wonder how many modern followers of Paley have read much of
>his "Natural Theology".
Almost certainly very few. I've only read extracts myself.
But Paley made no bones about starting from a religious point
of view that takes the Bible as literally true, and from that
concluding that Darwin was wrong.
I see nothing wrong with that point of view. It is unscientific,
it ignores evidence, and it settles for "God did it". But it
is a logical point of view.
Many creationists today feel that if you accept Darwin, you
are negating the entire chain of reasoning back to claiming
that God does not exist. Thus evolutionists are atheists.
That, of course, isn't true either, as I think that Paley would
have agreed. The weak step is taking the Bible as literally
true.
If one does not do that, it does not follow that evolutionism
results in atheism.
There is all sorts of evidence that the Bible is not literally
true in every detail. Both the Catholics and the Jews had given
that up by the high middle ages, if not before. But along came
the Reformation and later, the great Regression and we now
have Christians who claim literal truth for the Bible.
That's our problem.
Paul J Gans
Damn it Wilkins, you turned a joke into a serious statement
worth thinking about.
Stop that!
rmj
No.
>
>
>>> If design really was the primary mechanism for evolution, why is
>>> the process so slow? Why for example did God spend 2 billion
>>> years getting bacteria right before starting to work on us
>>> multi-cellular creatures?
>
>> As a friar you would know that God is outside time. Was it
>> Augustine (probably not) who said a million years was like a
>> day to the Divine.
>
> I did not intend my reference to time as abstract or
> philosophical (to explain say God's foreknowledge) I meant to
> refer to a counting of (say chemical) events.
>
> Such a vast stretch of time would it seems generate more than
> enough events to make selection from random mutations
> plausible. If regular intervention/guiding was going on
> such a vast span would appear entirely unnecessary.
To a large extent I am in agreement; allegorically speaking God rested on
the seventh day. However, I do not acquiesce to the notion that because we
can imagine in vague terms the transformation of scales into feathers
through natural selection from random mutations, that that must have
occurred. The aeons of time involved have become a tool for scientists to
avoid saying they do not know how something evolved.
>>> Also if design is the primary mechanism why do so many species
>>> go extinct?
>>
>>> Consider that:
>>> - 177 (known) species of canids out of 214 have gone extinct
>>> since Hesperocyonine dogs first showed up in the fossil
>>> record 40 million years ago.
>>> - every one of perhaps a thousand Ornithischian dinosaur
>>> species are now gone.
>>> - More than 15,000 species of Trilobites lived over a period
>>> of almost 300 million years. This entire class of animals
>>> comprising nine orders went extinct 250 million years ago.
>>
>>> How can design be the primary mechanism given these facts?
>
> .
>
>> Again, I did not use the word design. But even assuming that a
>> designer is micromanaging, would it be unexpected to abandon
>> the old when something more pleasing is formed.
>
> To my mind this point appears to contradict your previous one.
I do not see the Divine as a micromanager, and thus it does contradict what
I said.
> If God is outside time, then He knows in advance that calcite
> crystal eye lenses just aren't going anywhere. So why create
> roughly 15,000 species that use them and then wipe them all
> from the face of the earth?
>
> For me the inescapable conclusion is that God really is using
> Natural Selection from variation generated by random mutations
> to do the overwhelming majority (if not all) His work.
We are merely in disagreement, perhaps, over what "overwhelming majority"
is. I believe the mind is also involved, and while I have no proof, I have
seen no evidence contrary to this opinion. Long ago I came across a story of
some bird that became extinct in this century. Bird watchers observed these
birds gathering annually in a specific region for mating rituals, where the
males would stand on the ground making their mating calls. Then one year
only males appeared. For the next two years females still did not come and
the males were fewer. When only three or four males appeared the next year,
the bird watchers saw one of the birds fly up to a high branch in a tree and
make its mating call from there. This was innovative behavior, and if it had
been successful in summoning a female could have become normal behavior for
the bird. And would that not have been evolution?
>
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:gjrmlq$6uo$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You have a good memory, except I don't reject natural selection through
>>>random mutation, rather I see it as only one mechanism, and likely it is
>>>not
>>>the most important. Certainly for human evolution, the mind has come into
>>>play, and I believe also that this is true for mammals, birds and many
>>>other
>>>creatures. Oh, and by mind, I include the Divine.
>>
>> "the mind has come into play," eh? With that you join
>> the tin foil hat brigade.
>>
>> You list three things, natural selection, the mind, and the Divine.
>> There is no evidence whatsoever for the second or the third.
>I am certain that creatures have minds.
The mind of an amoeba must be wonderful to observe.
>>
>> It comes down to the simple fact that you *feel* that the mind
>> or the divine ought to play a role.
>>
>> We don't do science based on feelings.
>Of course science is not the sole means to knowledge. The study of history
>is of value. Experience is of value. What is fundamental is not science but
>the evidence that one evaluates. If one excludes some evidence based on
>uncertain assumptions then one will miss the target at times. How can one be
>sure that the mind is uninvolved in evolution? Could not some individual of
>a ground dwelling species have had an inspiration to climb a tree, find an
>additional source of nutrition, and have been imitated by others of his
>species; this would have been a dramatic change. Yet for the limited
>scientific view of evolution it is irrelevant because it would determine the
>value of new genetic changes (e.g. more efficient claws for climbing) and
>deny the scientific dogma that random mutations must precede any
>evolutionary change.
Leaving "mind" aside for now, you come close above. Look at your
tree-climbing friend. If all his brethern and sistern could also
climb trees, there would be no net gain.
But if he were better at climbing trees for some physical reason
and if the result was a better chance at successful reproduction,
that mutation might have a good chance of spreading.
Now you have to admit that the capability for climbing a tree had
to be there before our friend climbed the tree or he'd never have
been able to do it.
If the ability was caused by some post-birth accident, there would
be nothing to inherit.
So for your scheme to work, the ability would have not only to
be present at birth, but inheritable.
And that's more or less exactly how it works.
Don't confuse this with the question of where the inheritable
ability came from. It clearly has to have come from the fact
that reproduction from his parents was imperfect or *they* would
also have had the tree-climbing ability.
Such changes in what can be inherited are called "mutations". And
we know that there are many many of them in every reproductive
act. What they are and when they will occur are not predictable.
Hence they are called "random". Why is that a problem?
Paul J Gans
Ok. The Galapagos finches. Look at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html
A reference to the book Grant wrote on the subject is included.
There are many other examples in the literature as well.
>>
>>>> Now imagine a scenario where the climate turns dry and what was
>>>> once woods turns to open plains. Now the inhabitants have to
>>>> chase down dinner and not pick it off trees. What do you end
>>>> up with?
>>>>
>>>> If you are looking for evolution to produce an entirely new
>>>> phylum you will be sadly disappointed. All it takes is one
>>>> trip to a decent natural history museum to realize that
>>>> essentially all quadrupeds, mammalian or reptillian, have
>>>> the same basic body plan. They differ only in the details.
>>
>>>The difference between gills and lungs does not seem to be details. Having
>>>feathers and not having feathers is not a detail.
>>>As to the woods turning to open plains, survival does not necessarily
>>>depend
>>>on genetic evolution; a change in behavior might suffice. So I don't see
>>>what you are saying.
>>
>> I am saying that they are all one "kind". And many creationists
>> allow that evolution works within kinds, right?
>>
>> As for survival, you are just postulating that "a change in
>> behavior might suffice." You have no evidence.
>You have no evidence that behavior cannot lead to evolutionary change, but
>cling to the dogmatics of evolutionary science. Do you thing it was a point
>mutation that led to the seagull dropping a mussel (clam?) from the air to
>break the shell and get food?
I do have evidence that behavior cannot lead to evolutionary change.
Check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
and be sure to read the section on history.
Google is your friend.
hersheyh
> "Paul J Gans" <g...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:gjrmlq$6uo$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > It comes down to the simple fact that you *feel* that the mind
> > or the divine ought to play a role.
>
> > We don't do science based on feelings.
>
> Of course science is not the sole means to knowledge. The study of history
> is of value. Experience is of value. What is fundamental is not science but
> the evidence that one evaluates. If one excludes some evidence based on
> uncertain assumptions then one will miss the target at times. How can one be
> sure that the mind is uninvolved in evolution? Could not some individual of
> a ground dwelling species have had an inspiration to climb a tree, find an
> additional source of nutrition, and have been imitated by others of his
> species; this would have been a dramatic change. Yet for the limited
> scientific view of evolution it is irrelevant because it would determine the
> value of new genetic changes (e.g. more efficient claws for climbing) and
> deny the scientific dogma that random mutations must precede any
> evolutionary change.
There is no problem with evolutionary change in physical features
(evolutionary adaptation) following rather than preceding *useful* (by
the standard biological measure of utility -- reproductive success)
behavioral adaptations that do not have a strictly biological
underpinning. That is, if an organism that is not perfectly adapted
for climbing trees does so anyway and finds that doing so opens up a
rich food source, it (and its progeny) will continue to do so because
doing so is beneficial (by the metric of increased reproductive
success).
At this point, genetic variation among these relatively poor tree
climbers will then lead to genetic adaptive changes for tree climbing
(to the extent that such changes do not have counterbalancing
drawbacks in reproductive success that counters the benefits of tree
climbing). That does not mean that *mind* *intentionally* caused the
subsequent genetic change to better adaptation to tree climbing. That
process still requires that the mutations (variations) occur at random
and undergo selection *after* that random occurrence. And
evolutionary (i.e., genetic) selection remains based on relative
reproductive success.
Andre Lieven
> "Paul J Gans" <g...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:gjrmpv$6uo$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Paul J Gans" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
Why ? You didn't, and it was YOUR claim to support.
Its hypocrisy to demand that debunkers do BETTER than you do
in your claimings...
> >>> Now imagine a scenario where the climate turns dry and what was
> >>> once woods turns to open plains. Now the inhabitants have to
> >>> chase down dinner and not pick it off trees. What do you end
> >>> up with?
>
> >>> If you are looking for evolution to produce an entirely new
> >>> phylum you will be sadly disappointed. All it takes is one
> >>> trip to a decent natural history museum to realize that
> >>> essentially all quadrupeds, mammalian or reptillian, have
> >>> the same basic body plan. They differ only in the details.
>
> >>The difference between gills and lungs does not seem to be details. Having
> >>feathers and not having feathers is not a detail.
> >>As to the woods turning to open plains, survival does not necessarily
> >>depend
> >>on genetic evolution; a change in behavior might suffice. So I don't see
> >>what you are saying.
>
> > I am saying that they are all one "kind". And many creationists
> > allow that evolution works within kinds, right?
>
> > As for survival, you are just postulating that "a change in
> > behavior might suffice." You have no evidence.
>
> You have no evidence that behavior cannot lead to evolutionary change,
Bxt. You just failed The Logic Of Science 101. Science never STARTS
with
disproving things, that comes AFTER a notion is first, supported by
SOME
actual objective evidence.
So, until YOU can support YOUR claim FOR a thing, NO ONE has a
duty to offer any evidence against your ASSertion.
> but cling to the dogmatics of evolutionary science.
Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel.
As Judge Jones well showed in his fine written decision to the
Kitzmiller case, it is *creationists* who are "dogmatic".
Project your side's IDiocies onto someone else, fool.
> Do you thing it was a point
> mutation that led to the seagull dropping a mussel (clam?) from the air to
> break the shell and get food?
God Of The Gaps Appeal, you lose again.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those
who
have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly
that
evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within
biology
are questions of details of the process and the relative importance
of
different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with
liquid
water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular
life has
been around for at least half of that period and that organized
multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact
that major
life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past.
There
were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that
major
life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be
dinosaurs
and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all
living
forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms
of
life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from
nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to
any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more
than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis,
and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative
importance of various forces in molding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth"
Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism,
op cit.
Andre
rmj
> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:gjrmlq$6uo$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You have a good memory, except I don't reject natural selection through
>>>>random mutation, rather I see it as only one mechanism, and likely it is
>>>>not
>>>>the most important. Certainly for human evolution, the mind has come
>>>>into
>>>>play, and I believe also that this is true for mammals, birds and many
>>>>other
>>>>creatures. Oh, and by mind, I include the Divine.
>>>
>>> "the mind has come into play," eh? With that you join
>>> the tin foil hat brigade.
>>>
>>> You list three things, natural selection, the mind, and the Divine.
>>> There is no evidence whatsoever for the second or the third.
>
>>I am certain that creatures have minds.
>
> The mind of an amoeba must be wonderful to observe.
I imagine their conversations are quite dull.
>
>
>>>
>>> It comes down to the simple fact that you *feel* that the mind
>>> or the divine ought to play a role.
>>>
>>> We don't do science based on feelings.
>
>>Of course science is not the sole means to knowledge. The study of history
>>is of value. Experience is of value. What is fundamental is not science
>>but
>>the evidence that one evaluates. If one excludes some evidence based on
>>uncertain assumptions then one will miss the target at times. How can one
>>be
>>sure that the mind is uninvolved in evolution? Could not some individual
>>of
>>a ground dwelling species have had an inspiration to climb a tree, find an
>>additional source of nutrition, and have been imitated by others of his
>>species; this would have been a dramatic change. Yet for the limited
>>scientific view of evolution it is irrelevant because it would determine
>>the
>>value of new genetic changes (e.g. more efficient claws for climbing) and
>>deny the scientific dogma that random mutations must precede any
>>evolutionary change.
>
> Leaving "mind" aside for now, you come close above. Look at your
> tree-climbing friend. If all his brethern and sistern could also
> climb trees, there would be no net gain.
If a new source of food was found then the population as a whole could
increase.
>
> But if he were better at climbing trees for some physical reason
> and if the result was a better chance at successful reproduction,
> that mutation might have a good chance of spreading.
>
> Now you have to admit that the capability for climbing a tree had
> to be there before our friend climbed the tree or he'd never have
> been able to do it.
>
> If the ability was caused by some post-birth accident, there would
> be nothing to inherit.
>
> So for your scheme to work, the ability would have not only to
> be present at birth, but inheritable.
Not true. If the species was extremely poor at climbing, but did it
nevertheless with the result of establishing additional nutritional sources,
this could lead to better climbing ability through natural selection. My
point is that the mind of the creature chose to go against its "nature" and
climb. Mind is a powerful force in evolution.
>
> And that's more or less exactly how it works.
>
> Don't confuse this with the question of where the inheritable
> ability came from. It clearly has to have come from the fact
> that reproduction from his parents was imperfect or *they* would
> also have had the tree-climbing ability.
>
> Such changes in what can be inherited are called "mutations". And
> we know that there are many many of them in every reproductive
> act. What they are and when they will occur are not predictable.
> Hence they are called "random". Why is that a problem?
The problem is that scientists tend to deny the power of the mind in
influencing the course of evolution; instead the dogma is that a mutation
must precede any evolutionary change.
>
rmj
William Morse
OK, but also check out the Baldwin effect, which does show how behavior
can lead to evolutionary change.
Of course the Baldwin effect depends on evolution, so it doesn't do a
thing for glenn's argument. And it also assumes learned behavior, so it
doesn't do anything for plants. Speaking of plants, I suggest glenn might
check out the research showing how tree species have moved up in
elevation in California mountains over the past three decades reflecting
changes in temperature due to global warming. Now why wouldn't they just
change their behavior and stay in the same place? Could it be that they
are adapted by natural selection to a particular niche?
Yours,
Bill Morse
rmj
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:anA8l.3759$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
There was no change here, but merely natural selection preferring
pre-existing beak sizes based on food availability.
I see that neo-Lamarckism is still alive in certain scientific circles.
>
> OK, but also check out the Baldwin effect, which does show how behavior
> can lead to evolutionary change.
>
> Of course the Baldwin effect depends on evolution, so it doesn't do a
> thing for glenn's argument. And it also assumes learned behavior, so it
> doesn't do anything for plants. Speaking of plants, I suggest glenn might
> check out the research showing how tree species have moved up in
> elevation in California mountains over the past three decades reflecting
> changes in temperature due to global warming. Now why wouldn't they just
> change their behavior and stay in the same place? Could it be that they
> are adapted by natural selection to a particular niche?
>
> Yours,
>
> Bill Morse
>
Yes the Baldwin effect should be seriously considered.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:gjtfpq$jhq$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gjrmlq$6uo$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You have a good memory, except I don't reject natural selection through
>>>>>random mutation, rather I see it as only one mechanism, and likely it is
>>>>>not
>>>>>the most important. Certainly for human evolution, the mind has come
>>>>>into
>>>>>play, and I believe also that this is true for mammals, birds and many
>>>>>other
>>>>>creatures. Oh, and by mind, I include the Divine.
>>>>
>>>> "the mind has come into play," eh? With that you join
>>>> the tin foil hat brigade.
>>>>
>>>> You list three things, natural selection, the mind, and the Divine.
>>>> There is no evidence whatsoever for the second or the third.
>>
>>>I am certain that creatures have minds.
>>
>> The mind of an amoeba must be wonderful to observe.
>I imagine their conversations are quite dull.
Yes. They have no minds, in spite of your assertion that
they do.
Then creatures without minds can't evolve, right?
Remember Mr. Amoeba of the dull conversation?
>>
>> And that's more or less exactly how it works.
>>
>> Don't confuse this with the question of where the inheritable
>> ability came from. It clearly has to have come from the fact
>> that reproduction from his parents was imperfect or *they* would
>> also have had the tree-climbing ability.
>>
>> Such changes in what can be inherited are called "mutations". And
>> we know that there are many many of them in every reproductive
>> act. What they are and when they will occur are not predictable.
>> Hence they are called "random". Why is that a problem?
>The problem is that scientists tend to deny the power of the mind in
>influencing the course of evolution; instead the dogma is that a mutation
>must precede any evolutionary change.
Nobody has shown that "mind" has a physical reality. As I
said before, if you equate mind with brain, you've got a
problem. If you don't, you have a problem.
Conclusion: you have a problem.
rmj
You appear to have vision limited to black and white. You assert that
amoebae have no mind yet can evolve, which is likely correct, but then
allowing only black and white, you conclude that for that reason the minds
of mammals, birds and reptiles have no role in evolution. The ape (or is it
the orang) sometimes uses a stick to get ants from an anthill; I can imagine
an individual ape having had an inspiration to do so, or perhaps learning to
do so by luck, but I cannot imagine a mutation in the DNA eliciting this
act.
Why is the brain mind equation a problem? The Scholastics tackled a similar
question eight centuries ago when they argued the relation of the soul and
body. What if the mind is physical (understanding electromagnetic waves to
be physical along with matter)? It is certain that the mind can direct the
mind to a certain extent. Sometimes humans are pushed by instinct, at other
times conscious decisions are made that provide some direction. Look at how
the decision to provide education for all has changed the course of
humanity. Or how the idea of human freedom has reduced despotism in the
world.
>
Paul J Gans
>You appear to have vision limited to black and white. You assert that
>amoebae have no mind yet can evolve, which is likely correct,
Thank you.
>but then
>allowing only black and white, you conclude that for that reason the minds
>of mammals, birds and reptiles have no role in evolution. The ape (or is it
>the orang) sometimes uses a stick to get ants from an anthill; I can imagine
>an individual ape having had an inspiration to do so, or perhaps learning to
>do so by luck, but I cannot imagine a mutation in the DNA eliciting this
>act.
You are confusing several things here. Can the actions of individuals
change their rates of survival? Sure. But if the tendency for
those actions are not inheritable, it doesn't affect the genome.
This has nothing directly to do with "mind". "Mind" is a tenuous
concept, akin the the famous definition of pornography (We can't
define what it is, but we know it when we see it.)
>Why is the brain mind equation a problem? The Scholastics tackled a similar
>question eight centuries ago when they argued the relation of the soul and
>body.
Yes, but they assumed that the soul exists. Today we do not regard
the soul as anything but a metaphysical construct. The soul has
no measurable properties. Neither does mind.
>What if the mind is physical (understanding electromagnetic waves to
>be physical along with matter)? It is certain that the mind can direct the
>mind to a certain extent. Sometimes humans are pushed by instinct, at other
>times conscious decisions are made that provide some direction. Look at how
>the decision to provide education for all has changed the course of
>humanity. Or how the idea of human freedom has reduced despotism in the
>world.
If you want science to deal with something, it has to have
measurable properties. What you are doing is postulating
something without properties and then claiming that its
actions (whatever they are) can have physical results.
If I step into the street in front of a semi-trailer and
perish, will that affect my descendents? How?
If I have an inheritable neurological brain defect that
impells me to stand in front of semi-trailers, that *will*
affect my descendents, if any. Why? Because the defect
is inheritable. And presumably we can find the gene responsible
for it.
In fact this has been done. You can read about it in this
month's Scientific American. See
http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/
and check out some of the articles from that issue that are
on-line.
Burkhard
> rmj <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> You are confusing several things here. Can the actions of individuals
> change their rates of survival? Sure. But if the tendency for
> those actions are not inheritable, it doesn't affect the genome.
I'm not entirely sure I understand rmj's position, but would he
necessarily disagree with that? And aren't you smuggling in quite a
bit when using a disposition term like "tendency"? Assume, at least
for the sake of the argument, there is a causally active mind. "It"
feels revulsion when confronted with rotten meat. "It" tells the body
not to eat it, Often, but not always (tendency, indicating choice) the
body complies. This results in an evolutionary advantage. After a
time, those whose mind feel revulsion towards rotten meat survive. By
contrast, the amoebae, ex hypothesis mindless, need a different route
to evolve into an organism that consumes appropriate food only, with
less flexibility than the "mind-body" solution. Of course, mind in
this sense is an object, not an agent of evolution, but at the same
time, changes the scope of evolutionary modification significantly
>
> This has nothing directly to do with "mind". "Mind" is a tenuous
> concept, akin the the famous definition of pornography (We can't
> define what it is, but we know it when we see it.)
>
But does this mean there is no such thing as pornography? Or indeed
"scientific" studies of it? Granted, they will typically start with a
tentative definition to render it more precise, but this only means
pre-theoretical, everyday language does not always capture a domain
precisely. After all, the concept of "life" has (had) the same
problem, yet there were biologists long before scientifically agreed
terms for it were around - and we still of course have debates in
medicine precisely when it starts or ends.
>
> Yes, but they assumed that the soul exists. Today we do not regard
> the soul as anything but a metaphysical construct. The soul has
> no measurable properties. Neither does mind.
>
I'm not sure I agree. "Soul", at least in one use, had "BY definition"
no measurable property - and trying to measure it was "verboten".
Mind, by contrast, may well have measurable properties, though we
aren't yet very good at measuring, and might need a radically
different theory of measurement.
>
> If you want science to deal with something, it has to have
> measurable properties. What you are doing is postulating
> something without properties and then claiming that its
> actions (whatever they are) can have physical results.
>
I have three issues with that
a) "if you want science...." Personally I want science to give as full
an account as possible of the phenomena and observations (through
whatever sense perceived). Most people "report" a dualistic impression
of their relation to the world: My mind tells my fingers how to write
this post. This seems too common a perception to be just my mind
suffering from some damage. Of course, it might turn out that we all
delude ourselves (but then, what does "delude" mean if there is no
mind?), but this ought to be the outcome of the investigation, with
clear causal explanations of how this delusion comes about and why,
not a methodical fiat. Since the enlightenment, "visual evidence" has
enjoyed a somehow privileged status, introspection is a nono, and the
other senses in varying degree in between. but I have never seen a
really convincing reason for this.
b) "..has to have mensurable properties". Again I would distinguish
between "having measurable properties" and "being able to measure them
now". I also take it you do not accept psychology (other than
neuropsychology) as valid science? There you would have attempts to
"measure" mind , while not giving or even attempting to give an answer
how the mind-body causality works. If you mean your post purely as a
methodological precept (at present, we cannot measure enough of the
mind, so we can't have a scientific theory of it)I have no issues with
it, but this leaves open the possibility to say a1) that the mind
exists (in a scientific, not religious sense) and b) that scientific
theories such as evolution are incomplete since they cannot presently
describe adequatly one of the building blocks of evolution
b)"what you are postulating" We often deal in science with objects
that we know only because of their causal interaction with other
objects that we can observe and measure, especially in particle
physics.
In an evolution context, what we observe is that
a) evolutionary advantageous behaviour tends to be pleasant and
disadvantageous behaviour tends to be experienced as unpleasant.
and as a causal effect b), people are more likely to do what they
report as pleasurable, and less likely what they report as
unpleasureable.
If (and I'd say only if) these mind states of "pleasure" and" disgust"
can act causally on the body, this explains why there is an observable
correlation between evolutionary advantage and pleasure etc.
This is of course a very indirect inference ot the best explanation,
but I 'd say this is quite common to all fields of science.