The theory of Evolution! (simple)

[Pompey Bum]

Now it's only the price of the eggs. Can't win for losing.

The difference between the evolution of flight and the parting of the Red Sea is that there is a theoretical mechanism for one (natural selection) and none for the other, except omnipotence, which ends up a rather ad hoc way of arguing.

I don't think having faith is the same thing as using inference or speculation to plug the holes in what we can say scientifically. But that cuts both ways: I don't agree that those who credit natural selection as the means of evolution are using faith in the same way that those who accept Creation in seven days are; but neither do I join North in valuing one kind of "faith" over the other (although I certainly don't credit literally either of the Creation stories in Genesis).

For me, at least, there is nothing wrong with living with some mysteries, whether scientific or theological, at least for now (meaning at this moment in consciousness). There are certainly some things I "truly believe in," but theologically there is so much that I do not know; and scientifically, we don't know how much there may be that we don't know. For now, I am convinced that science makes lousy religion and religion makes lousy science, and personally, I find those who proselytize a morality of atheism (I'm not referring to you here, North) every bit as grating as "us and them" Biblical literalists (well, almost as grating). I try to recognize my own leaps of faith, and to hold them because I believe them to constitute intangible truths, and not because I find them convenient, or because they make me feel superior to others, or less scared. Again, I am not referring to you, North, or to you, Easy. I'm just referring to me.

[easy75]

Now it's only the price of the eggs. Can't win for losing.

The difference between the evolution of flight and the parting of the Red Sea is that there is a theoretical mechanism for one (natural selection) and none for the other, except omnipotence, which ends up a rather ad hoc way of arguing.

I don't think having faith is the same thing as using inference or speculation to plug the holes in what we can say scientifically. But that cuts both ways: I don't agree that those who credit natural selection as the means of evolution are using faith in the same way that those who accept Creation in seven days are; but neither do I join North in valuing one kind of "faith" over the other (although I certainly don't credit literally either of the Creation stories in Genesis).

For me, at least, there is nothing wrong with living with some mysteries, whether scientific or theological, at least for now (meaning at this moment in consciousness). There are certainly some things I "truly believe in," but theologically there is so much that I do not know; and scientifically, we don't know how much there may be that we don't know. For now, I am convinced that science makes lousy religion and religion makes lousy science, and personally, I find those who proselytize a morality of atheism (I'm not referring to you here, North) every bit as grating as "us and them" Biblical literalists (well, almost as grating). I try to recognize my own leaps of faith, and to hold them because I believe them to constitute intangible truths, and not because I find them convenient, or because they make me feel superior to others, or less scared. Again, I am not referring to you, North, or to you, Easy. I'm just referring to me.

I have read a lot of your postings. In fact I tend to gravitate towards them because I think you are a very intelligent person, a thoughtful writer, and you tend to treat everyone with respect. I definitely agree wholeheartedly with you in spirit. My faith is my own as well, and the things I have come to believe, I believe for the same reasons that you do. My belief system is more open/work in progress. I am open to just about anything, including evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. I have no problem fitting just about any idea within the framework of my faith. In fact, I used to avoid discussions like this on the internet, because they seemed pointless. Everyone who posts has their opinion and are not likely to change that opinion. Occasionally, like now, however I think about people who may come along and read this later. My biggest irritant in life is close-mindedness, and it bothers me sometimes that people don't question much of anything, especially when it comes from the communities of science and medicine. I love science, and I love medicine, but neither is infallible. History has plainly shown us that. I just find it hard to swallow that from the scientific community you almost never here the phrase "We are not sure." I know this is the case sometimes, and I think it would lend credibility to the institution if it were allowed. There must always be an answer, even if it has some pretty big holes in it. Otherwise people will lose faith.

[Pompey Bum]

That is very kind of you, Easy--probably too kind, but thank you. I've enjoyed your posts, too, and your great taste in books, and I have been happy to see you posting here more frequently in the last few weeks. There are lots of people on this site who are capable of engaging and challenging each other's ideas without closing their minds (or being rude). I don't always agree with YesNo, and Ecurb, and Jonathan (though sometimes I do) but I have learned so much from their ideas. And I'm a great fan of younger folks like Clopin, and Lykren, and Dark Muse, who are fair and open minded, but speak freely and fearlessly. And there are lots of others I'm not mentioning (sorry--I love you guys, too ). Anyway, not to get too mushy, but thank you. I'm very complimented by your comments.

[AaronP]

Oh I get it! The reason why I said that we pass down the mutations and stuff genetically was because that was how my teacher explained it to me. Thanks for correcting me

[Iain Sparrow]

I dislike the attitude that there can't be any dialogue on evolution except with 'creationist nitwits'. I am definitely not a creationist, by the way (and i can't spek for Ecurb but i strongly suspect he is not either) I'm just not exactly certain how a couple things (like reproduction) could have developed through random mutation.

I think the problem might be that your concept of randomness is overly simplistic... this is how I was introduced to a different way of conceptualizing randomness, whether it be in a biological sense (evolution), or the cosmos at large... stars, planets, moons... everything! Randomness exists within inevitability. The fact that I'm typing this right now, that I exist at all is the result of randomness on a scale none of us can imagine. The fact that a person is right now typing a semi-coherent message on a literature forum is inevitable.
How can we be certain of it's inevitability?.. because it just happened.

[YesNo]

I think the problem might be that your concept of randomness is overly simplistic... this is how I was introduced to a different way of conceptualizing randomness, whether it be in a biological sense (evolution), or the cosmos at large... stars, planets, moons... everything! Randomness exists within inevitability. The fact that I'm typing this right now, that I exist at all is the result of randomness on a scale none of us can imagine. The fact that a person is right now typing a semi-coherent message on a literature forum is inevitable.
How can we be certain of it's inevitability?.. because it just happened.

The existence of the message does not mean it was inevitable. That is just one theory explaining why it exists. The message could have been the result of a choice that was not inevitable. That would be another theory explaining why it exists.

The reason people accept deterministic-random ideas is because they do not want choice to enter into the theory in any way. That would imply the existence of consciousness needed to make the choice.

At the level of quantum physics, what one sees is not randomness, but uncertainty. Electrons sent through a double slit one at a time will generate a wave pattern, not a random pattern. They seem to make individual choices as each one goes through the double slit taking into account what the electrons going through earlier have already chosen.

If those electrons actually made a random pattern, interpretations such as many worlds would have an easier time. They could calculate the probability of an event occurring rather than having to check all the many worlds (which they cannot see) to get a result that can be used in a prediction. The uncertainty, rather than the randomness, of quantum probabilities is one of the main reasons to reject many worlds.

[Iain Sparrow]

The existence of the message does not mean it was inevitable. That is just one theory explaining why it exists. The message could have been the result of a choice that was not inevitable. That would be another theory explaining why it exists.

The reason people accept deterministic-random ideas is because they do not want choice to enter into the theory in any way. That would imply the existence of consciousness needed to make the choice.

At the level of quantum physics, what one sees is not randomness, but uncertainty. Electrons sent through a double slit one at a time will generate a wave pattern, not a random pattern. They seem to make individual choices as each one goes through the double slit taking into account what the electrons going through earlier have already chosen.

If those electrons actually made a random pattern, interpretations such as many worlds would have an easier time. They could calculate the probability of an event occurring rather than having to check all the many worlds (which they cannot see) to get a result that can be used in a prediction. The uncertainty, rather than the randomness, of quantum probabilities is one of the main reasons to reject many worlds.

The Law of Inevitability; something must happen.
The law of inevitability says that one of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur. All possible outcomes are therefore inevitable.

This article explains what I mean, it's sort of the fuel that runs Darwin's Engine...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/

[YesNo]

Although something must happen, any particular thing need not happen right now. I wonder if the law of inevitability is a falsifiable theory?

I've seen that article before. I suspect Jeremy England is trying to show that the appearance of life can be reduced to thermodynamics in some way through dissipating energy. My suspicion is that more is involved. Nagel's panpsychism may be what is needed to add the consciousness component.

I don't have as much problem with Darwinism as I do with neo-Darwinism where everything is reduced to genes being modified only through random mutations. Darwin allowed for Lamarckian inheritance.

As I see it, epigenetics is a way to reintroduce Larmarkian properties if epigenetic changes are inherited. If that is the case, then what a group of organisms do to survive affect what evolves. Evolution is then not just about reproductive activity and which genes get passed on. This also puts the focus of evolution back onto groups of organisms which change into different species and away from genes.

[Iain Sparrow]

Although something must happen, any particular thing need not happen right now. I wonder if the law of inevitability is a falsifiable theory?

I've seen that article before. I suspect Jeremy England is trying to show that the appearance of life can be reduced to thermodynamics in some way through dissipating energy. My suspicion is that more is involved. Nagel's panpsychism may be what is needed to add the consciousness component.

I don't have as much problem with Darwinism as I do with neo-Darwinism where everything is reduced to genes being modified only through random mutations. Darwin allowed for Lamarckian inheritance.

As I see it, epigenetics is a way to reintroduce Larmarkian properties if epigenetic changes are inherited. If that is the case, then what a group of organisms do to survive affect what evolves. Evolution is then not just about reproductive activity and which genes get passed on. This also puts the focus of evolution back onto groups of organisms which change into different species and away from genes.

What Jeremy England is saying, is that since we know Life doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it must be these laws that propagate life. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is one inevitable consequence of a set of conditions. The real mystery to me, is what advantage does consciousness have over a simple blob of organic material?

[North Star]

What Jeremy England is saying, is that since we know Life doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it must be these laws that propagate life. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is one inevitable consequence of a set of conditions. The real mystery to me, is what advantage does consciousness have over a simple blob of organic material?

Well the development was hardly from a simple blob of organic material to a conscious human being, or even just any old mammal. The development of proteins in the primal soup was a rather extraordinary thing, but of course them developing into cells that can multiply was something else. And the differentiation of cells that led to the development of organs and much more complex creatures. Consciousness really started with organized hunting and the need to communicate information more specifically. This, and the ability to make tools use fire for e.g. cooking meat and making bread, then led to a society where affection and hatred could be shown without fighting or fondling, and agriculture and societies would eventually develop. In any and all of the aforementioned activities, consciousness is very useful indeed, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is the ultimate measure of success. We're still unable to inhabit all the places on Earth where bacteria can survive.

[YesNo]

What Jeremy England is saying, is that since we know Life doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it must be these laws that propagate life. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is one inevitable consequence of a set of conditions. The real mystery to me, is what advantage does consciousness have over a simple blob of organic material?

If life violated what we have constructed as the physical laws of the universe, then the existence of life would falsify those laws and we have to look for new laws. It is sometimes forgotten that these laws are models that we have created.

This is why I think neo-Darwinian theory is false, although the original Darwinian theory may still be OK. The current view seems to be to be falsified by evidence collected by paleontologists that show a punctuated equilibrium process rather than the assumed uniform process that neo-Darwinists claim occurred. Replacing neo-Darwinism with something that better fits the data would be good for science.

[Iain Sparrow]

Well the development was hardly from a simple blob of organic material to a conscious human being, or even just any old mammal. The development of proteins in the primal soup was a rather extraordinary thing, but of course them developing into cells that can multiply was something else. And the differentiation of cells that led to the development of organs and much more complex creatures. Consciousness really started with organized hunting and the need to communicate information more specifically. This, and the ability to make tools use fire for e.g. cooking meat and making bread, then led to a society where affection and hatred could be shown without fighting or fondling, and agriculture and societies would eventually develop. In any and all of the aforementioned activities, consciousness is very useful indeed, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is the ultimate measure of success. We're still unable to inhabit all the places on Earth where bacteria can survive.

But you're falling into the same trap that those who believe in 'Intelligent Design' fall into.
That there is something extraordinary about Evolution tending towards complexity over time. Given the proper conditions, the combining of elements to form simple proteins is inevitable. How do we know this, because it happened. Same with consciousness.

[Iain Sparrow]

If life violated what we have constructed as the physical laws of the universe, then the existence of life would falsify those laws and we have to look for new laws. It is sometimes forgotten that these laws are models that we have created.

This is why I think neo-Darwinian theory is false, although the original Darwinian theory may still be OK. The current view seems to be to be falsified by evidence collected by paleontologists that show a punctuated equilibrium process rather than the assumed uniform process that neo-Darwinists claim occurred. Replacing neo-Darwinism with something that better fits the data would be good for science.

Why can't you have both?
Where the rubber meets the road, for Evolution at the molecular level, there are mechanisms we don't yet understand. In fact that branch of evolutionary exploration is just hitting stride. Paleontologists have had their time in the sun, it's time to step aside and let the Physicists take a stab at it.

[Clopin]

But you're falling into the same trap that those who believe in 'Intelligent Design' fall into.
That there is something extraordinary about Evolution tending towards complexity over time. Given the proper conditions, the combining of elements to form simple proteins is inevitable. How do we know this, because it happened. Same with consciousness.

Why is this necessarily true?

[Iain Sparrow]

Why is this necessarily true?

If something happens once, it's considered an anomaly... when it happens countless times, I'll go out on a limb and say it's true. And even the anomaly isn't really an anomaly... it too is inevitable.
The other inevitability about Evolution as applied to organic life... it's a dead end. More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. One day our time will come too. We live in an uncaring, harsh universe.