I know what you are saying. It's like a discussion I had recently about answering the question of the meaning of life. The answer to that is something that can never be completely agreed on, but that is a good thing, because the search for an answer is the most invigorating part.
Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?
by Science101 29 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Science 101
usually evolution is seen as a totally random process with no goal or direction but that is not entirely true.
Mmmmm... well, it is goalless and directionless in the sense that Eohippus didn't click its heels together one day and decide to become a horse, or in the sense that H. habalis decided that life would be more fun with a larger cerebellum.
Looking back we can see a 'goal' but that is solely an accident of perspective; someTHING doing the same thing on this planet in one billion years time would have a vastly different conclusion to us now.
And direction is nearly almost as much of an accident of perspective; it might be fairer to say that evolutionary change has momentum instead of direction.
If it were then the male peacock would not have the giant tail the female peacocks find sexy. Survival of the fittest does not favor variation that is easier to catch, yet, what peacocks think the perfect peacock looks like was stronger than that too.
Sexual selection is a fab topic (your post is like Christmas even if I don't agree with you (which I've yet to decide, LOL); it get real dull talking to most Creationists and ID-ers as they critique a science they rarely have adequate knowledge of).
Not only peacocks tails but human intelligence and the male human penis are other examples of characteristics that likely arose through sexual selection. Thank Darwin (joke) that the chromosomes that carry the 'smart' characteristics female pre-humans liked are not sex linked, otherwise human genders could have vastly difference levels of intelligence.
But sexual selection doesn't mean there is a goal or direction; it allows runaway evolution, which can look very purposed.
It's all very well being a hypothetical 'classically' super-fit (can escape predation very well) pre-peacock with no big tail who can't get laid (pun intended) as all the pre-peahen chicks (on a roll here) want males with big tails 'just because' that's the way the genes 'landed'. But of course, that's assuming their is no commonality of genes for big tails and being classically 'fit'.
I mean if females select in their mates a characteristic not directly linked to 'fitness' in classical natural selection but which infers 'fitness' in the classical sense. A phenotypical characteristic is selected essentially at random by some females that ALSO selects for genotypical fitness to survive (even if it looks silly and unwieldy... hey, I mean the peacock tail, not the male human penis).
The males get to survive AND breed. The females get chicks with genes for surviving, having big tails, and liking big tails.
Other females who do not select big tails don't get chicks with the genes for big tails, liking big tails, and get not-so good genes for surviving, thus over a short period (evolutionarily speaking) the frequency of gene distribution in a population changes dramatically, and the having/liking big tails becomes almost universal in the species' genome. Females with other mate selection criteria may simply not do well enough to survive (genetically) at all, or might give rise to speciation over time.
In other words, peacocks with big tails must actually be quite good at escaping predation, by definition; the females love of big tails also selects the genes that allow the big tails to survive despite having mother nature's equivalent of a neon sign hanging off their arse. But that's not why the peahens selected the big tails.
Pre-human females selection of smart mates meant their mates were more likely to survive although that's not why they selected those characteristics.
The extinct Irish Elk with massive antlers is possibly an example of where it all went terribly wrong and the females selection of big antlers became so strong the species actually died out as those that could breed ('cause the does let them) did not actually have very 'fit' genes in the classical sense.
Obviously the mechanism varies according to other aspects of sexual biology; in some species females don't mate unless they want to, in others they have limited or no choice.
I'd be very interested in hearing more of what you mean by goal and direction; if I mention Teilhard and the noosphere I assume I ring some bells with you?
As regards the meaning of life, there is no answer (well, other than 42), just a question;
Why do you assume there is a meaning to life separate from that which we give it with our own effort?
Seems to me assuming there is a meaning to life is just another form of presuppositionalism.
science and religion is coming closer together
They ARE? I didn't realise religion had stepped from the shadows of opinion into the light of fact. Until then...
And the ID debate actually helped.
Helped show that even when Creationist try to dress up 'non-specific creator' Creationist dogma in new clothes it is still unscientific? I assume you're aware of Michel Behe having to admit in court if ID was taught in schools they'd have to also teach other untestable hypotheses like Astrology.
Academia was forced to do a better job communicating with the layman
I agree this could often be done better.
and even though ID didn't have anything that could survive peer-review people who would normally not read anything scientific, were learning about how cells work and other rather complex topics.
If ID had lead to individuals making a personal study of science and reaching reasonable conclusions based on facts it would have been a good thing. Instead the work of a few people was pointed to by many who didn't understand the details of the discussion, but who wanted to defend their pre-existing opinions and were happy to do it with other people's arguments and all the risks that entails.
Despite the fact ID dogma like irreducible design has been refuted, the fact ID-ers typically regurgitate 2nd hand apologisms with no real knowledge of source data is proven by the fact most threads on ID on this website are full of people quoting ID dogma that's already dis-proven.
Of course, as guiding lights of the Wedge Movement won't admit that ID is a deeply flawed hypothesis, their followers, as they base their knowledge on the leaders of the movement rather than independent learning, are very likely to make the same error.
I'm clear you're not defending ID's beliefs, the above is just me reflecting on your comments about ID
-
Science101
Excellent points Abaddon! Looks like my next writing project will have to help clarify the "goal" and "guided" part. In my opinion the words and their opposites are somewhat ambiguous on both sides of the debate. One way to avoid it is to not use them at all in a definition of evolution. But that's not easy when one side believes that something is somehow directing, guiding, sets goals, etc.. The word you recommended "momentum" sounds good. One way the word "goal" might be used is like in your example of the Irish Elk. The females loved big antlers so their goal in selecting a mate was to find a male with giant ones. That goal, present in the mind of the elk, in turn added a goal to their evolution. But of course evolution itself does not set a goal, preferences of the evolving organisms add that to the process. I think we could debate this one for a long time. But it would be interesting to see what happens when there is finally agreement on both sides, if that is possible. That "Teilhard and the noosphere" stuff is excellent! We sure have a lot in common. That's the first time I read much about him. Here's a link in case anyone else wants to check it out. http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/mar/cunning.html On the meaning of life, it seems that what gives a person's life meaning, is different. Some need to play sports while others like to read and for me it's science. And what gives life meaning changes as we get older. When young it's bonding with a mate. Then family often enters into the equation. It would be nice to find what it is that is at the core, but my thoughts on that will have to wait until I have time to write it all down. But one example would be "love". Might not always end up a good experience, but it can add meaning to our lives, I guess. And I can't forget the Dover trial. I was networking with the folks on the science side in the Kansas controversy so of course when Behe was cornered by the astrology parallel, it was big news. From reading the transcript he tried to downplay it by being more specific about what he meant, but of course it was still the wrong answer. You are right, I don't try to defend ID. But there is someone I was talking to who was "on their side" in Kansas that I do admire, namely Kathy Martin. She's a retired science teacher and evolution changed so much she did have valid questions she wanted presented at the hearing. The boycott by scientists kinda left her no choice but to make sure there was a debate and giving the Discovery Institute some of what they wanted sure worked! In my opinion she has a much more open mind than is normally given credit for, even later went on the record saying that ID didn't have any science yet. In the end it still went OK, their school standards will be very scientific, might even become some of the best in the nation as a result of it. If I lived in Kansas and in her district then I would vote to reelect her. She knows how to get scientists off their butts to explain science to the people who need to know!
-
Abaddon
Science101
One way to avoid it is to not use them at all in a definition of evolution.
Well, that's okay then, as they are not in the conventional definiton of evoluton, nor could they be without satisfactory proof.
One way the word "goal" might be used is like in your example of the Irish Elk. The females loved big antlers so their goal in selecting a mate was to find a male with giant ones. That goal, present in the mind of the elk, in turn added a goal to their evolution.
Mmm.... the goal wasn't present 'in the mind of the elk', not in any way equivalent with us 'having something mind'. It would be an institive inclination withnno forethought. And yes, maybe it's semantics, but that's 'cause it is science and not, er, thingmagigwhatdoyacallit...?
Excuse my silliness in illustrating why exact meaning of words used in scientific discourse is so important.
But of course evolution itself does not set a goal, preferences of the evolving organisms add that to the process.
No they don't. No goal is added to the process as no goal is there.
The preferences lead towards a goal if viewed from a certain perspective, but it is an illusion of perspective.
Mr First Amphibian might think he's a goal, but Mr Mammal just thinks he's a frog...
There is no a concious objective thus goal is wholey unsuitable a word for it.
I think we could debate this one for a long time. But it would be interesting to see what happens when there is finally agreement on both sides, if that is possible.
Use more suitable vocabulary and we might be able to agree, but I fear you're streaching attractive presuppostions round facts that don't fit them very well.
It would be nice to find what it is that is at the core,
No core, just apples of individual eyes.
I am a massive Beatle fan and pseudo-hippy, and even I can't subscribe to describing life's meaning as love
And I can't forget the Dover trial. I was networking with the folks on the science side in the Kansas controversy so of course when Behe was cornered by the astrology parallel, it was big news.
Hysterically funny news; hoist by his own petard.
I cite Teilhard as he had interesting ideas.
But to see any 'steering hand' beyond environmental factors (and that includes the genotypes in that environment) is to start being anthropic. I suppose you've heard the one about the puddle in a hole praising the god of puddles for having made life so everything fitted perfectly? One fluid ounce more or less, and it wouldn't fit the hole!
What those environmental factors have done is bring about a situation where (to quote SJG I think) 'evolution becomes aware of itself' by means of the 'chance' evolution of sentient creatures. By 'chance' I mean it could have been different under differing conditions. Obviously evolution has no awareness, as it is a process, but awareness of the process arrises all the same.
To credit this as a goal would be to credit rainfall with a goal; rain falls as the environment dictates and evolution unfolds in a similar style. But no raindrop starts condensing around atmospheric dust thinking 'ground here I come'.
-
Deputy Dog
Science101
Welcome! Be careful!
Sexual selection is a fab topic (your post is like Christmas even if I don't agree with you (which I've yet to decide, LOL); it get real dull talking to most Creationists and ID-ers as they critique a science they rarely have adequate knowledge of).
Looks like your about to find out that if you don't agree with this guy, you don't have "adequate knowledge" or you are involved in a conspiracy!
Remember he went to school to learn this stuff (double talk)!
What those environmental factors have done is bring about a situation where (to quote SJG I think) 'evolution becomes aware of itself' by means of the 'chance' evolution of sentient creatures. By 'chance' I mean it could have been different under differing conditions. Obviously evolution has no awareness, as it is a process, but awareness of the process arrises all the same.
Can you read between the lines?
-
Paralipomenon
Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. It was what led him to make his breakthrough in the general theory of relativity. He saw so much harmony in the universe that everything seemed to be set in place. While he rejected the notion of a personal God that was interested in the affairs of humans, he always maintained that the universe could be completely explained by mathematics.
When his theory gave birth to Quantum Physics that started to examine the behavior of things that appeared to ignore the laws of the universe, Einstein fought the concept strongly. It didn't fit his personal idea for the universe and he continued to work towards the formation of a unified field equation that would balance everything out. He never solved this problem and didn't make any further breakthroughs personally. Ironically he inspired several breakthroughs in the Quantum fields in his attempts to disprove it.
While I will never downplay how amazing the universe is and all the life as we know it, I feel the only way a creator will be discovered is by trying to disprove him. Continue to seek knowledge under the assumption that one does not exist or you risk seeking with blinders on.
I think only when we have turned over every rock, we will either find our designer or find nothing. Either way, we will have our answer.
Welcome to the board! -
Science101
Paralipomenon, I feel the same way you do about the search for an entity that can be called "God". Have to be at least as skeptical as one is a believer or the search ends with the first excuse to stop looking. And Einstein was one complicated person to understand. Seems that religion enhanced his search for answers through science. Is more common than people realize. Even scientists sometimes seem to mot realize how religiously they search for truth. And Deputy Dog, I promise to be careful. So far Abaddon and I are getting along very well. I think that they are a lot like me. But I'm primarily self-taught in college level science I'm not connected to "academia" so I lack what I guess we could call it's indoctrination so I'm more free to challenge the textbook ways of seeing things. Still though, it seems Abaddon has an open mind. Good scientists are normally very precise in choice of words, and I'm that way too. Abaddon, I fully agree that the exact meaning of words is important in science. I would even say it's vital. But since I have heard evolution being called "undirected", "unguided" and with no "goal" the same thing applies the other way too. We will end up arguing semantics, but that's kinda necessary for us to do. In the case of the word "goal" we're kinda stuck reconciling it due it having been used on the science side. Would need proof that there is no goal anywhere in evolution to claim there is no goal at all. I also wrote a program that uses the evolution algorithm to evolve sentences and it worked great. I discovered that there was a goal, to write sentences. http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5799&sid=43b361bd4e5e9171aa606d82b0b54eca#5799 In another program the evolution algorithm was used to generate intelligence needed for a robot-like entity that resembles an insect, to navigate it's environment to find food. When first started it does not know how to move, what its sensors do, but soon learns how to use them. In this case the goal becomes learning how to navigate the environment, and feed, before starving. http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin//ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001464;p= I still need to create new webpages for the programs, but hopefully where they are right now will be good enough. And I still didn't register my compiler so it might give a warning that it's not if you want to run the programs without a compiler, but it's not like I'm hiding which is what that was meant to combat. I'm expected to pay for some service to verify that I exist. Wish I could afford such luxuries. My point here is that in response to claims that evolution has no goal, I probably have more evidence that there is a goal, and of course it then turns into another educational debate! But at least in this case it's simply over the use of words, as opposed to distortion of many facts. So we can argue while still sharing the same, goal...
-
Science101
Paralipomenon, you can probably tell that I cheated on learning how to spell your name and cut-pasted it into the message! This is the first forum I have been in that retains html formatting. Interesting.
-
quietlyleaving
Hi and welcome
You have a very interesting take on science and religion. Looking forward to hearing more.
ql
-
Abaddon
Deputy Dog
And today's raspberry for childish petulance goes to you.
Looks like your about to find out that if you don't agree with this guy, you don't have "adequate knowledge" or you are involved in a conspiracy!
I think you need to take a deep breathe and get over the fact science is not like discussing your favourite band.
You can think Westlife are the best band in the world. As you are making a subjective decision you are right - for you. Someone with 16 Degrees in music could not prove your opinion wrong. But then you couldn't prove their's wrong either.
Someone who enters a discussion on evolution and shows they don't even know what evolution is by how they define it is just being arrogant or foolish if they don't take the time and trouble to learn about a subject they want to discuss.
You would probably laugh at someone who knew virtually nothing of cabinetry who tried to tell a experienced cabinet maker how to make a cupboard, if by doing so they revealed their lack of knowledge. You would probably think they were making a fool of themselves. If the cabinet maker pointed out the person was talking utter rot you'd consider it a fair comment
Yet if someone who knows virtually nothing about an academic subject tries to tell someone who has studied the subject they are wrong about something to do with that subject and by doing so they reveal their lack of knowledge, you apply a different set of rules. If the person with the academic knowledge pointed out the person was talking utter rot you rush to defend then speaker of rot. Not that Science101 is speaking rot, but it is how you behave.
I think you resent the fact people have to do some work to have a worthwhile opinion in academic subjects. Why not try to be more objective and accept facts are not always as you'd like them to be? Or if you can't act like an adult refrain from entering discussions on subject you are ill-informed?
What those environmental factors have done is bring about a situation where (to quote SJG I think) 'evolution becomes aware of itself' by means of the 'chance' evolution of sentient creatures. By 'chance' I mean it could have been different under differing conditions. Obviously evolution has no awareness, as it is a process, but awareness of the process arises all the same.
Maybe it's because you feel insecure if you don't understand something, and instead of trying to understand it you strike out? You seeing the above comment as double talk seems a good example;
- Evolution is not an entity, it is a process
- It is a process that produces organisms
- Before sentient organisms arose the process was still there but it was unknown as there is nothing there to 'know' it
- When sentient organisms arose then it becomes possible for the process to become 'known'
- Thus one can metaphorically say 'evolution becomes aware of itself' to describe such a situation as such organisms are a product of evolution but it's a metaphor so doesn't imply evolution suddenly becomes an entity capable of having self-knowledge
Simple really... and even if I doubt your lack of scientific knowledge as regards evolutionary biology, I don't doubt your intelligence, just your willingness to apply it in certain areas where you don't like the conclusions.
Science 101 has already proved they know an awful lot more about the subject that most people I've had the pleasure of discussing it with here. But at the end of the day, science involves facts. If Science 101 wishes to move an opinion of theirs to the realm of fact it needs evidence. There is no evidence I am aware of that would prove that the impression evolution has a goal is anything more than an illusion of perspective.
Raindrops don't aim, but over time they typically hit the ground anyway.
Organisms don't have goals to become other organisms, but over time they typically become other organisms anyway
Paralipomenon
Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.
That makes me wince. You are ascribing to a dead person a belief in a hypothesis that had not been defined when he died, and by doing so are associating him with many negative aspects of a contemporary movement he had nothing to do with and might well have nothing to do with.
There are plenty of statements by Einstein about what he believed that one can use without resorting to a claim that is at best a bit of a stretch and at worst deceptive, although I am sure you have no ill intent in doing so.
I also doubt very much if he would continue to state in the style of a scratched record 'irreducible complexity' long after such a hypothesis has been refuted, and as this is almost defining behaviour for many believers in ID, to lump him with such is paying him no compliment.
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons
Spinoza believed everything is interconnected within one gigantic system and that this system and everything it contains is "God." Thou art god, I am god, that there rock is god, etc..
That is pantheism, not ID. ID requires a creative entity with no origin. Believing "the sum of everything that exists = god" is VASTLY different
"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman (eds) (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton University Press, 43.
Seems he saw divinity in structure and the process by which it came about, not in an entity as is required of ID, as this quote confirms;
" ...neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events."
Einstein, Albert (1940), "On Science and Religion", Nature 146
I also have to say that Einstein was a great physicist but I am unaware of his qualifications or knowledge in the field of either biology of evolutionary biology. Such a claim (Einstein believed in ID) is rather hackneyed argument from authority and as such is fallacious. It's a bit like quoting a cabinet maker's opinion on crop rotation.
While I will never downplay how amazing the universe is and all the life as we know it, I feel the only way a creator will be discovered is by trying to disprove him. Continue to seek knowledge under the assumption that one does not exist or you risk seeking with blinders on.
This I agree with.
Science101
But since I have heard evolution being called "undirected", "unguided" and with no "goal" the same thing applies the other way too.
Apart from the small fact that as there is no proof it is directed, guided or goal-orientated, stating the contrary is quite reasonable.
We will end up arguing semantics,
You say that like it's a bad thing
but that's kinda necessary for us to do.
Yup!
In the case of the word "goal" we're kinda stuck reconciling it due it having been used on the science side.
Eh? By whom? And if so, what if? 'Race' has been used in science, but it doesn't mean it's normal definition is scientifically defensible.
I Would need proof that there is no goal anywhere in evolution to claim there is no goal at all.
Like someone might say they need proof of no god anywhere in the Universe(s) to claim there is no god at all? Not having a go, just exploring your thinking; you will be aware one could substitute any supposedly mythological unproven entity for god.
Whilst the statement is true, one can also say if there is no provable god, tooth fairy or goal in evolution in all the study of those entities/subject areas, one can carry on acting as though there wasn't one, although keeping a open mind to new evidence is always a good idea.
I also wrote a program that uses the evolution algorithm to evolve sentences and it worked great. I discovered that there was a goal, to write sentences.
You didn't discover there was a rule. You wrote a program, and the rules within that program (which you put there) ended up making sentences. How can you discover something that you knew you put in there?
You could equally write a program that generated random non-repeating number strings where each increment in the number of digits was also a Prime number. You couldn't claim you discovered the goal of the program was to produce increasing long number strings with no repetitions and where each result was a Prime number as you'd made that the goal of the program in writing it.
The robot program has no goal; you see it working as a goal. Thus my point about evolution only having goals from certain perspectives
Obviously organisms have behaviours that allowed them to survive as those without such behaviour were not able to pass their genes on. But that doesn't mean they have a goal to survive. Even the drive to pass on genes is not a goal, it's just things without it aren't here
My point here is that in response to claims that evolution has no goal, I probably have more evidence that there is a goal,
With respect, no you don't.
You have a program you made which can produce words by applying rules you built into the program.
Even if you created a program that made random rules and applied 'natural selection' by only allowing the variants which made rules that resulted in 'almost' sentences to survive and then apply new rendom variations to that set of rules to make a second generation of programs, from which you'd again select the best 'almost sentences', repeating the process until you had a program that made real sentences, the program/s has no goal. You are defining the goal from you perspective.
Saying the fact that an organism (or program) that survives has rules that allow it to survive and thus a goal to survive is ignoring the fact that those which don't have rules that allow it to survive are not there to illustrate how there only appears to be a survival 'goal' on account of only things which can survive surviving.
But I'm primarily self-taught in college level science I'm not connected to "academia" so I lack what I guess we could call it's indoctrination so I'm more free to challenge the textbook ways of seeing things.
I am largely self-taught in evo bio, although I did study to be a science teacher at University. Having experienced both I would say claims of 'indoctrination' are not really credible... in fact they do more to discredit you. Without any proof of error on the part of 'science' you are attacking the credibility of it with a sweeping claim of bias. That is so unclassy.
What you might be experiencing is the fact on a science course at University one thing you should get driven through your brain is scientific rigour. Some things are scientific, some fail the definition. Scientists recoil from unscientific stuff being inserted into science like people going to church recoil from someone in a devil suit with a turd on their head. It 's just WRONG.
Someone with a understanding of scientific rigour is not so much indoctrinated but 'suffering' from very high standards of belief. The 'text book way of seeing things' is what reduces error in science, by rejecting anything which lacks scientific rigour.
And yes, yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Coco the clown. Galileo could PROVE the establishment's belief was wrong.
Most people complaining about the bias of the scientific establishment cannot prove what they are claiming, yet are making their failure the fault of the scientific community.
It's like someone going to a club where you can get in with a duck under one arm, and making out it is the fault of the club they are not allowed in because they have a chicken under one arm.
This is a very enjoyable thread by the way, thank you.