The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
Quote:
"Circular - (adj) - being or involving reasoning that uses in the argument or proof a conclusion to be proved or one of its unproved consequences." Natural selection: [hertiable variation] + [differential reproduction] -> [evolution] Show me the circularity Fred . . . Last edited by Carey N; June 3rd, 2005 at 03:18 AM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
Carey:
Quote:
[heritable variation] + [differential reproduction] -> [evolution]More circular reasoning: evolution is the result of beginning low entropy, uncertain variables, self-organization, and selection—therefore: beginning low entropy + uncertain variables + self organization + selection = evolutionWhich I believe is closer to the reality, although it’s still circular. In contrast, here’s something that’s falsifiable and not circular: e = mc^2—therefore, energy is essentially equal to mass. Last edited by Fred H.; June 3rd, 2005 at 09:44 AM.. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
We are arguing on two different playing fields . . . I hope I can clarify this and allow the debate to progress and perhaps reach a conclusion.
You think you are arguing about the process of natural selection, but you are not. You are discussing the nature of evolutionary biology . . . unlike physics or chemistry, evolution is a historical science. We perceive the living world, wonder about why it exists, and search our creative repertoire for different processes that could have led to its existence. But you're right that evolutionary biology, like any other kind of history, possesses a kind of circularity. We start with what we see around us and try to explain why it came about . . . we take the end result (life) and then think backward to what kinds of processes could have allowed this end result to occur. Evolutionists must accept this fact . . . they study a kind of history, and in so doing they analyze the present and reconstruct the past: it's an inherently circular thing to do. Think of a more conventional historian trying to explain the sorry state of current US politics: he takes the present condition (i.e. there's an increasingly senile moron in the highest office of the land), and proceeds backwards in time to consider the various ways in which this could have happened. No matter what, by the very nature of his study, he must come to the conclusion that Bush is in office, for this is the factual phenomenon he set out to explain in the first place. Evolution is similar, though a bit more rigorous: biologists take the current condition of life on earth and set out to explain why it came to be . . . analysis starts with the end result in mind (namely, there is a biota on earth). You must understand, Fred, that this is not what I'm arguing about in my discussion of selection. For, in the course of putting history back together in all of its intricacy and detail, biologists search for non-circular processes (i.e. processes that do not pre-suppose the existence of higher complexity) that could have resulted in the complexity and diversity we see around us today. This is where our argument has been confused (probably for a year): the process of natural selection is not circular, while the overall study of evolutionary history is circular. Also your equation for evolution is wrong. Earth was lifeless in the beginning, so discussion of low entropy at the start of the universe (if that is in fact true . . .) is irrelevant to the debate about complexity on this planet, and self-organization is not a force of evolution on par with selection. In summary . . . natural selection is the pure consequence of a non-zero correlation between heritable variation and differential reproduction, which in turn leads to changes in the proportion of different alleles over time. It is a perfectly linear logical process. You, on the other hand, are inclined to include the influence of a complex creative hand in the existence of life on earth. We both set out to explain complexity, Fred, and while I invoke only natural selection, you pre-suppose a complex influence in the very beginning. Tell me, Fred . . . who of us is really falling victim to circular logic? The one possible point for circularity to tarnish evolution by natural selection is at the origin of life on earth. As you know, we cannot reproduce the conditions present on this planet 4.5 - 4.0 billion years ago, and we cannot empirically test to complete satisfaction any one theory of the origin of life. We can very specifically outline what must have happened for natural selection to get going: reproducing entities, be they the simplest of chemical hypercyles, must have arisen, along with a mode of inheritance, also likely to be much simpler than what we have now. This is a more difficult issue, but in the end Occam's Razor implies No Creator. Last edited by Carey N; June 4th, 2005 at 08:43 AM.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
Carey:
Quote:
Carey: Quote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
"entropy is a measure of disorder and it only increases with time. Physics 101 stuff"
Entropy increases with time with respect to the entire universe, but can decrease through time at a local scale (if it increases somewhere else to compensate for it). You're right that my statement was not technically correct in its delivery, but my meaning stands: when this planet originated, there was no life on it, and in local compartments entropy has been decreasing as a result of natural selection, with corresponding increases in entropy occurring elsewhere (e.g. metabolic heat released into the environment). You have also completely ignored the rest of what I was trying to get across to you . . . namely that you are arguing about evolutionary biology when you talk about circularity, not the process of natural selection. And Bush is indeed headed toward senility; look: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...?gobackto=home Last edited by Carey N; June 4th, 2005 at 05:16 AM.. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
Carey:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The End
Here's my last post on this thread. You don't really try to process what other people say, but rather selectively read their posts and then throw back ad hominem comments. It's frustrating.
Dawkins is not my high priest. While I sometimes admire his rhetorical style, he's often an arrogant prick and his comments generally don't go a long way towards creating an environment of open discussion (not with people who aren't already atheists, anyway). That evolution happened is not a matter of belief; it's a fact like gravity and good old E=mc^2. That evolution happened by means of natural selection is not a belief, but a theory subject to theoretical and empirical analysis. That "all life everywhere" is a result of evolution by natural selection, some would say, is an inevitable conclusion guided by Occam's Razor alone. But there can be no proof of it, as you never fail to remind me, because evolution is history, and we cannot reconstruct the past without some degree of uncertainty. Just what fills those uncertain gaps is a matter of personal philosophy, but frankly I'd rather be in the camp that appeals to simplicity than the one that appeals to mysticism. Last edited by Carey N; June 4th, 2005 at 12:01 PM.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dawkins explains non-random evolution, attacks faith
Carey, you say, “that evolution happened by means of natural selection is not a belief,†but Dawkins affirms that it is a (his) belief that “all life . . . is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.â€
Hmmm, I don’t know Carey—is it possible that you don’t “really try to process what other people say?†Think I’ll side with Dawkins on this one. Thank God, or in your case Natural Selection, that that was your last post. But this thread has been good for me—my wife’s been bitching at me for my occasional outbursts, taking God’s name in vain—so next time I stub my toe I’ll just yell: “Natural f--king Selection!†|
|
|