I responded to some points in your post.Originally Posted by The Atheist
I responded to some points in your post.
Damn n00bs!
Maybe "more evolved" means that the organism has been subject to natural selection for a longer time...
That would make humans the lest evolved animal on the planet as we're just about the most recently-developed species.
I just think there's a danger using the term in any way, because it only ends up being misleading, and worse, it encourages the idea of goal-based evolution.
It always "works"... but the organism either survives and reproduces or it dosen't...
That's why I specified "works out". Indeed, evolution "works" every time - just that some of the evolved forms end up being failures.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
just for the record, i'll just give a rundown on the portion of his recent post that relates to my quotes. Just as background, I have not been trying to attack evolution, I'm a big fan. I am focussed on cases where I just have seen plenty of interesting points and opportunities for clarification and education missed, due to the style of discussion.
He quotes me 7 times, and here are my comments on his comments.
1) This is fine, I don't understand it, but it just looks like joking.
2) I think 'maybe' is generous.
3) I didn't need the answer, and didn't need the 'nope'. Here, the comment is throwing an easy 'nope' at a hypothetical question, and completely ignoring the substance of the criticism.
4) Another nice explanation about the pretty basic idea that evolution proceeds via random mutation over very long periods of time, with some mutations being beneficial and thus leading to change in the species. The phrase 'more evolved' is a common one (and a mistake, when moving beyond lay speech and into a more serious discussion of evolution--point taken AGAIN!), but in this case it is VERY clear in the original post by JBI that he was referring to a species that comes into existence later in a particular chain of development (specifically, he was talking about humans in relation to our primate ancestor species). It would have been so much better (and would still) if another phrase or term could have been suggested to describe this relationship. "Better adapted" maybe? Something that reflects the improved fitness that has resulted from evolution.
5) theAtheist suggests something that isn't in the original post. I do not suggest that species go extinct in the light of challenges that they know they are facing. The mutations are random, of course. But extinct species are not evidence of the randomness, just evidence that sufficiently beneficial mutations didn't occur. The question of "random or not?" is left aside in the extinct species argument (it could have--hypothetically!--been the case that the 'striving' species failed to mutate/change appropriately, and therefore became extinct). (By the way, I DO DO DO understand that the mutations are random. Does that help?)
Here's the fallacy:
i) A-->B
ii) B
iii) therefore, A.
where A='mutations are random' and B='some species go extinct'.
If anyone is tired of seeing so much typing about the same point again and again, just look at the quote and comment, and you'll see why I feel the same. theAtheist had originally suggested that extinct species are a refutation of constant improvement (e.g. non-random mutation).
6) I don't understand this. I think it might be an oblique reference to the suggestion that an unsurprising lack of evidence for transitional species strengthens the case for evolution (7), but maybe it's something else.
7) I like this, because it expands on the subtlety you were reaching for when you chose the extremely controversial'strength'.
Anyhow, I think one thing that's becoming clear is that there's a need for more clarity. Also, a bit of patience in diagnosing where misunderstandings lie, less of a reflex for the easy score, and an appreciation of an argument beyond pesky misunderstandings that might be staining its surface. Or we'll just keep getting the same stumbles, ambushes, and evasions, as the real questions and answers disappear in the distance of quotes about quotes about quotes.
Last edited by billl; 05-25-2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason: added "evidence for" to number 6.
This thread reminded me of a film called idiocracy In this film dumb people have way more children than intelligent people. This scenario with dumb people breeding excessively and intelligent people dying out eventually leads to a society that borders on the brink of a total breakdown where people are generally stupid. I found this a splendid example of evolution, where a mutation didn't quite work out for the species. The film doesn't let it go that far, and an average Joe from the present goes and saves the future. In this scenario, evolution didn't quite work out for humans, as they were on the brink of extinction in the scenario, it is only thanks to the rules of Hollywood film making that the scenario had a specific plot that resolved the issue and humanity had a second chance to continue on their evolutionary path to the next extinction.
The Atheist I agree with you. If in whatever way there ever was truth in the scenario described above, you know what to do.
Muhahaha! It has Electrolytes....
There is no darkness, there is no light, there is only Lasagne!
It would be very helpful if you could quote the bits you're responding to, but I'll do my best:
Not entirely joking - I have one my best friends call me a pimp all the time. A recruiter, or head-hunter, is just finding the person most likely to result in a fee, so the analogy is reasonably apt. An HR practitioner will be more likely to be a mediator type who is indeed empathic. RTecruiters do faux empathy, but only where there's a dollar in it. Think used car salesman selling people to the highest bidder - that's my industry.
Hell, I'm a generous bloke.
I was trying to show that I don't see any substance in the comment. I don't how else to say there is no "more evolved".
I don't see better adapted working either, because it requires a qualitative assessment on no data. Who's better adapted today might well change tomorrow.
It all comes back to valuing one form of life over another from an evolutionary perspective, which I don't believe can be done. Obviously, I value human life more than trees and I value my kids' lives above those of others, but they're subjective analyses which have no place in science.
Bingo.
Just reiterating that evidence of transitional species exists. Why there's so little is explained elsewhere.
Goodo!7) I like this, because it expands on the subtlety you were reaching for when you chose the extremely controversial
I'm not going for scores - it's just my style, which can take some getting used to.
I'm not so sure that's fiction!
I've always liked Carl Sagan's take on the 20th century and beyond:
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
wow. you did it again. some of these would take a little digging to see the evasion, but people wouldn't have to dig far to see that one.
I'm not even going to respond - this tedious form of breaking things up into individual, often elided sentences is terrible - not to mention the fact that things are responded too in much the same fashion. Until a coherent argument can be formed in paragraphs, quite simply any form of dialog cannot exist. you can't quote quotes here, so the text block ultimately becomes too layered to respond, unless people write in paragraphs, which facilitate responses and thinking, rather than broken up snippets of deliberate context-manipulation.
I dunno. I like to keep things simple. Evolution is quite simply, change. The most fundamental law of everything in the universe is change. That law holds true as it is an absolute law. Evolution logically follows, since a species can't remain eternally unchanging, as that would break the absolute law that all is change. Simple, right?
By the by, I don't have the slightest clue what JBI and Atheist could be arguing about!
Dear Andave, evolution is not contrary to God! Not at all!
Just consider - if we are evolved from apes - what is the future evolutionary step? It is a being as more greatly advanced than we are, as we are than animals. There are different steps in the evolution of consciousness; matter (the physical), subtle, mental, and spiritual, or supramental. Physical science knows nothing of the supramental, and I daresay that certain members would disagree with me about this. I believe in evolution, but I also believe that there is a divine life which is possible to work towards and manifest. Divine consciousness is something we do not have much association with in normal, daily life. It is as far beyond us as crossing the oceans, building cities, civilizations, and empires; with laws, reason, morals, mathematics, advanced language, and art - as all of these are - to the animals.
From India there have been more than several thinkers who believed that evolution was being guided by the divine, or being guided toward a divine life. Human life is not the highest intelligence. We are but a part of the universe, which is much greater than us. We are a part of the whole. Evolution simply means change. Humans are not the highest step in evolution, therefore not the highest intelligence. The highest intelligence is God. You may agree with this, and I may agree with you if you hold this. But I am not Christian, or any other religion. All religions are valid paths. But religion is not the goal, it is only part of the path.
billl,
If I may be so bold ... Please do consider using the quote function provided in the software that this site utilizes more often. There may be a thread somewhere which explains this function, but briefly it is something like this:
[quotes=billl] Text included here [/quote]
In the above example, simply remove the "s" from the initial word "quotes," and you will end up with the following:
I think that this would greatly increase the clarity of your posts, the quality of your exchanges, and comprehension by both your interlocutors and idle readers.
I bring it up only because I think that these kinds of threads are important, and that exchange and discussion on this issue is badly needed here and elsewhere.
JBI, I for one would appreciate your continued participation, for the same reasons mentioned above.
As an aside, I think that you can quote quotes here:
{PersonBeta responds here}"I quite disagree."
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
I don't get this at all - I was agreeing with how you saw what I said.
If I've read you wrong, I'm happy to respond.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Y'know guys,
I remember the primordial ooze.
It was icky.
OK seriously, there's something multiplicative about how life explodes on this planet, given the bacteria that blew in maybe on space dust and found purchase in tide pools.
Natural Selection depends on this flourishing of life forms over a very long time scale.
The time scale was Darwin's last hurdle. His thought was formulated (and he was not the first to notice) but could not figure out how there was enough time for everything to occur given the mindset of his age.
Once it became accepted (by Naturalists observing shells in the limestone of the cliffs of Dover) that what the church said about the lifespan thus far of planet earth being 6,000 years old was demonstrably wrong ("T'ain't so!" said they), the final piece fell into place and he could publish (pressure from Wallace notwithstanding) without fear that he had missed something that would result in a fatale flaw once the examination began of his thesis.
A brief search for evidence for random mutation's key role in evolution led me to discover this web page from a website called "Evolution 101" provided by UC-Berkeley.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1aRandom.shtml
The article mentions that there is no unambiguous evidence of NON-random mutation (no surprise there). Further, the final paragraph points to research indicating that mutations that are beneficial in a particular environment can be present in the organism even before the organism is exposed to the particular environment. This seems like very strong evidence that the mutations are not a purposeful response to the environment.
It immediately reminded me of how there has turned out to be a certain segment of people who are immune to the AIDS virus. It seems extremely unlikely that this particular immunity in these individuals results from purposeful genetic mutation in the mere decades since the arrival of AIDS. The gene is undoubtedly present in many individuals who have never been exposed to the AIDS virus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNFORTUNATELY, my curiosity in this AIDS-resistance led me to this article, which points out that beneficient mutations pre-existing in AIDS-immune individuals are probably the result of a resistance to some previously-existing form of smallpox.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
This analysis would seem to cast doubt on the (impressive to me, just moments earlier) evidence provided at the UC-Berkeley website. (Perhaps the antibiotic resistance pre-existing in the bacteria discussed there was the result of a previous exposure to a similar anti-biotic...). I kept looking into this issue, until encountering scholarly articles that are way out of my league.
This leaves me wondering what the evidence for random mutation's key role in evolution actually is. Both websites mentioned above seem to go to certain lengths to point out that research in this area is continuing, and that a certain amount of debate continues, at least regarding certain points. So far, I haven't been able to find any conclusive evidence for the randomness of beneficial genetic mutation--only evidence of beneficial pre-existing mutations, which might have resulted from previous exposures to similar environmental challenges in the past.
At this point, it seems to me that the best 'evidence' for random mutation's key role in evolution would be an "Occam's Razor"-type argument: Random mutation can theoretically do the job, so why would we need to posit a mechanism for purposeful mutation? But there might be much better, more direct evidence out there somewhere. I'm just kind of worried that it exists only in scholarly articles.
Can someone help me find a simple, clear example of evidence for the randomness of beneficial mutations? (Something better than a mere assertion in a biology textbook). The last thing I expected was that it would be so difficult to find it.
Last edited by billl; 05-26-2009 at 06:16 AM.
I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.
Can't count it out, though.
It's probably going to be more difficult than that because it's a chicken/egg question which doesn't leave room for a simple answer.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Regarding the chicken and the egg , it's fairly simple. Wouldn't you say the egg came first, and a chicken crawled out of it? There are countless of species that lay eggs, and at one point some creature laid an egg and a chicken came out of it, rather than whatever the ancestor was. Proto-Chicken!
If you'll excuse me, I have an excellent idea for a tv-series featuring a normal proto-chicken couple whose life is turned upside down when their hatchling turns out to be a CHICKEN!
There is no darkness, there is no light, there is only Lasagne!
Pursuant to space dust:
Fair enough. Not sure of the origin of the single celled life form myself.
But certainly once begun it had some tenacious qualities. Of course, we wouldn't know of the failures to thrive - anywhere.
I live on the Pacific Coast, not far from where Steinbeck wrote Canery Row, and was entralled by "Doc's" work - in real life (Naturalism I think applies here).
I have observed on the seemingly barren rock of the coast that life will sprout and grow -if not exactly thrive- anywhere it can find the most basic ingrediants (sun, air, soil, for most of the sparse looking vegetation).
It's magnificent at what it does: live!
I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
