Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 58 by Goat]

Did someone make it possible?? Please, show me the evidence that the reason the genetic algorthems worth is that 'someone made it possible'.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. As simple as that. I have found no reason, but no reason, yet to doubt that. God made everything we discover now possible.

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 54 by scourge99]

Yes , because we know what things man can make and how they are produced.

And that is proof that vastly ... vastly more complex beings could not have been created/made/designed???

No because that's not what you asked and what i was answering.

You asked : Can the hand of man be seen in technology?

And i responded saying: Yes , because we know what things man can make and how they are produced. That is, we have examples to go by for comparison if we question whether something is man-made. We don't have anything to compare for "god-made".

We also have examples of things that seem like nature designed them: for example snowflakes.


Now you've changed your question to something else. Now you ask:
What evidence is there that vastly ... vastly more complex beings could not have been created/made/designed???

That question is terrible because it shows that you don't understand some of the basics of critical thinking. In particular, how the burden of proof works. That is, rational people don't believe things about the world because they can't be disproven. Rational people believe things about the world only when they are proven.

For example, can i disprove that leprechauns or fairies didn't create complex life forms? No.

So should i believe leprechauns or fairies created complex life forms? No.

Why not? Because there is no positive reason to believe that they did.

Does that mean leprechauns and fairies didn't create complex life forms? No. It simply means that there is no reason to believe they did.




Apply this same logic to your claim:

Can i disprove that a god created complex life forms? No.

So should i believe a god created complex life forms? No.

Why not? Because there is no positive reason to believe that a god did.

Does that mean a god didn't create complex life forms? No. It simply means that there is no reason to believe one did.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 58 by Goat]

Did someone make it possible?? Please, show me the evidence that the reason the genetic algorthems worth is that 'someone made it possible'.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. As simple as that. I have found no reason, but no reason, yet to doubt that. God made everything we discover now possible.

That is what the literature of the ancient Hebrews said. However, let's see you show that this is more than just a story. I am sure you have found no reason what so ever, but.. can you provide any evidence that this story (the claim) is actually true?? How do you know?

[scourge99]

scourge99:

You agree that the hand of man can be seen in technology.

However, I would say that technology evolved, and continues to evolve. Evidence is presented a few pages ago in this thread.

Would you agree that technology evolves?

Evolution is a term used to describe a process by which biological organisms change over time because of mechanisms like natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

I don't know what sense it makes to say "technology evolves" unless you are using a very generic version of the term "evolve" as in "develops gradually".

If all you are saying is that technology gradually develops, then sure i can agree with that. But if you are trying to say that biological evolution is similar to how technology develops, i disagree.

Considering that we were discussing biological evolution and now you've used the term "evolved" in reference to technology, it seems like you are trying to play word games.

[Wissing]

I'm not the only one who has noticed that 'evolves' is a good word to describe technology.

I read an interesting article by Medawar: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crs ... evolution/

Medawar explores various similarities and differences between 'endosomatic' and 'exosomatic' organs, as they evolve. Your liver came about by genetic selection, whereas your car came about by the use of human communication channels; however, there are striking similarities.

The continuity of [Popper's 'World 3' of 'actual or possible objects of thought'] depends upon a non-genetical means of communication and the evolutionary change is generally Lamarckian in character, but there are certain obvious parallels between exosomatic evolution and ordinary, organic evolution in the Darwinian mode. Consider, for example, the evolution of aircraft and of motor cars. A new design is exposed to pretty heavy selection pressures through consumer preferences, market forces' and the exigencies of function, by which I mean that the aircraft must stay aloft and the cars must go where they are directed. A successful new design sweeps through the entire population of aircraft and cars and becomes a prevailing type, much as jet aircraft have replaced aircraft propelled by airscrews.

The terminology is a little different, but I think the two are definitely analogous enough not to warrant the description 'word games'.

[Nilloc James]

Analogous does not mean a conclusion about one must be true about the other.

I have skin. Obama has skin. Therefore I am the president of the united states

[scourge99]

I'm not the only one who has noticed that 'evolves' is a good word to describe technology.

I read an interesting article by Medawar: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crs ... evolution/

Medawar explores various similarities and differences between 'endosomatic' and 'exosomatic' organs, as they evolve. Your liver came about by genetic selection, whereas your car came about by the use of human communication channels; however, there are striking similarities.

The continuity of [Popper's 'World 3' of 'actual or possible objects of thought'] depends upon a non-genetical means of communication and the evolutionary change is generally Lamarckian in character, but there are certain obvious parallels between exosomatic evolution and ordinary, organic evolution in the Darwinian mode. Consider, for example, the evolution of aircraft and of motor cars. A new design is exposed to pretty heavy selection pressures through consumer preferences, market forces' and the exigencies of function, by which I mean that the aircraft must stay aloft and the cars must go where they are directed. A successful new design sweeps through the entire population of aircraft and cars and becomes a prevailing type, much as jet aircraft have replaced aircraft propelled by airscrews.

The terminology is a little different, but I think the two are definitely analogous enough not to warrant the description 'word games'.

I agree there can be some analogous things between biological evolution and technology improvements.

But I'm very cautious about the analogy you are drawing because it seems like you are setting the stage for making an argument by analogy. Arguments by analogy in religion/politics debates are often False Analogies, which is a specific type of fallacious argument.

[Wissing]

I am defining "evolution", practically speaking, in terms of its outcome.

I am doing this because effects are far more measurable and objective than causes.

In essence, I claim that the effects of Medawar's endosomatic evolution, compared to exosomatic evolution, are very similar - so similar, in fact, that their differences can be reduced to semantic alone, as follows:

Difference #1: Instructions for passing on traits.
Medawar makes the statement,

we do in a sense learn' to develop a skin thicker on the soles of our feet than elsewhere. But information of this kind cannot be passed on genetically, and there is indeed no known mechanism by which it could be.

in a paragraph whose point is that the key difference between the two types of evolution is that one is passed on by genes, the other by human communication. However, I would argue that the unification of these two methods is not far off. Soon, humans will in fact adopt DNA into our toolkit. Thus manmade genetic tools will begin to evolve technologically; one type of nanostructure will soon be replaced by a better working model, and so on. Genes can pass on traits through natural processes, but they can and will also pass on traits at the whim of human communication channels.
The following is one of many articles on the topic:
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v8/ ... 3.189.html

Difference #2: Reversibility.

Genetic evolution is conceivably reversible.... It's very unlikely, that's all.

Medawar makes the point that, while genetic information is practically guaranteed to be passed on, technological information could in fact be forgotten. In my own words, what if Big Brother rises up and rewrites history, burns all the books, and eliminates the passing-on of knowledge?
Sure. The lines of technological evolution could be severed. But I would disagree with Medawar that genetics evolution is merely 'conceivably reversible'. What if said tyrant is into eugenics? I think there's no argument out there that says a human being can't stop the natural process of genetic evolution, dead in its tracks.

So, genetic traits are passed on by genetic mechanisms; however, humans have affected these genetic mechanisms in the past, and humans are becoming more and more adept at precisely manipulating them as we move forward. SUCH that the word 'analogy' may be the wrong word. "Endosomatic" and "exosomatic" are merely convenient terms to help us distinguish between two chunks of the same evolutionary spectrum, the way 'gamma' and 'radio' both refer to electromagnetic radiation.

[scourge99]

I am defining "evolution", practically speaking, in terms of its outcome.

I am doing this because effects are far more measurable and objective than causes.

That you want to redefine evolution in some new terms, immediately gives me cause to question your familiarity with the theory of evolution and where/how you were educated about it.

Debates about biological evolution (especially in a religious context) usually boil down to ignorance and misconceptions about what the Theory of Evolution actually is.

In essence, I claim that the effects of Medawar's endosomatic evolution, compared to exosomatic evolution, are very similar - so similar, in fact, that their differences can be reduced to semantic alone, as follows:

I've taken a few biology courses in college adn read a few of the more popular books about it. It wasn't my final major but i know a bit about it. But never have I heard anyone talk about "endosomatic evolution" or "exosomatic evolution". A google search provides almost nothing and the few places where "endosomatic" and "exosmatic" are mentioned in the same paragraph as evolution, are in highly detailed white papers far over my understanding.

This is again, another warning sign that causes me to question your familiarity and understanding of biological* evolution.

*notice I say "biological evolution" or "The Theory of Evolution" so as to distinguish it from the generic term "evolution/evolve". Normally i don't need do this, but with your very loose use of the terms, I am going to have to request that you be very specific about what definition you are using when you use the term "evolution" so as to clear up confusion and miscommunication.

Difference #1: Instructions for passing on traits.
Medawar makes the statement,

we do in a sense learn' to develop a skin thicker on the soles of our feet than elsewhere. But information of this kind cannot be passed on genetically, and there is indeed no known mechanism by which it could be.

in a paragraph whose point is that the key difference between the two types of evolution is that one is passed on by genes, the other by human communication.

1) the development of thicker soles can be accounted for by something known as adaptation. I'm not an expert but it would seem that the capability to develop thicker skin is a trait that is passed on through genes. So contrary to your claim that it can't be accounted for by genes, I'm fairly certain it is.

2) I don't know what it means to say that "evolution is ... by human communication". That sounds like some type of Lamarkian-like evolution spinoff. Larmarkian evolution is demonstrable false.

However, I would argue that the unification of these two methods is not far off. Soon, humans will in fact adopt DNA into our toolkit. Thus manmade genetic tools will begin to evolve technologically; one type of nanostructure will soon be replaced by a better working model, and so on. Genes can pass on traits through natural processes, but they can and will also pass on traits at the whim of human communication channels.

This paragraph is largely gobbledegook. For example, "one type of nanostructure"??? "pass on traits at the whime of human communication channels??what??

It seems like you are saying that human evolution will occur both naturally and by human intervention.

The problem with that is that human fiddling with genes isn't "biological evolution". Biological Evolution as described by the Theory of Evolution is a term used to describe NATURAL changes due to NATURAL causes like natural selection and genetic drift. What you are describing is human genes changing by human intervention. So its misleading, and perhaps equivocation, to say that it is "evolution". This sort of equivocation is the word-games I've suspected you were going to play all along. And now, it seems, my suspicions are being confirmed.

Difference #2: Reversibility.

Genetic evolution is conceivably reversible.... It's very unlikely, that's all.

Medawar makes the point that, while genetic information is practically guaranteed to be passed on, technological information could in fact be forgotten. In my own words, what if Big Brother rises up and rewrites history, burns all the books, and eliminates the passing-on of knowledge?
Sure. The lines of technological evolution could be severed. But I would disagree with Medawar that genetics evolution is merely 'conceivably reversible'. What if said tyrant is into eugenics? I think there's no argument out there that says a human being can't stop the natural process of genetic evolution, dead in its tracks.

There is a faulty assumption in this line of thinking you present. It presumes there is some goal or objective to biological evolution. That there is a some goal or forward progress in biological evolution therefore you question whether that progress or goal could be reversed. Without that assumption being granted, the entire argument falls apart and becomes nonsense.

There is no goal or objective with biological evolution. Its just a natural UNGUIDED process. Biological evolution has no goal or purpose anymore than electricity has the goal or purpose to follow the path of least resistance. Thus it makes no sense to talk about "reversing" evolution.

However, you seem to (falsely) believe that human tinkering of genes could be properly called biological evolution. So from that mistaken perspective it can sort of make sense to ask whether human goals and purposes to "evolve" humans could be reversed. But to reiterate my objections, your perspective rests on :
1) the faulty assumption that evolution is purposeful/goal_oriented
2) equivocation with the term "evolution".

So, genetic traits are passed on by genetic mechanisms; however, humans have affected these genetic mechanisms in the past, and humans are becoming more and more adept at precisely manipulating them as we move forward. SUCH that the word 'analogy' may be the wrong word. "Endosomatic" and "exosomatic" are merely convenient terms to help us distinguish between two chunks of the same evolutionary spectrum, the way 'gamma' and 'radio' both refer to electromagnetic radiation.

Humans tinkering with genes is not an example of biological evolution. For example, suppose we play with our genes to make everyone smarter. That wouldn't be an example of biological evolution. We might say that humans have "evolved" (I.E., using the general definition of "evolve" as changed over time) but it wouldn't be an example of biological evolution. Your argument that tinkering with our own genes is an example of biological evolution is equivocation. It precisely the word games I've been suspicious of the entire time.

[Wissing]

Google is highly suspect as a source of information, because it tends to give you what you want to see (based on your search history). That being said, there's not an info source out there that's not highly suspect, so I'll concede the point as moot.

The 'exo' and 'endo' terms are just terms used by the author I quoted. They are not orthodox, but they do have a meaning. The author is comparing biological evolution to technological evolution. He uses the 'endo' term to describe evolution within us (i.e. biological), and the 'exo' term to describe evolution outside of us (i.e. technological).

What I'm calling 'nanostructures' are essentially "whatever technologies we might create that involve DNA and are smaller than 1 micron". That's not in the dictionary, by the way. I apologize for not defining my terms more clearly.

The "thicker skin on the soles of our feet" was a reference to shoes. The author was making a point. I apologize if that was confusing; I am trying to cut down on an already super-long post as it is, and I prefer to leave out explanations unless critical.

If you feel I have an inadequate understanding of evolution, I would be very interested in some clarifying quotes by Darwin or possibly a presentation from your Biology class to clear up my lack of understanding. It is true that there is much terminology I am not familiar with, however, I feel that I understand the concept just fine.

Moving on.

Here's the argument. It's really not all that earth-shattering... just a minor point:

Premises:
1.) The car evolves.
2.) The car is created.
3.) Both processes are necessary for the car to exist in its current state.

Conclusion:
At least one entity in existence can both evolve and be created.


The point is to counter the idea that "if we evolved, we need not have been created".
To successfully counter that idea, I would then have to insert the premise that I've been working on the past few posts - that the car (technology) can in fact be compared to the human (biology), inasmuch as the compatibility of evolution and creation are concerned.

Which really just boils down to a little question - how do we define "life"?