Behavior OnLine Forums

Behavior OnLine Forums (https://www.behavioronline.net/)
-   Evolutionary Psychology (https://www.behavioronline.net/evolutionary-psychology/)
-   -   Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy (https://www.behavioronline.net/evolutionary-psychology/897-battle-scientific-illiteracy/)

Carey N August 14th, 2006 10:41 PM

Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
This is a satisfying rant about the state of affairs in public science education - probably most of you have read it already, but if not . . . .

NY Times Article

Fred H. August 15th, 2006 12:02 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
When it comes to the age of things, the ignorance, and/or intellectual dishonesty/lack of rigor, and/or denial, of the young earth creationists is readily discernable, and their young-earth POV is obviously and laughably erroneous to anyone with merely a superficial understanding of geology and cosmology. So it’s hard for me to get too upset over a Kansas school board chairman/veterinarian who also happens to believe that God created the universe 6,500 years ago. (He apparently “compartmentalizes,” as they say.)

Additionally, what many of these folk are actually fighting is the blatant atheism that many neo-Darwinian proponents, e.g. Dawkins, insist biological evolution mandates. So, IMO, it’s pretty much a bullshit debate. Besides, I’d guess that the veterinarian/school board chairman referred to in the article probably has the highest regard for the importance of basic math and science, which is really where so many American kids are failing, and which is really the scientific/mathematical “illiteracy” that we need to be concerned about; not whether they’ve bought into the Dawkins neo-Darwinian view of a directionless evolution.

I’d say there’s lots of ignorance, and/or disingenuousness, and/or agendas on both sides of this issue. A blatant example on the pro Darwinian side is in the article itself when the author, regarding what he says is a “remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method,” and that we use “evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses,” asserts that, “This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.”

But lumping “evolution” and “gravitation” into so-called “theories that work” is a disingenuous, misleading non sequitur—“evolution” and “gravity” are different things. The reality is simply that the available evidence indicates that life, like everything else in the universe, evolved over time—“evolution,” essentially, is simply a fact, and the actual question/issue is by what mechanisms life evolves. E.g., selection pressures imposed by the environment appear to be a factor. Gravity, OTOH, is a basic force of nature, and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity and Einstein’s general relativity are superb theories of gravity that provide equations that make (extraordinarily accurate) predictions, and that are obviously falsifiable.

Carey N August 15th, 2006 05:47 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

what many of these folk are actually fighting is the blatant atheism . . .
Highly doubtful - they are fighting any notion that (they perceive) even remotely conflicts with their own beliefs. Among many with whom I've spoken, I have never encountered a single biology teacher who a) is remotely as hostile toward religion as religious zealots are toward evolution, or b) feels compelled to teach "atheism" in the classroom. Teaching evolution and teaching the view that there is no God are two completely different animals (This misconception is what drives the 'religiously enthusiastic' people in Kansas insane). I have, on the other hand, found many strong proponents of evolution (by natural selection) who still more or less independently maintain their own religious beliefs. Ken Miller is an excellent example.

Second, when the author compared gravitation to evolution, he was referring to the sense in which evolution is a flat fact, just like gravity. Many of the school board members who oppose evolution in the classroom actually believe that evolution (regardless of the mechanism) didn't/doesn't happen at all. Such a position is just as ludicrous as believing the world to be flat, or that there is no gravity.

Fred H. August 16th, 2006 09:19 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Actually Carey, you have “encountered a biology teacher who is as hostile toward religion as religious zealots are toward evolution” and "feels compelled to teach 'atheism'"— Mr. Selfish Gene himself, Richard Dawkins, the highly credentialed Oxford zoologist and one of your most famous Darwinian gurus and spokesmen—recall his teachings:
Quote:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Regarding your sentiment that the author of the article was merely “referring to the sense in which evolution is a flat fact just like gravity,” I suggest you carefully reread what he actually, explicitly wrote: “This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.” See that?—theories, like evolution and gravity? (Is it just me or do you perhaps need to work a bit on your intellectual honesty and/or rigor?)

Carey N August 16th, 2006 11:12 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
1) Richard Dawkins's primary contributions to the field, such as 'Selfish Gene', made few reference to religion, which were not in a negative light. Granted, Dawkins has spoken quite aggressively against religion in other contexts, but to assume that his views are concordant with those of all (or even most) other evolutionary biologists, or with the everyday teachers in real science classrooms, is deeply inaccurate. In fact, many evolutionists resent his behavior - not necessarily because they embrace religion themselves, but because the evolution and religion don't usually belong in the same conversation, and certainly not in the same classroom.

2a) Whether or not he was referring to evolution in general, or to evolution by natural selection in particular, is not easy to discern because he used the word "theory". Either way, his message is correct. That evolution occurred is a fact. That the theory of natural selection works is undisputed among people who actually study this subject (and other people who don't study this subject professionally but are willing to honestly address it), both theoretically and empirically.

2b) Think again about gravitation. That gravity exists is indisputable, just like evolution. As to what causes gravitation - we have only theory, albeit very strong and well-supported theory. Guess what? The state of affairs with natural selection is similar: it is a theory regarding what causes adaptive evolution to occur, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence. I think the NY Times author's comparison is pretty tight.

Fred H. August 16th, 2006 05:23 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: Think again about gravitation. That gravity exists is indisputable, just like evolution. As to what causes gravitation - we have only theory, albeit very strong and well-supported theory. Guess what? The state of affairs with natural selection is similar: it is a theory regarding what causes adaptive evolution to occur, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence. I think the NY Times author's comparison is pretty tight.
OK, sure, let’s think again about gravitation.

The question is not what “causes” gravitation, but more what gravitation is and do we understand it enough so as to predict it’s affect/effect—Newton said it was a “force” (and most of us still think of it that way), and his theory predicted planetary positions/orbits to, I think, maybe 6 or 7 decimal places. However, under Einstein’s general relativity, and his foundational principle of “equivalence,” gravitation is no longer regarded as a “force,” as was Newton’s gravity, but rather gravitation manifests itself as space-time curvature.

And using Einstein’s general relativity equations, Hulse and Taylor (received Nobel in 93) were able to predict and affirm the accuracy of the orbits of a double neutron star system to better than a trillionth percent precision (14 decimal places). As Penrose notes, Hulse and Taylor's work "makes Einstein’s general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science."

Evolution OTOH, is really nothing more than a term that more or less encapsulates our observations from the available evidence—that life, over time, well, “evolves.” But then everything in the universe “evolves,” so BFD.

Of course now you mention “natural selection,” and I suppose that it does seem that various environments do impose selection pressures, similar perhaps in some ways to how various human breeders select for various traits in whatever they happen to be breeding; and it does seem that this so-called natural (unconscious) selection (as opposed to the “artificial conscious selection of human breeders) results in the selection of traits that are the most adaptive, the fittest. And sure enough, we always observe, over the long haul, that the fittest survive and reproduce, and the rest don’t—and we know that the ones that survive are the fittest b/c otherwise they’d not have survived.

And although I find the circularity of that “natural selection” somewhat troubling, you, as you’ve noted elsewhere, insist that the “apparent circularity [of natural selection] just isn't important at all.”

So I suppose that’s why you naively believe that natural selection is somehow comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity as explained by Einstein’s general relativity, which actually is “the most accurately tested theory known to science." Fine.

Carey N August 16th, 2006 06:30 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Okay . . . by extension from this last post, I must ask what you think would actually qualify as a theory of evolution on par with Einstein's general relativity. Do you think that there is a set of tractable equations that could be used to predict the composition of earth's biota years from now? No, there isn't. The growth of a simple logistic population in isolation, much less the entire planet's biological composition, can be impossible to predict ten generations in the future.

A problem here seems to be that one needs more basic biology in order to think of the ways in which natural selection is a powerful unifying concept.

To take a basic example: how would you explain the existence of vestigial structures, without invoking natural selection as a process that steers populations along the shortest possible route to an adaptive peak?


Quote:

I suppose that it does seem that various environments do impose selection pressures
Yes, many other people suppose the same thing . . . you go on to say that you find the circularity of natural selection troubling. How do you find it troubling? How could the presence of adaptations be better explained, in your opinion?

Fred H. August 16th, 2006 11:20 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: To take a basic example: how would you explain the existence of vestigial structures, without invoking natural selection as a process that steers populations along the shortest possible route to an adaptive peak?
Hey, even though “natural selection” is circular and ultimately doesn’t really predict or truly explain all that much (sort of like “emergence”), it currently seems to be about all you Darwinian biologists have come up with, and it does seem to be somewhat instructive, at least in a circular kind of way, so I guess I’d explain them their “vestigial structures” about the same way I’d explain testicles/ovaries on the issue of a mare and a jackass—shit happens, sometimes shit gets selected, and sometimes we’re just left with needless shit.

As I’ve noted previously, Ernst Mayr has acknowledged that, “biology is not the same sort of thing as the physical sciences,” and that the “philosophy of biology has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.” So maybe we won’t see a whole lot coming out of the “philosophy of biology,” that provides the predictive power, understanding, and coherence of the discoveries and theories that come out of the physical sciences, especially if those doing biology are actually convinced that their natural selection is in any substantial way comparable to, say, Einstein’s superb general relativity/theory of gravity.

I’d say that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like “evolution”—or natural selection for that matter—being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation; and maybe also avoid making arrogant assumptions and decrees like Mr. Selfish Gene Dawkins’s, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [blah, blah, blah].”

Carey N August 16th, 2006 11:51 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
This was my question, which you ignored (because you don't have an answer, I suspect - but please, prove me wrong):
Quote:

Originally Posted by Carey
Yes, many other people suppose the same thing . . . you go on to say that you find the circularity of natural selection troubling. How do you find it troubling? How could the presence of adaptations be better explained, in your opinion?

You certainly bark a whole lot about the insufficiency of natural selection, and yet you can offer not even a hint of something else to take its place.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred
shit happens, sometimes shit gets selected, and sometimes we’re just left with needless shit.

The words of a true polymath. Bravo.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred
what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter)

If biologists are so delusional, then why don't you enlighten us about what "the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life"? If you address one part of this post, it should be this. Don't just rant again about the conceptual circularity of selection. Everyone acknowledges that natural selection is an algorithm, not a set of deterministic equations. The living world is too complicated to allow for prediction of future states with great precision. Get over it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred
Mr. Selfish Gene Dawkins’s, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [blah, blah, blah].”

Stop referencing Dawkins; he's not an unconditional spokesperson for the rest of evolutionary biology. His explication of the way in which selection operates was very important, but his views on religion, the universe, etc. are mainly media affairs, and don't relate to the science of evolution.

Fred H. August 17th, 2006 04:57 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: Everyone acknowledges that natural selection is an algorithm, not a set of deterministic equations.
I don’t know that I’d necessarily “acknowledge that natural selection is an algorithm.” In the context/tone in which you’re using the term here, do you mean a so-called “non-deterministic algorithm,” as opposed to a “deterministic algorithm? You seem to be opening up a can of worms that we probably don’t want to get into. Anyway, I thought your POV was that things are deterministic, although unpredictable by us humans due to various limitations (and also except that we humans do seem to have amount of free will)?

Regarding what "the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life," well, here it is, again:

We sapient beings find ourselves in a universe that began about 14 billion years ago, apparently from a singularity, with inexplicably low entropy. Life on Earth seems to have begun around 4 billion years ago, but for most of that time not much seemed to be “evolving” except for single cell stuff and some algae . . . until the “Cambrian Explosion,” a little over ½ billion years ago, when lineages of almost all animals we see today, rather suddenly, appeared . . . and today, somehow, voila, we sapient beings find that we exist.

Why the sudden explosion and why we sapient beings? Well, for one thing, only b/c of the extraordinary 'specialness' of the Big Bang and the absurdly low entropy of the universe that we sapient beings find ourselves in, a universe where where such "Cambrian explosions" and sapient beings are even possible, and perhaps even inevitable, depending on one’s views regarding determinism.

But beyond that, who Knows? As noted at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...2.html—
Quote:

Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans.
And so there you have it—some Darwinians say the explosion and sapient beings are the result mostly of chance, while some contend that the explosion and sapient beings are here b/c our planet would have created selection pressures to make it so (although exactly why our planet would necessarily be predisposed to behave that way doesn't seem to be too clear)

Margaret McGhee August 17th, 2006 06:58 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
I don't know why Fred has failed to cite one of the most prominent proponents of his views, Ann Coulter. As a favor for Fred I'll post some of her recent words and perhaps the blinders will drop from your eyes and you, Carey, will start to see the wisdom in Fred's (and Ann's) worldview.

On July 27 Ann Coulter talked about her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, published by Crown Forum. The book proposed that liberalism was a godless religion with a belief system in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition. In making her case, Ms. Coulter wrote that liberalism has its own sacraments (abortion), its own clergy (public school teachers), and its own creation myth (evolution). Ms. Coulter gave her thoughts on conservative and liberal ideals and answered questions from members of the audience of women at Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute held at the National Press Club. She also responded to questions from the audience and signed copies of her book after the event.

In a recent online issue of The New Republic, Ezra Klein noted this interaction between a member of the audience and Ann Coulter. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler in analyzing Klein's report, wrote this:

Quote:

QUESTION FROM SOMEONE EZRA KLEIN DOESN’T KNOW (7/28/06): Hi. My name is —, I’m a sophomore at Bucknell University and a summer intern at the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute. In your book, Godless, you completely tear apart the theory of evolution and I was just wondering how scientists can still believe in such an implausible theory, especially since you don’t disprove it based on Biblical facts and scripture, you disprove it based on, you know, pure science. So how do liberals react to that?
Yes, that was the actual question. (So you’ll know, other questions came from Harvard students and graduates.) Coulter’s reply was worth transcribing in full, and we hope that somebody does it. But in part, she told her audience that large numbers of scientists do know that “Darwinism is a crock;” they just don’t want the harassment involved in speaking up about it. As Coulter continued, she finger-gestured to let the gals know that those so-called “scientists” who believe in evolution aren’t really “scientists” at all:

Quote:

COULTER: "Most of the “scientists” favoring Darwinism, you know, they’re barely even scientists. They’re biologists. They’re not physicists. They're not chemists." Coulter’s voice dripped with scorn as she referred to all those dumb-ass biologists. "You always hear about actual scientists who know that evolution, or Darwinism, is a crock,” she said.
Just so you know what the smart kids are saying.

Margaret

Carey N August 17th, 2006 09:16 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
This would be hilarious, if it wasn't so depressing. But still, I laughed.

Carey N August 17th, 2006 11:51 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Life on Earth seems to have begun around 4 billion years ago, but for most of that time not much seemed to be “evolving” except for single cell stuff and some algae . . . until the “Cambrian Explosion,” a little over ½ billion years ago, when lineages of almost all animals we see today, rather suddenly, appeared
There are several problems with this:

1) To characterize pre-Cambrian life as "not much" is very strange . . . the origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous (this is where you should really have directed your critique; too late now, though), and how about the evolution of photosynthesis, eukaryota, and multicellularity? Invertebrates and early chordates also arrived tens of millions of years before the Cambrian.

2) There is no doubt that a lot happened in a relatively short time period in the Cambrian, but 'relatively short' is an important phrase. We're talking about ~40 million years, here. Also, our knowledge of the Cambrian is largely restricted to the Burgess Shale fossils, which represent only a thin 'slice' of time and give the false impression that the origin of new phyla was "all-of-the-sudden".


Quote:

. . . and today, somehow, voila, we sapient beings find that we exist
Here is a diagram depicting your conception of life on Earth:

[Nothing Much] - - -> [Cambrian Explosion] - - - [Voila!!] - - -> [Humans]

I don't even know where to start with this one. Just consult a biology textbook and another resource on hominid evolution.


In previous posts, you have implied that biologists have it all wrong, that they are delusional about what 'the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life', that they are a bunch of self-important, myopic people. I ask for some enlightenment, and you respond by describing the work of paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. But wait . . . didn't you say that they don't know what they're talking about?




Quote:

some Darwinians say the explosion and sapient beings are the result mostly of chance, while some contend that the explosion and sapient beings are here b/c our planet would have created selection pressures to make it so
No one with all his marbles thinks that higher intelligence (or any other adaptation) is the result of pure (or mostly) chance . . . rather, Gould posits that, if we were to re-run the history of life, things might turn out very differently (e.g. if the earth's orbit were such that the end-Cretaceous asteroid didn't hit us, mammals would probably not have radiated, and we wouldn't be around). In that sense, some chance events were important for the evolution of many species, including our own. Conway-Morris, on the other hand, thinks that we'd still see the evolution of higher intelligence, even if those chance events happened differently - if sapience didn't evolve in mammals, then it would have arisen in some other lineage (e.g. reptiles). His argument is based on the notion of convergent evolution, but is riddled with problems and broadly rejected. I attended a talk of his on this subject - you would have agreed with me that his hypothesis is not compelling.

Fred H. August 19th, 2006 07:43 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: To characterize pre-Cambrian life as "not much" is very strange . . .
Good point Carey—I suppose I understated things . . . not to mention there wasn’t even a universe—no time, no space, no matter—only 10 billion years prior to those 4 billion years when life appears to have begun here on Earth.

And I’m inclined to agree that the “origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous.” And you may have a point in that that is where I “should really have directed [my] critique”—so if you want to start a new thread (or continue this one) explaining how your natural selection explains the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria during that 4 billion years, go for it.

But I suspect that you’ll not be furnishing much in the way of theories/ explanations/ evidence that will provide the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity. Nevertheless, still, go for it. If nothing else, perhaps you’ll see better the current shortcomings in, as Mayr calls it, your “philosophy of biology.”

Nonetheless, however you cut it, the evolution from single cell creatures to sapient beings in a little over ½ billion years via, primarily, “random mutation” and “natural section” (and yes, I know, there’s the other incidentals you’ve mentioned like your drift, migration, recombination) is, to my way of thinking, well, not nearly as convincing as say the explanation of gravity by Einstein’s general relativity theory.

Quote:

Carey: In previous posts, you have implied that biologists have it all wrong, that they are delusional about what 'the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life', that they are a bunch of self-important, myopic people.
Carey, Carey, you go too far—maybe self-important and myopic (especially those in academia), but I doubt they have it “all wrong,” or that they’re necessarily “delusional” (although Dawkins may be). Here’re are things I've actually said:
I’d say that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like “evolution”—or natural selection for that matter—being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation; and maybe also avoid making arrogant assumptions and decrees like Mr. Selfish Gene Dawkins’s, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [blah, blah, blah].”

We sapient beings find ourselves in a universe that began about 14 billion years ago, apparently from a singularity, with inexplicably low entropy. Life on Earth seems to have begun around 4 billion years ago…. and today, somehow, voila, we sapient beings find that we exist.

Some Darwinians say that sapient beings are the result mostly of chance, while some contend that sapient beings are here b/c our planet would have created selection pressures to make it so (although exactly why our planet would necessarily be predisposed to behave that way doesn't seem to be too clear).
But Carey says that "No one with all his marbles thinks that higher intelligence (or any other adaptation) is the result of pure (or mostly) chance," but then adds that, "things might turn out very differently (e.g. if the earth's orbit were such that the end-Cretaceous asteroid didn't hit us . . .)"???? Whatever.

Carey N August 20th, 2006 11:39 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred
I doubt they have it “all wrong,” or that they’re necessarily “delusional”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred, earlier
. . . thereby avoid half-ass notions like “evolution”—or natural selection for that matter—being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation


Theodosius Dobzhansky, a founding father of evolutionary genetics, famously wrote that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (fittingly for this general discussion, the guy was also a devout Christian). To refer to 'evolution' and 'natural selection' as half-assed is effectively to claim that biologists are delusional. You may not have realized it, but that's what you're doing.

Are you qualified to compare general relativity and natural selection? Granted, general relativity is superb, but do you even know what it is, aside from the verbal descriptions you get from Penrose? Do you know how to do multivariate calculus, ODE and PDE's? Differential geometry? Topology? Do you know population genetics, quantitative genetics, or Fisher's fundamental theorem? The Price equation? Hamilton's rule? Game theory? Somehow, I doubt it. If you aren't intimately familiar with the mathematics of both physics and evolution, in addition to the vast wealth of empirical data that they both enlighten, then you can't comment that one is 'better' than the other. So, put a plug in it.


Quote:

But Carey says that "No one with all his marbles thinks that higher intelligence (or any other adaptation) is the result of pure (or mostly) chance," but then adds that, "things might turn out very differently (e.g. if the earth's orbit were such that the end-Cretaceous asteroid didn't hit us . . .)"
I suspect that Fred understands the point I was making and is only trying to be contrary. For anyone else who is reading and interested, I will explain a bit further.

To say that intelligence or any adaptation is the result of pure or mostly chance is to say that the features in question spontaneously popped into existence . . . obviously, that is false. The point Gould makes in his exposition is that if the history of life were re-run, then different evolutionary trajectories may have transpired. Historical contingency is an important feature of any phylogeny, but without natural selection, there would be no adaptive evolution in the first place. The chance events involved in the history of life are irrelevant without reference to the evolutionary process, and are therefore secondary to it.

Fred H. August 20th, 2006 03:31 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: Are you qualified to compare general relativity and natural selection? Granted, general relativity is superb, but do you even know what it is [blah, blah, blah].
OK Carey, so I guess you don’t really have all that much in the way of theories/ explanations/ evidence regarding how your natural selection explains the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria during that first 4 billion years on Earth, and certainly nothing that would provide the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity.

Fair enough. But don’t be too hard on yourself and your fellow biologists. Even physicists don’t know everything. For example, what physicists do know, at least based on the current science and evidence, is that the universe “began,” apparently from a singularity, 14 billion years ago, having absurdly low entropy (especially when one considers the huge entropy in the singularity of black holes), after which the universe EVOLVED to what we see today. (Ever notice how physicists typically don’t to invoke “selection” in explaining how it is that our galaxy/solar system/planet evolved?—of course they don’t have to b/c they have superb theories like gravity to explain things.) But nothing in physics today can explain how/why entropy is/was so absurdly low.

And of course one of the results of that EVOLUTION of the universe is our planet; and, as you know, again based on the current science and evidence, it appears that life “began” about 4 billion years ago here on Earth, and EVOLVED to what we see today—but let’s face it Carey, the Darwinians really haven’t explained all that much regarding the “beginning” and evolution of life, except perhaps for the obvious that life does indeed evolve, and that selection pressures from the environment certainly seem to have some impact on that evolution (as well as do things like drift, migration, recombination).

So yes Carey, indeed, undoubtedly, life, like the universe itself, has a beginning, and evolves. And I remain convinced that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know, what they can actually explain, and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/ assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like evolution/natural selection being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation.

Have a nice day,
Fred.

Carey N August 20th, 2006 07:21 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Wait . . . I explained why you aren't qualified to argue about the relative merits of physics and biology. I guess I was right, as you just repeated your stock low entropy post rather than addressing anything I had written.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred
(Ever notice how physicists typically don’t to invoke “selection” in explaining how it is that our galaxy/solar system/planet evolved?—of course they don’t have to b/c they have superb theories like gravity to explain things.)

Given the distinction between bodies of inanimate matter and populations of living organisms capable of passing heritable information from one generation to the next, I'd have thought it'd be obvious that natural selection is irrelevant to cosmic evolution, but central to biological evolution. Again, you aren't technically capable of evaluating the theory of gravitation and the theory of selection (which is extensively developed . . . I don't see how you remain in denial about this), much less comparing and contrasting their merits. To be fair, I'm not up to speed with the math of general relatvity, either . . . but I'm not trying to claim that selection is 'superb' while relativity is not. In fact, I think that comparing the two is a pretty empty excercise altogether.


Quote:

I remain convinced that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know, what they can actually explain, and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life . . .
You remain convinced, and yet have no justification for your conviction. Clearly, you are frustrated and can think of nothing to do other than to repeat yourself, even though we've already established that your objections to evolutionary biology are woefully lacking in substance.

Fred H. August 21st, 2006 08:15 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: Given the distinction between bodies of inanimate matter and populations of living organisms capable of passing heritable information from one generation to the next, I'd have thought it'd be obvious that natural selection is irrelevant to cosmic evolution . . .
Yes Carey, one would have thunk . . . but, alas, it seems that the concept of “selection” can be so deceptively seductive that even physicists, albeit the lesser physicists, will sometimes succumb to its allure—from Wiki:
Quote:

Cosmological natural selection is a hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin intended as a scientific alternative to the anthropic principle. It addresses the problem of complexity in our universe, which is largely unexplained. Just a few minor changes in the mass of certain elementary particles or in the strength of the forces of the universe would prevent atoms from forming, let alone galaxies. Since natural selection has explained the complexity of life so well in biology, this concept is borrowed and applied to cosmology in an attempt to explain the complexity of the universe. Cosmological natural selection is also referred to as the theory of Fecund universes.
Let’s face it Carey, “selection,” like “emergence,” is just one of those deceptively circular/tautological cool sounding terms that seem to explain so much, but that really don’t. Thanks for noting, appropriately I think, that you’d “have thought it'd be obvious that natural selection is irrelevant to cosmic evolution,” which then allowed me to provide this great example of how the “selection” concept can even seduce physicists, albeit the lesser physicists, into thinking that they understand/can explain more than they actually do/can.

Quote:

Carey: In fact, I think that comparing the two [the theory of gravitation and selection] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.
Well Carey, then it seems, after all, that you do more or less agree with me that Darwinians (and I suppose the lesser physicists too) need to avoid notions like natural selection (or “evolution”) “being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation.” I’m delighted Carey. It seems you’re evolving. Makes my day.

Fred H. August 21st, 2006 10:30 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: Wait . . . I explained why you aren't qualified to argue about the relative merits of physics and biology.
Nice try Carey. As noted in Wiki:
Quote:

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.
Anyhoo, let’s try to finalize this thread with your next post. Again, as in times past, I think our discussion has been reasonably honest and rigorous (with an intermittent ad hominem type fallacy from time to time), and I think we’ve been reasonably consistent in how we see and explained our POVs, certainly more so than others here on this forum tend to be in some of their ramblings .

And, as I’ve opined b/f, where one stands on these issues seems to depend on how one sees the big picture. Some of us sees things as Roger Penrose—the eminently qualified Oxford mathematician and physicist, who recently also wrote The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 2005, “the most complete mathematical explanation of the universe yet published”—sees things: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." While the rest see things primarily as being random and/or “effectively random”; or perhaps blindly, mindlessly, algorithmically deterministic (essentially effectively random).

Really Carey, please consider buying Penrose’s book (and I know you’re probably already overloaded with stuff to read/consider)—it is undoubtedly the best book on physics and the best mathematical explanation of the universe ever written.

All the best,
Fred

Carey N August 21st, 2006 05:52 PM

Re: Note on adhominem
 
I will address some other points in a fothcoming post (which, I agree, should wrap things up), but just wanted to jot down a quick note on your ad hominem accusation.

The statement you put forward was, in essence, that the theory of physics (gravitation, in particular) is 'superb', while the theory of natural selection is 'half-assed'. You didn't cite anyone about this, or present any kind of particular argument; you just wrote it, and that was that. Thus, the only way to judge your arguement was to assess whether or not your experience would suggest expertise in both areas (physics and evolution) - and enough expertise for us to take your word for it. My conclusion was that we cannot do so (I did give you a chance to claim that you know the relevant math, though).

Fred H. August 21st, 2006 07:40 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: The statement you put forward was, in essence, that . . . the theory of natural selection is 'half-assed'.
Do you misstate what I say on purpose or are you just offensively careless? Read what was written—the “half-ass notion” was/is the notion that evolution/natural selection is “comparable in any substantial way” to the superb theory of gravitation; and it seems that yourself now agree when you say that: “In fact, I think that comparing the two [the theory of gravitation and selection] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.”

“Superb” is Penrose’s top ranking for certain theories (e.g., Galilean Dynamics, Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, Einstein's Relativity Theories, Quantum Theory). I think he may have indicated somewhere that “natural selection” fell short of “superb,” although, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I think he’s also indicated that he’s a believer in natural selection.

Carey N August 21st, 2006 08:14 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Read what was written—the “half-ass notion” was/is the notion that evolution/natural selection is “comparable in any substantial way” to the superb theory of gravitation
Come on, Fred . . . you and I both know what you really mean is that the theory of gravitation is superb, while the theory of natural selection 'doesn't explain all that much' . . . and your only source on this statement is Penrose's book . . . which is on physics, not evolution.

Speaking of citation, your argument over the last year or so generally consists of: "Penrose said so". I trust that he's a very smart fellow and an authoritative figure among physicists. Does that mean we can take his word as final on science as a whole, including biology? Definitely not.

Fred H. August 22nd, 2006 08:12 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

. . . and your only source on this statement is Penrose's book
Nonsense. I’ve explained that natural selection is essentially a circular notion, similar to “emergence,” that lacks the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity.

Additionally Carey, despite your nonsensical whine, you yourself have also acknowledged: “I think that comparing the two [natural selection (or "evolution") and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.”

Carey N August 22nd, 2006 09:07 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred
I’ve explained that natural selection is essentially a circular notion, similar to “emergence,” that lacks the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity.

You have stated all these things as fact without acknowledging the fundamental differences between evolutionary biology and astrophysics (which I have explained a number of times before and won't repeat). You say that selection is a circular notion, similar to emergence, and yet selection can be quantified and studied mathematically, which you also refuse to acknowledge. You have not 1) offered even a slight hint as to what might be a better explanatory framework for biological evolution, or 2) confronted the vast, long-standing literature that overwhelming suggests the opposite of what you claim, (this research has been collated into books accessible to laymen . . . I've pointed them out, but you won't read them).

Fred H. August 22nd, 2006 09:38 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

. . . as the two sciences explain fundamentally different phenomena.
And yet, Carey, cosmological “natural selection” is an hypothesis proposed by the physicist Lee Smolin as a scientific alternative to the anthropic principle in his, IMO, lame attempt to addresses the problem of complexity in our universe, which is largely unexplained—similar, I might add to the largely unexplained complexity in life/biological evolution . . . . thus we witness the deceptive seductiveness of “selection”; and that even physicists, albeit the lesser physicists, may occasionally succumb to it’s allure.

Carey N August 22nd, 2006 10:00 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
If some elements of cosmic 'evolution' satisfy the requirements of inheritance coupled with differential 'reproduction' (I can't envision how this might be, but I'm not an expert in this area), then I can see why physicists may want to use the concept of natural selection to explain features of the universe. I can't comment in a detailed way upon this idea, since I'm not familiar with selection in space, so to say. I will note that your own quote a few posts ago acknowledged that physicists have only tried to borrow the concept of selection because it works so well in biology. Let's let this point rest since it really isn't relevant to the main discussion.

Now, please address this request: if natural selection is such a weak concept, then suggest something (even just a hint) that could take its place. If you actually have a viable idea that supersedes natural selection in the context of biological evolution, you will immediately become one of the most renowned scientists on earth. There's some motivation for you.

Fred H. August 22nd, 2006 12:57 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Well Carey, it seems to me that the point of our discussion here was merely that natural selection is not really comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity—and you’ve acknowledged: “I think that comparing the two [natural selection (or "evolution") and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.” So it seems that we more or less agree . . . isn’t that wonderful?

The Anthropic Principle (used to explain the structure of the universe considering how the forces are incredibly and precariously balanced—for no apparent reason—in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that allows us humans to have evolved and exist, and which is somewhat contrary to the Copernican principle) is interesting—it’s essentially the idea that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life; or that the only reason we’re here is b/c the universe is fine tuned, otherwise we’d not be here; or that the laws of physics and the universe are the way they are so life could evolve and become aware of them.

However, admittedly, the Anthropic Principle does seem to be about as circular/tautological as selection, doesn’t it? And, like natural selection, the Anthropic Principle really is not comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity.

Margaret McGhee August 22nd, 2006 04:39 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Just to let Fred and Carey know that at least one other person is watching their (rather slow) discussion I thought I'd mention that one reason why Fred finds physical theories like gravitation so compelling and "superior" to "circular notions" like natural selection as a mechanism for evolution - may have little to do with the logical validity or elegance of the theories themselves.

That meta-study I have referenced a few times before Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition shows that a need for closure is one of the most highly correlated characteristics of conservative minds. Other interesting factors that also correlate positively with a conservative orientation are uncertainty avoidance and an intolerance of ambiguity. Conservative minds also show a strong negative correlation with the integrative complexity of the ideas they hold.

So, while you both are having trouble understanding how the other can not see the simple truth in your positions - perhaps the reasons for that are not to be found so much in their respective objective validity - as in the minds that are seeing them.

I'll add a little plug here for my hypothesis - this illustrates for me additional evidence for the emotional basis of one's beliefs. An interesting question to me is: If a conservative mind finds integratively complex ideas uncomfortable compared with less complex ideas - does a liberal mind find more integratively complex ideas more appealing than simpler ones?

My first guess is no. I have not heard of any liberal-minded scientists (perhaps those who accept evolution and natural selection as elegant and highly useful descriptions of the living world) dismissing or criticizing the theory of gravitation because it is not integratively complex.


Margaret

Carey N August 22nd, 2006 05:41 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
A valiant attempt to dodge the big question that you can't answer . . . I'll go ahead and give you another chance, though:

If natural selection is such a weak concept, then suggest something (even just a hint) that could take its place.

Fred H. August 22nd, 2006 06:35 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: If natural selection is such a weak concept, then suggest something (even just a hint) that could take its place.
Well Carey, as I recall, a few posts back, you noted that the “origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous,” and I tended to agree, and asked if you’d perhaps explain how your natural selection explains the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria. However, you never did. And as I noted, I suspect that you can’t and won’t be furnishing much in the way of theories/ explanations/ evidence that will provide the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity. Nevertheless, you should still attempt to do so, and then perhaps you’ll better appreciate the current shortcomings in your natural selection and, as Mayr calls it, your “philosophy of biology.”

I see that your buddy MM has weighed in, indicating that you and I seem to be “having trouble understanding how the other can not see the simple truth in [our] positions - perhaps the reasons for that are not to be found so much in their respective objective validity - as in the minds that are seeing them." Well, I think we can understand how it is that MM “feels compelled by her emotions,” to believe whatever it is that she happens to believe here since, as she has previously declared, she believes whatever it is she believes b/c that is what makes MM herself “feel good,” and, as she explains in her so-called “axiom,” MM “uses her brains to justify it” (and also, as MM has amplified, “what makes us different are the things that make us feel good”).

But really Carey, you and I actually see many things similarly: First, we agree that Einstein’s general relativity, his theory of gravitation, is a superb theory. Second, we agree, using your words, that “comparing the two [natural selection and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.” Third, I don’t disagree that the idea of natural selection is compelling and even useful, but rather that it, like “emergence,” is, ultimately, merely one of those deceptively circular/tautological cool sounding terms that seem to explain a lot more than it actually explains (probably similar to how MM’s “axiom” seems to explain, to MM anyway, a lot more than it actually explains); while you, Carey insists that the “apparent circularity [of natural selection] just isn't important at all.”

And BTW, perhaps you should tell MM that Einstein’s general relativity is amazingly complex, whereas natural selection, essentially survival of the fittest, is actually rather simplistic, and really could never begin to explain the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria.

God, Carey, will this thread ever end?

Carey N August 22nd, 2006 09:37 PM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Tell you what - I'll agree to briefly address your question, if you agree to do the same. You've got two evasion strikes thus far - one more and you're out. I'll even give you the last word in this thread. Fair enough? If you want to bash my respone to the origin vs. evolution of life topic, fine . . . but you must also address my question this time; otherwise, you're essentially admitting defeat.

A clarification of terms: the origin of life refers to the way(s) in which the first entities capable of replicating themselves arose. This is actually a question of physics and chemistry, not evolution. The evolution of life refers to the ways in which populations of those entities change over time. Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptive evolution occurs; it is not, and was never intended to be, a mechanism by which replicators originated. As soon as those replicators arose, however, natural selection kicked in and contributed to their refinement. It is a fascinating topic and one of the enduring challenges in the life sciences. Go to Amazon, do a book search for "Origin of Life", and read more about it, if you're interested. Some classical ideas are covered in this excellent treatment from the mid-90's. The irony here is that if I hadn't pointed out this topic for you, you probably wouldn't have thought to try and hide behind it.

Now, for the last time . . . rather than just stating that natural selection is circular and doesnt explain all that much, you must 1) articulate why exactly the theory of natural selection fails to explain what it claims to explain (adaptive evolution), and 2) suggest even a hint of a putative idea that could correct for the supposed inadequacy of natural selection. Really, Fred . . . if you could do these two things, you would be a revolutionary. If you can't do these things, then you're just a complainer, and the world is full to the brim with those.

Fred H. August 23rd, 2006 08:41 AM

Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
 
Quote:

Carey: Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptive evolution occurs; it is not, and was never intended to be, a mechanism by which replicators originated…. The irony here is that if I hadn't pointed out this topic for you, you probably wouldn't have thought to try and hide behind it.
You give me too little credit, but I appreciate your acknowledgement regarding at least that particular limitation of natural selection. Well done. And regarding tautologies and natural selection, here’s what http://www.talkorigins.org has to say:
Quote:

The simple version of the so-called 'tautology argument' is this:Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition).

The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all. 'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma [Sober 1984, chapter 2], which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was not even Darwin's. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated 'natural selection' because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin .

However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper [1976: sect. 37]. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos [1996] [note 1]). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species….
Now if you find that adequate and satisfying, fine; but I’m less than convinced and will remain so until someone comes up with something that provides the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity. And really Carey, I don’t think that makes me a “complainer.”


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.