Timescale and Neo Darwinism - some more thoughts

[johnson1010]

That was an excellent talk by Dawkins! Good lookin out, RT!

Also, not too difficult to replicate for your children, i would say.

A note about convergent evolution here.

Squid eyes, and primate eyes are both camera eyes. They are different... You might argue that the squid actually has a better eye than we do in design, because the photo receptors are facing outward toward the light, and ours are facing backwards toward our brains. The question is, how could this same structure of eye come about twice in animal species so far apart?

We diverged from squid at a point where our ancestors had only very primitive eyes indeed. Very little of the structure of the eye was shared at that point. So how is it we both have camera eyes?

The answer to this will frustrate Ant, but it is "because camera eyes work".

That is all the "magic" of reality there is to it. If they didn't work, they wouldn't develope. Or perhaps more tellingly, starting with what you've already got, the next alteration in the design can either function better or worse. The worse alterations under perform, and are less likely to be reproduced and have additional alterations develope.

"Because camera eyes work" is also why it wouldn't be unlikely for aliens to have camera eyes. They wouldn't need to share our genetics to duplicate the overall structure of the camera eye. They would just need to live in a place where photons behave like photons, and electrons behave like electrons. Anywhere in our universe where things are a bit like the earth, in other words, is a good place to have camera eyes.

So why are there eyes? Because physics works the way it works. Vision is not a thing that exists independant of reality. The sense of vision is inexorably tied to matter emitting radiation in the form of photons. So if you hear somebody tell you about what heaven or hell "looks like", they are talking about places with the same quantum laws as our reality. Places where you need physical eye balls. Places where you could build generators, and air conditioning units.

[ant]

how many small steps (represented by Dawkin's snapshots) take us from a slightly light sensitive cell to a fully formed eye, and of approximately the number of generations required for mutations to occur. An order of magnitude answer is a reasonable request for a scientific matter. After all, we are not dealing in fairy tales here. And yet, biologists like Dawkins tell us that it can't be done (of course it cant)

ant, please watch this 15 minute lecture which shows that your bolded assumption above is incorrect. Dawkins demonstrates the stages of the evolution of the eye, and explains that the number of generations required for the evolution of the eye, by conservative scientific analysis, is 250,000.

No one here attempted to use the development of the eye as an argument for intelligent design, Robert.

The plug-in vid for some reason does not work for me.

I'm certain it's a good explanation. One that I more than likely would not refute in an attempt to "prove" the existence of God. And probably one I've seen before, for that matter.

Interbane towards the end of this entire thread zeroed in on the thrust of what I wished to highlight.
Everyone else more or less had a field day propping up an army of strawmen, everything from the old design of the eye arguments ad naseum to claiming that I believed we will all eventually grow beaks.

I will need to respond to Interbane.
I disagree that abstract mathematical ability was an inevitable consequence of our ability to perform basic, useful mathematics. There is no evidence for that hypothesis, to my knowledge. And recycling another anthropic defense argument is not intellectually satisfying.

I have other thoughts on my mind as well.

[Interbane]

I disagree that abstract mathematical ability was an inevitable consequence of our ability to perform basic, useful mathematics. There is no evidence for that hypothesis, to my knowledge. And recycling another anthropic defense argument is not intellectually satisfying.

It's a fun discussion, philosophy of knowledge.

Before you reply, realize that even the most simple mathematical entities are also abstractions. There is no math that isn't also abstract.

Don't be confused by the Pure Mathematics which is 'only' abstraction, and doesn't include the real world referrents. Even simple math is also abstract, with the difference being the abstractions point to something real in the world.

I haven't thought about it yet, but you may find some good points considering the 'math sense' of animals, and whether or not they can be considered to form abstractions.

[ant]

The very idea that we are an intellectually optimistic species; that we will be able to decipher the intelligibility of the cosmos is significant.

Understanding outpacing Explanation is part of the transcendent conscious ability only found (to our knowledge) in homo sapiens, I would think.
At what point in the development of Ape into Man this threshold was crossed is a mystery. To my knowledge there is no way to trace this part of evolution. It is not simply a matter of connecting two more dots on the evolutionary tree of life and saying "this is when the transition occurred. This is when the universe became aware of itself and the finite became infinite"

Evolutionary forces "shaping" (dont load that word in prejudice) finite organisms beyond their arena seems too dramatic. The mathematics Ive referenced are responsible for that. It is not simply yet another form of "language." The implications are immensely profound. The spoken word allows us to dominate Terran.
Mathematics allows us to ask Nature questions and describe its divinity.
Why is that?

Far too many advanced Mathematicians are platonists.
And you know what I mean by that.
The language of Math is "discovered"

Given enough Time, anything can happen, including the transmogrification of inanimate matter into animate matter.
And given enough Time Math is part of the process? The Math that is predictive and explanatory of Nature's character?
How is this question confirmed by the method of Science?

Science takes us up to a point where it can go no further, after which we are left with meta science and metaphysical thought.
A Theologian awaits us there.
Theologians have been asking questions that took science 1000,s of years to ask.

[Interbane]

Science takes us up to a point where it can go no further, after which we are left with meta science and metaphysical thought.
A Theologian awaits us there.
Theologians have been asking questions that took science 1000,s of years to ask.

Theologians are not the place to find your answers when science can go no further. Epistemologists are the proper place to find answers. Pigliucci VS Platinga, Popper VS Aquinas. You'll find it depressing that no theological argument exists that hasn't been genuinely taken apart limb from limb by modern philosophy.

There are many schools of philosophy that are at slight odds with each other, so there is disagreement that fosters progress. Yet, theology is not part of this collective of schools. The trend of theology's decay has been accelerating since the internet brought all scholastic circles together. Or at least provided them a forum to discuss their ideas. In the past, exposure to the leading arguments was either through higher education or specialized books. In both cases, theology and other philosophies didn't really mix.

Go search for the best theological argument you can find, and bring it back to these forums. Make a new thread and we can discuss it. Platinga's EAAN is actually related to this thread, so that would be a great place to start.

The mathematics Ive referenced are responsible for that. It is not simply yet another form of "language." The implications are immensely profound. The spoken word allows us to dominate Terran.
Mathematics allows us to ask Nature questions and describe its divinity.

I think the larger benefit may have been due to abstractions in general, rather than mathematics. Once we had the ability to think abstractly, we could form nearly any hypothesis. The sky was the limit. Abstractions also allowed us to talk about things. Our mental concept of a tree is an abstraction of a real tree. Suddenly we could discuss trees and give orders for ambushing deer by climbing them and hiding up high. Group organization would have suddenly exploded. Strategies could not only be executed, but also dissected and discussed. We no longer needed to rely on elders with experience to lead us back to fertile lands when the snows melted. Instead, we could abstract that information and transfer it verbally.

Mathematics wasn't nearly as useful as abstract thought in general. But once we had the ability to think abstractly(thus the capacity for mathematics), we suddenly had a key to investigating the universe. Although it wasn't until relatively recently that we understood this.