• In total there are 22 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 22 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

I think it's a dumb analogy.
I think it's stupid for several reasons.
One reason is you think you've found a clever way to avoid a reasoned discussion on what I have highlighted concerning the particulars of consciousness and how neo darwinism can not and essentially does not address.
The analogy addressed something very particular. Which was your question "What way did it happen?", with the example of an eyeball.

No, the analogy doesn't address the origin of consciousness. That doesn't mean it doesn't address the faulty thinking regarding how an eyeball developed. It's a purposeful analogy, so don't expect it to do something I didn't intend for it to do. In fact, the first time in this thread I see mention of "consciousness" is your most recent post.

I would actually rather discuss the particulars of consciousness. It's more fun, a slippery topic. If that's what you'd rather discuss, then I'm all for it. I'll develop an analogy for consciousness as well, if you wish. But you have to promise not to try moving the goalposts again and claim my analogy is meant to explain abiogenesis(and is therefore disingenuous). I have a different analogy for abiogenesis. I can give you that analogy as well, but I'm afraid you'll think that it is meant to explain the origin of natural laws at the start of the universe.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
I think it's a dumb analogy.
I think it's stupid for several reasons.
One reason is you think you've found a clever way to avoid a reasoned discussion on what I have highlighted concerning the particulars of consciousness and how neo darwinism can not and essentially does not address.
The analogy addressed something very particular. Which was your question "What way did it happen?", with the example of an eyeball.

No, the analogy doesn't address the origin of consciousness. That doesn't mean it doesn't address the faulty thinking regarding how an eyeball developed. It's a purposeful analogy, so don't expect it to do something I didn't intend for it to do. In fact, the first time in this thread I see mention of "consciousness" is your most recent post.

I would actually rather discuss the particulars of consciousness. It's more fun, a slippery topic. If that's what you'd rather discuss, then I'm all for it. I'll develop an analogy for consciousness as well, if you wish. But you have to promise not to try moving the goalposts again and claim my analogy is meant to explain abiogenesis(and is therefore disingenuous). I have a different analogy for abiogenesis. I can give you that analogy as well, but I'm afraid you'll think that it is meant to explain the origin of natural laws at the start of the universe.

The origin of the eyeball was an exemplar of what it is that requires further scientific inquiry as related to development, e and approximation of generations of development. I thought that was pretty clear. It wasn't an ID'er attempt to find a "gotcha!" gap. I even wrote that my entire post was not meant to deny evolution of creatures.

Your eyeball is different from your brain.
And the relationship between mind and brain remains unanswered. It actually is quite contentious.
Unless of course you are going to say that we have resolved this matter as well by evolutionary hypothesis.
Are you?
If so, is the process experimentally replicable? We'd want that as armchair scientists, wouldn't we?
Or is the explanation "It happened so it must have happened this way" good enough for all us empirically minded people?

Of course not.

Also, I've specifically mentioned certain aspects of consciousness that have NO relation to neo darwinian evolutionary processes. I wasn't moving any goal posts.

I know of punctuated eq, (mentioned by Geo).
I've forgotten.., what does PE have to say about consciousness?
And does it address the specifics I've mentioned? Is it a satisfactory explanation, or one that is dressing up "It happened so it must have happened this way" ?
That's too unscientific for me.

Actually, I agree with Paul Davies - Science may in fact be a BETTER way to "find God" than religion.
That must turn your stomach, huh?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

If so, is the process experimentally replicable? We'd want that as armchair scientists, wouldn't we?
A process does not need to be repeated for us to determine that it happened. We don't need to re-erode Nevada to form the grand canyon just to be sure that erosion is what caused it.

The need for repeatable experiments applies to the experiments, not to the processes under study. If one experiment shows a clear chain of progression from one species to the next, then that experiment should be repeatable. But that does not mean the actual progression under study must be repeated. That's not what "repeatability" in science refers to.
Or is the explanation "It happened so it must have happened this way" good enough for all us empirically minded people?
That's a straw man position. The real quote would look something like this: "It happened, and all the evidence shows it happened this way." If we're still referring to your initial example(the eyeball), then there is a great deal of evidence that shows how it has developed. Just because we don't know everything about how it developed doesn't mean we know nothing. We know enough to arrive at a conclusion, despite your attempts to suggest otherwise.
Also, I've specifically mentioned certain aspects of consciousness that have NO relation to neo darwinian evolutionary processes. I wasn't moving any goal posts.
You had to have been the one moving the posts, because I was referring to the eyeball, not consciousness. You're rationalizing here, if you aren't yet aware.


I retract my earlier statement, it seems that the analogy does go far enough to apply to consciousness as well(although that wasn't my initial intent). Let's start with Jaynes' explanation. Read through the summary and evidence before you reply to this post.

http://www.julianjaynes.org/summary-of- ... theory.php
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

I've re-read the link and have one question that immediately came to mind (among a few others that may turn out to be non-questions:

link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215105.htm


Quote from article:
By studying a "living fossil," Platynereis dumerilii, a marine worm that still resembles early ancestors that lived up to 600 million years ago.
What exactly is a "living fossil"? Sounds like a misnomer.
A true fossil remains unchanged, preserved in its original state.
"still resembles" early ancestors implies that it is not a fossilized replica but only resembles something. Over the course of 600 million years, does anything stay the same?
What evidence is there to back such a claim?


Quote from article:
So how did EMBL researchers finally trace the evolution of the eye?
Word: "trace"

1. To follow the course or trail of: trace a wounded deer; tracing missing persons.
2. To ascertain the successive stages in the development or progress of: tracing the life cycle of an insect; trace the history of a family.
3. To locate or discover by searching or researching evidence: trace the cause of a disease.
4. To draw (a line or figure); sketch; delineate.
5. To form (letters) with special concentration or care.
6.
a. To copy by following lines seen through a sheet of transparent paper.
b. To follow closely (a prescribed pattern): The skater traced a figure eight.



What were the successive stages ascertained that enables a connecting of one evolutionary branch (homo sapiens) to another (this worm).
Can we call this a "route closely followed" or something still that is more of a "This looks like the direction to follow"


The language here is telling
Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

ant wrote: Or is the explanation "It happened so it must have happened this way" good enough for all us empirically minded people?

Of course not.

Also, I've specifically mentioned certain aspects of consciousness that have NO relation to neo darwinian evolutionary processes. I wasn't moving any goal posts.

I know of punctuated eq, (mentioned by Geo).
I've forgotten.., what does PE have to say about consciousness?
And does it address the specifics I've mentioned? Is it a satisfactory explanation, or one that is dressing up "It happened so it must have happened this way" ?
That's too unscientific for me.

Actually, I agree with Paul Davies - Science may in fact be a BETTER way to "find God" than religion.
That must turn your stomach, huh?
There's a lot of confusion on this thread because I don't think Ant is really making any kind of specific argument. Are we talking about the eyeball? Math ability? So I keep trying to pin Ant down. He seems to be saying, I'm not convinced that evolution explains the brain's capacity for math ability and other areas of higher consciousness. There must be another mechanism at play here.

I would assume that Ant means the alternative mechanism is God, but I don't really know.

But that's not much of an argument when you get down to it. It's a negative argument for one. I'm personally not familiar with the scientific theories regarding consciousness, but I'm pretty sure no one has connected the dots so clearly as to satisfy Ant. Much of this is very speculative territory. We don't really understand the nature of consciousness, so I'm pretty sure we don't know the exact evolutionary mechanisms that gave rise to it.

As I said before, science doesn't provide absolutes, but on the other hand, in science's long reign, we've not attributed one discovery to supernatural causes. But that's what we're supposed to do here? Ant?

I brought up several things that have been all ignored. For example, what about the genetic code shared between us and the bonobo and chimp? Where does God's invisible hand start in the animal kingdom? Is it present in the frog? Does it start with the chimpanzee? How do we distinguish between organic life and inorganic matter? What is the nature of consciousness? None of us have claimed simple answers to any of these questions, but they are inevitably part of the discussion.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

We don't need to re-erode Nevada to form the grand canyon just to be sure that erosion is what caused it.
This is yet another one of your ridiculous analogies meant to explain away questions that are very reasonable.

We know the exact rout to take to the Grand Canyon. And it's something we can repeat over and over and over and over and over again. You can do it. I can do it. Geo can do it. Dexter can do it. Tulips can do it.

We don't know the exact route from a worms eye, excuse me, "living fossil," to our eyes.
And it's not something we can "TRACE" in the same fashion over and over and over and over again.
We can not confirm it.

Once again, I'm getting tired of saying it; this is not to refute evolution. Rather, it's to expose the joy there is in guess work when you're only simply really trying to back a claim that ORIGINS can be explained conclusively, minus the customary evidence demands of TRUE SCIENCE.

I WIN
YOU LOSE :)
Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

ant wrote:I've re-read the link and have one question that immediately came to mind (among a few others that may turn out to be non-questions:

link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215105.htm
One more thing and then I'll leave. I promise

Hopefully, you're not going to dismiss evolutionary science based on a Science Daily article. This is not science, but basic summarizing of science-related news. The article you posted earlier about humans evolving beaks was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing scientific about that article. It was sheer nonsense probably written by a reporter with no science background who had fifteen minutes to spare on a Friday afternoon.

If you want substance, read books written by credible scholars.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

geo wrote:
ant wrote:I've re-read the link and have one question that immediately came to mind (among a few others that may turn out to be non-questions:

link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215105.htm
One more thing and then I'll leave. I promise

Hopefully, you're not going to dismiss evolutionary science based on a Science Daily article. This is not science, but basic summarizing of science-related news. The article you posted earlier about humans evolving beaks was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing scientific about that article. It was sheer nonsense probably written by a reporter with no science background who had fifteen minutes to spare on a Friday afternoon.

If you want substance, read books written by credible scholars.

This article is a mess. It was actually of great assistance to me.

BTW,

I didn't really believe we are all going to grow beaks by the end of the year.
That article was actually a starting point for my questions/points related to what neo darwinism points to as being a necessary adaptation for survival and what can not be seen as a darwinian "tool of survival" and can not be considered a "happy spin-off" to be shrugged at by neo darwin hardliners. It's a laziness that should be brought to light.
You know, kind of like the laziness of "GODMUSTHAVEDIDIT"?
Further more, I still believe that someone like Johnson, from a darwinian lens would rather have the beak than advanced mathematical abilities that do nothing for survival of the species. I think he believes math is just icing on the cake. What evidence he has of that, I do not know.

Please don't leave. Interbane needs your help ;)
Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

Dexter,
If you want substance, read books written by credible scholars.
Last edited by ant on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

Unread post

ant wrote: Please don't leave. Interbane needs your help ;)
Well, I would just be repeating the same stuff that you just keep ignoring.
ant wrote: Once again, I'm getting tired of saying it; this is not to refute evolution. Rather, it's to expose the joy there is in guess work when you're only simply really trying to back a claim that ORIGINS can be explained conclusively, minus the customary evidence demands of TRUE SCIENCE.
Why don't you just come out with it and tell us what you are arguing. That way we won't have to speculate.

By the way, do you even know what a Neo-Darwinist is? It's a rather useless term, but even so, it seems like you're trying to give the term negative connotations.

Neo-Darwinism—Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”