Author
|
Topic: Evolution as a secular religion (Read 6808 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #15 on: 2003-09-21 14:01:53 » |
 |
[David Lucifer 1.1] I already mentioned that the act of creation does not require intent. The universe was created in the big bang. New stars are created out of the remnants of supernovas. The elements that give rise to life were created in stars. None of this happened with intent as far as we know.
[Hermit 2.1] I agree that intent was almost certainly missing in the examples given. However, I disagree that intent is not required for creation. English has a very rich vocabulary which allows us to select the appropriate word to describe phenomena accurately. It is a hallmark of the scientific (and legal) process that words are used in such a way as to avoid confusion. "Creation", being directly descended from "krainein" (to accomplish), undoubtedly requires intent (what is it you wish to accomplish) and thus is avoided in scientific discourse except where intent is involved. Thus
- The Universe was not "created", it was instantiated.
- New stars arise when sufficient material gathers through gravitational attraction or collision to establish fusion, but not so much as to instantiate a black hole before the fusion process can become established. They are not "created" either.
- Elements heavier than Helium were indeed produced in stars. Again, they were not created.
[David Lucifer 1.2] Evolution does not refer to only the latter of half of variation and selection. Evolution necessarily includes both. The sources of variation that you mentioned are part of the process of evolution.
[Hermit 2] Natural evolution does indeed encompass all the factors which make any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. However, the Darwinian theory of evolution, with which this thread began, refers specifically to the process of selection, not the sources of diversity. In the absence of an evolutionary mechanism, allele distribution would wander around the most common phenotype, subject to random drift which the Modern Synthesis considers at least as relevant as selection (but would not change significantly according to the environmental situation). As a result, in the absense of the selection process addressed by Darwinian evolution, the diversity creation mechanisms would unquestionably still exist, but "evolution" (in the form of Darwinian selection) would not. And, of course, the world would be a very different place.
[Hermit 2] In the interests of clarity, please decide which of the very many definitions of evolution you wish to use. From the context I understood you to mean Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. I now understand I was incorrect. May I take the liberty of suggesting that the following may potentially be useful in selecting an appropriate definition: The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution, Talk Origins: Definition of Evolution, Talk Origins: Evolution is a Fact and Theory, Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology and What is Darwinism?
[David Lucifer 1.3] It is possible to create something new by selectively removing parts of something that already exists (consider Michaelangelo's David).
[Hermit 2] So, are you saying that I would have created (I'd have done it with intent, so the word is apt, if something new was produced) the purple peas (breeding) - or the green ones (weeding)?
[Hermit 2] Yes, but. The process of creation does require intent unless you wish to abuse language (See [Hermit 2.1] supra), as the Victorians abused Michaelangelo's David's genitals, creating something much less than what already existed (pace pitiful penis).
[Hermit 2] Yes, Michaelangelo did allegedly describe his process of sculpting as taking rock away until the statue emerged - but that was poetic license. His brain, holding an image of what he wished to create, guided his practiced hands to establish an artifact which was more than simply a lump of rock. It was a manufactured physical embodiment of the ideals of the sculptor created through man-years of added value.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #16 on: 2003-09-21 19:24:42 » |
|
[Mermaid]One needs to take into account two perspectives. To the creator of a creation(or for the process of creation), intent is not always the principle ingredient. Surely, we can see that many creations were indeed accidental. Only from the perspective of the created, intent becomes visible. Sometimes, even when it doesnt exist.
Expanding and exploiting "intention for creation" is what has led some to the idea of a Creator instead of a creator.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #17 on: 2003-09-22 00:36:42 » |
|
[Hermit 2.1] I agree that intent was almost certainly missing in the examples given. However, I disagree that intent is not required for creation.
[Lucifer] I agree that if you redefine "creation" you can be more precise. But that is not the issue. I'm not arguing how the word should be defined, I'm saying how it *is* defined.
[Hermit 2] In the interests of clarity, please decide which of the very many definitions of evolution you wish to use. From the context I understood you to mean Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. I now understand I was incorrect. May I take the liberty of suggesting that the following may potentially be useful in selecting an appropriate definition: The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution, Talk Origins: Definition of Evolution, Talk Origins: Evolution is a Fact and Theory, Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology and What is Darwinism?
[Lucifer] I skimmed all the linked articles looking for any material that would support your position or argue against mine. I found none. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bits that say that evolution refers only to selection and not to variation.
[Hermit 2] So, are you saying that I would have created (I'd have done it with intent, so the word is apt, if something new was produced) the purple peas (breeding) - or the green ones (weeding)?
[Lucifer] No I wouldn't because you represent just the selection mechanism in your examples.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #18 on: 2003-09-22 04:02:09 » |
|
[Hermit 4] Before responding I'd like to quote myself from Reply 2
Quote:| The failure is not all on the part of the religious. In the main, the languages spoken by man have been tailored (sometimes deliberately (as e.g. Webster did) and sometimes simply through sloppy usage as in "agnostic") to communicate religious concepts in such a way as to minimize the inevitable conflict between religious beliefs and observation and to strengthen the acceptance of religion in a seemingly inexplicable world of coincidence. When scientists fail to take this into account when speaking, when through laziness or unawareness we use words which have become contaminated, in an attempt to defend our rational world views, we make it a great deal more difficult for ourselves to communicate effectively with the great unwashed. When we are "caught" attempting to pedantically redefine words, we generate resentment by those who are not sure of exactly what we are doing, but are sure that it is not good for their (to themselves) indispensable beliefs. Being certain (through belief) that their morals are "god given", the religious see any attempt to divorce our origins from their gods as a measure of our immorality. Being sure that their gods created the Universe, and thus predated man, the religious see any attempt to reject this assertion as a sneaky means to introduce the concept that the gods were created by man. Not seeing the ethical requirement that man have some system to evaluate the goodness of their gods before following them can be termed a "moral decision" the religious scream in quite understandable anguish that the scientific perspective is immoral and "against" them. The scientists see their work taken out of context, trivialized and dismissed (for no rational reasons) and a barrage of invective replacing reason. And conclude that the religious are inherently "anti-science." |
[Hermit 4] I would observe that it seems to me that Lucifer is sure that I am "attempting to pedantically redefine words" with all the consequences I predicted above. I am going to attempt to show that I am doing no such thing. To do this takes recourse to a dictionary. And as I observed above, this means that we have to avoid Webster and his poisoned heritage. I do not advocate this as as a general solution. As I have consistently argued, insisting on the precise meanings for words subsumed by the religious is a mistake. Instead they should simply be avoided. Unfortunately the arguments here appear to me to be thoroughly entangled in muddy words, with the potential of "a barrage of invective replacing reason". This is not my intention.
[Hermit 2] I agree that intent was almost certainly missing in the examples given. However, I disagree that intent is not required for creation.
[Lucifer 3] I agree that if you redefine "creation" you can be more precise. But that is not the issue. I'm not arguing how the word should be defined, I'm saying how it *is* defined.
[Hermit 4] I suggest that you need to examine dictionaries written by scholars who are lexicographers before they are Christians. The Oxford is the best possible source. It being a bitch to cite from, in lieu of the Oxford, perhaps the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary will suffice?
[Hermit 4] Please point to the entry which does not include intent.
Definition
create (MAKE)
verb [T]
to make something new, especially to invent something:
Charles Schulz created the characters 'Snoopy' and 'Charlie Brown'.
The Bible says that God created the world.
He created a wonderful meal from very few ingredients.
It's important to create a good impression when you meet a new client.
creation
noun [C or U]
the act of creating something, or the thing that is created:
the creation of a new political party
Their policies are all towards the creation of wealth.
This 25-foot-high sculpture is her latest creation.
The fashion magazines were full of the latest Paris creations (= fashionable new clothes).
the Creation noun [S]
in the Bible, the making of the world by God
creationist
noun [C]
a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible
creator
noun [C]
someone who has invented something:
He's the creator of a successful cartoon series.
Who was the creator of the miniskirt?
the Creator noun [S]
God
[Hermit 2] In the interests of clarity, please decide which of the very many definitions of evolution you wish to use. From the context I understood you to mean Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. I now understand I was incorrect. May I take the liberty of suggesting that the following may potentially be useful in selecting an appropriate definition: The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution, Talk Origins: Definition of Evolution, Talk Origins: Evolution is a Fact and Theory, Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology and What is Darwinism?
[Lucifer 3] I skimmed all the linked articles looking for any material that would support your position or argue against mine. I found none. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bits that say that evolution refers only to selection and not to variation.
[Hermit 4.1] Taking only the first reference provided, viz. The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution 3rd paragraph et ff. (my emphasii)
Quote:| It is important to note that Darwin's book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" did two things. It summarized all of the evidence in favor of the idea that all organisms have descended with modification from a common ancestor, and thus built a strong case for evolution. In addition Darwin advocated natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution... However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated. |
Worth noting that he ended the Origin of Species emphasizing that Natural Selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism, but this is not how this is understood, viz Paragraph 4 (and please note that this is exactly where this entire thread began, with [Wonko, reply 3]"[The]'Theory of Evolution' should not be used in the same way as 'god', but we are humans being used to be thinking in symbols, and it's hard to not to be attracted by the wonderful insight of Charles Darwin in such a way as not to find this great feedback loop taking chances imbedded in all complex systems." My comment was to "Darwin's wonderful great feedback loop" (i.e. Natural Selection), so I hope this wraps this up)
Quote:| We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient. |
And Para 7-11
Quote:The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution. In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists. |
Again, this is what I was addressing, that Darwin's "wonderful insight", his "great feedback loop" i.e. Natural Selection was not - and is not - a creative mechanism. Darwin did not know about genes or genetic distance - so he used the tools he had and worked with Linnaeus' taxonomy. Arguments based on this now outmoded concept are not scientifically rigorous although they may still have explanatory value.
[Hermit 2] So, are you saying that I would have created (I'd have done it with intent, so the word is apt, if something new was produced) the purple peas (breeding) - or the green ones (weeding)?
[Lucifer 3] No I wouldn't because you represent just the selection mechanism in your examples.
[Hermit 4] For the reasons supported in [Hermit 4.1] above.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.46
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #19 on: 2003-09-22 07:41:16 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2003-09-20 17:38:55
In contrast, a species is nothing but a label for a (till recently) arbitrarily selected particular allele distribution.
|
[the bricoleur]
Not wishing to interrupt the current debate, but could you elaborate further on the "till recently" comment?
thanks,
the bricoleur
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #20 on: 2003-09-22 12:02:55 » |
|
[Hermit 4] I would observe that it seems to me that Lucifer is sure that I am "attempting to pedantically redefine words" with all the consequences I predicted above. I am going to attempt to show that I am doing no such thing. To do this takes recourse to a dictionary. And as I observed above, this means that we have to avoid Webster and his poisoned heritage. I do not advocate this as as a general solution. As I have consistently argued, insisting on the precise meanings for words subsumed by the religious is a mistake. Instead they should simply be avoided. Unfortunately the arguments here appear to me to be thoroughly entangled in muddy words, with the potential of "a barrage of invective replacing reason". This is not my intention.
[Lucifer 5] Perhaps the term creation originally had a necessary implication of intent. That was never at issue. The point I am trying to make it that no matter what it meant at some point in the past, it no longer has that necessary connotation. You can argue that we should return to the previous definition in order to be more precise. I can even be swayed by such arguments. But it is a simple fact that today the word does not necessarily imply intent no matter how much you would wish otherwise, so your assertion to the contrary is in error and that is all I was saying.
[Lucifer 3] I skimmed all the linked articles looking for any material that would support your position or argue against mine. I found none. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bits that say that evolution refers only to selection and not to variation.
[Hermit 4.1] Taking only the first reference provided, viz. The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution 3rd paragraph et ff. (my emphasii
<snip>
Again, this is what I was addressing, that Darwin's "wonderful insight", his "great feedback loop" i.e. Natural Selection was not - and is not - a creative mechanism. Darwin did not know about genes or genetic distance - so he used the tools he had and worked with Linnaeus' taxonomy. Arguments based on this now outmoded concept are not scientifically rigorous although they may still have explanatory value.
[Lucifer 5] I'm no longer sure what you are arguing, but none of these quotes show that variation is not part of the evolutionary process. Nor do they show that that evolution does not generate new patterns (whether you call them species or allele distributions).
[Hermit 2] So, are you saying that I would have created (I'd have done it with intent, so the word is apt, if something new was produced) the purple peas (breeding) - or the green ones (weeding)?
[Lucifer 3] No I wouldn't because you represent just the selection mechanism in your examples.
[Hermit 4] For the reasons supported in [Hermit 4.1] above.
[Lucifer 5] As if I ever said that selection alone is responsible for generating new patterns. I did not.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #21 on: 2003-09-22 12:30:20 » |
|
[Hermit] In contrast, a species is nothing but a label for a (till recently) arbitrarily selected particular allele distribution.
[the bricoleur] Not wishing to interrupt the current debate, but could you elaborate further on the "till recently" comment?
The entire concept of a species is in flux.
Not knowing anything about evolution or genetics, Linnaeus' s system was purely "feature based" (phenetic) and intended to place "like with like". Darwin argued that this was simplistic, arbitrary and just plain wrong, that the idea of a species was an artificial construct (hence, no definition was really required), and that it was breeding populations (demes) that evolve. So Darwin advocated (and implemented) a classification system based on a population's position relative to other similar populations on the evolutionary tree(nominalism). Over the following 100 years Darwin's opinion gradually came to dominate and cladistic classification has replaced the phenetic in the consensus model, even though confusingly, much of the existing taxonomic system has been left in place (due to the huge cost of obsoleting the existing texts). In the mid 20th century an additional challenge (and opportunites) arose. Darwin didn't know about genetics, and as we have developed the ability to track relatedness through mitochondrial DNA we have discoved many problems with both phenetic and cladistic taxonomies, e.g. the monocladic nature of the African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus) which is unrelated to Bush Dog (Speothos Venaticus) or Dhole (Cuon Alpinus) despite having placed in the same sub-Family (Simocyoninae) within the family Canidae on phenetic and cladistic grounds. Or with the crocodiles, which, sharing a later common ancestor, are much closer to birds than to other reptiles.
This has lead to an accelerating trend in the past 50 years to transition to a mechanistic classification based purely upon DNA or "molecular cladism", and indeed as we develop the techniques to rapidly analyse and mathematically categorize life forms based on population DNA there is a strong argument being made by mathematically and information theory literate biologists, that the taxonomic system should be replaced in its entirity with a DNA coding based system of identification for individuals and populations. In such a system, the concept of family and species would become an attribute of the actual DNA identification of populations rather than the other way around. Unfortunately, it usually seems to take around 3 generations to achieve consensus in any scientific field and biology and taxonomy is no exception (and may even be slower than this). And possibly unfortunately, there are many strong arguments that can be made for adopting a phenetic approach to family ordering when dealing with molecular taxonomy - often refered to as molecular phylogenetics (if this gene is expressed than this creature has n legs, m wings, etc.).
So while we have a lot of agreement about the problems, and even that whatever answer is adopted will be molecular ( simply because it reduces errors and confusion and is much simpler and less arbitrary than its historical competitors), there is no strong consensus about whether the solution will be cladistic or phenetic.
The transition to a mathematical model based on DNA analysis, as the basis for the meaning of a species is the answer as to why a "species" is transitioning to having a non-arbitrary meaning. As the process of rapid, automated sequencing and analysis is very new (and developing rapidly), this is a "recent" phenomena.
Regards
Hermit
A few sites providing additional material:
http://www.med.nyu.edu/rcr/rcr/course/phylo-contents.html and particularly http://www.med.nyu.edu/rcr/rcr/course/phylo-intro.html
http://www.sasb.org.au/systematics.html
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~thompson/course/phylogenetic.html
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~thompson/course/Speciesconceptwd.html
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #22 on: 2003-09-22 13:23:52 » |
|
[Lucifer 5] Perhaps the term creation originally had a necessary implication of intent. That was never at issue. The point I am trying to make it that no matter what it meant at some point in the past, it no longer has that necessary connotation. You can argue that we should return to the previous definition in order to be more precise. I can even be swayed by such arguments. But it is a simple fact that today the word does not necessarily imply intent no matter how much you would wish otherwise, so your assertion to the contrary is in error and that is all I was saying.
[Hermit 6.1] Before I can subscribe to your assertion as to the meaning of "creation", the question remains, which of the given definitions does not include intent?
Definition
create (MAKE)
verb [T]
to make something new, especially to invent something:
Charles Schulz created the characters 'Snoopy' and 'Charlie Brown'.
The Bible says that God created the world.
He created a wonderful meal from very few ingredients.
It's important to create a good impression when you meet a new client.
creation
noun [C or U]
the act of creating something, or the thing that is created:
the creation of a new political party
Their policies are all towards the creation of wealth.
This 25-foot-high sculpture is her latest creation.
The fashion magazines were full of the latest Paris creations (= fashionable new clothes).
the Creation noun [S]
in the Bible, the making of the world by God
creationist
noun [C]
a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible
creator
noun [C]
someone who has invented something:
He's the creator of a successful cartoon series.
Who was the creator of the miniskirt?
the Creator noun [S]
God
[Lucifer 3] I skimmed all the linked articles looking for any material that would support your position or argue against mine. I found none. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bits that say that evolution refers only to selection and not to variation.
[Hermit 4.1] Taking only the first reference provided, viz. The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution 3rd paragraph et ff. (my emphasii
<snip>
[Hermit 4.2] Again, this is what I was addressing, that Darwin's "wonderful insight", his "great feedback loop" i.e. Natural Selection was not - and is not - a creative mechanism. Darwin did not know about genes or genetic distance - so he used the tools he had and worked with Linnaeus' taxonomy. Arguments based on this now outmoded concept are not scientifically rigorous although they may still have explanatory value.
[Lucifer 5] I'm no longer sure what you are arguing, but none of these quotes show that variation is not part of the evolutionary process. Nor do they show that that evolution does not generate new patterns (whether you call them species or allele distributions).
[Hermit 6.2] I have simply argued my original assertion that "Just one minor problem with the above, evolution* doesn't "create", it brainlessly, mindlessly and chaotically selects.". From [Lucifer 5.4 infra], which I read as meaning that you agree that additional Non Darwinian mechanisms are required to generate new patterns (and indeed random genetic drift appears at least as significant as selection in the process of evolution) , it appears that you don't disagree with this assertion. Am I correct?
*Where in context, the evolution was "Darwinian Evolution" and particularly "Natural Selection." I could have phrased it more explicitly for those not following the thread.
[Hermit 2] So, are you saying that I would have created (I'd have done it with intent, so the word is apt, if something new was produced) the purple peas (breeding) - or the green ones (weeding)?
[Lucifer 3] No I wouldn't because you represent just the selection mechanism in your examples.
[Hermit 4] For the reasons supported in [Hermit 4.1] above.
[Lucifer 5.1] As if I ever said that selection alone is responsible for generating new patterns. I did not.
[Hermit 6] I hadn't thought you did. I think our disagreement is based primarily in the fuzziness of "evolution" (now hopefully finished with Ref [Hermit 6.2 supra]) and secondly on the (still on the agenda Ref [Hermit 6.1 supra]) meaning of "creation". I was addressing Wonko's statements about Natural Selection, the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. Your responses spoke to the modern comprehension of the "evolutionary process" (which include the mechanisms of diversity and drift).
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #23 on: 2003-09-23 01:17:54 » |
|
[Hermit 6.1] Before I can subscribe to your assertion as to the meaning of "creation", the question remains, which of the given definitions does not include intent?
[Lucifer 7] The one I provided before:
1. To cause to exist; bring into being.
2. To give rise to; produce.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
[Lucifer 3] I skimmed all the linked articles looking for any material that would support your position or argue against mine. I found none. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bits that say that evolution refers only to selection and not to variation.
[Lucifer 5] I'm no longer sure what you are arguing, but none of these quotes show that variation is not part of the evolutionary process. Nor do they show that that evolution does not generate new patterns (whether you call them species or allele distributions).
[Hermit 6.2] I have simply argued my original assertion that "Just one minor problem with the above, evolution* doesn't "create", it brainlessly, mindlessly and chaotically selects.". From [Lucifer 5.4 infra], which I read as meaning that you agree that additional Non Darwinian mechanisms are required to generate new patterns (and indeed random genetic drift appears at least as significant as selection in the process of evolution) , it appears that you don't disagree with this assertion. Am I correct?
[Lucifer 7] I said that evolution requires both variation and selection. If you don't have both, you don't have evolution. It is an error to suggest that only selection is evolution. Nothing in the linked articles said that evolution is only selection.
[Hermit 6] I hadn't thought you did. I think our disagreement is based primarily in the fuzziness of "evolution" (now hopefully finished with Ref [Hermit 6.2 supra]) and secondly on the (still on the agenda Ref [Hermit 6.1 supra]) meaning of "creation". I was addressing Wonko's statements about Natural Selection, the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. Your responses spoke to the modern comprehension of the "evolutionary process" (which include the mechanisms of diversity and drift).
[Lucifer 7] Everything created even by your definition arises from mindless mechanisms if you look closely enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #24 on: 2003-09-23 05:23:20 » |
|
[Hermit 6.1] Before I can subscribe to your assertion as to the meaning of "creation", the question remains, which of the given definitions does not include intent?
[Lucifer 7] The one I provided before:
1. To cause to exist; bring into being.
2. To give rise to; produce.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
[Hermit 8] As previously observed, in the US (and it seems Canada) the language is contaminated. This contamination was inflicted with deliberate intent by Webster to promote his religious agenda (It wasn't his idea, the Jesuits worked the technique out first). Even so, it is apparently a very effective policy. Hmm, given that your Christian neigbors are a majority and in your neighborhood, why bother with dictionaries? Can't you simply ask some of them whether, when they claim "God created the world', they meant that this was done mindlessly and without intent. If they don't mean that, wouldn't that mean that the same word has now two simultaneos and opposing meanings? And wouldn't that make the word itself meaningless?
[Hermit 8] Is it possible that the gap between English and American (and Canadian) is becoming sufficiently wide that meaningful communication is effectively precluded?
[Lucifer 5] I'm no longer sure what you are arguing, but none of these quotes show that variation is not part of the evolutionary process. Nor do they show that that evolution does not generate new patterns (whether you call them species or allele distributions).
[Hermit 6.2] I have simply argued my original assertion that "Just one minor problem with the above, evolution* doesn't "create", it brainlessly, mindlessly and chaotically selects.". From [Lucifer 5.4 infra], which I read as meaning that you agree that additional Non Darwinian mechanisms are required to generate new patterns (and indeed random genetic drift appears at least as significant as selection in the process of evolution) , it appears that you don't disagree with this assertion. Am I correct?
[Hermit 8] Unmarked snippage restored: *Where in context, the evolution was "Darwinian Evolution" and particularly "Natural Selection."...
[Lucifer 7] I said that evolution requires both variation and selection. If you don't have both, you don't have evolution. It is an error to suggest that only selection is evolution. Nothing in the linked articles said that evolution is only selection.
[Hermit 8] Your assertion is incorrect in relation to "Darwin's wonderful idea", evolution through Natural Selection. e.g.
[Hermit 8] Restored quotation from [Hermit 4.1]: The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects: 1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection....
[Hermit 8] The corollary to this is that the Darwinian (not-modern) theory of the mechanism of evolution did not recognize any mechanisms of evolution other than natural selection. Q.E.D.
[Hermit 8] I suggest that rather than "being no longer sure what" I am "arguing", that you misunderstood what I was arguing in the first place.
[Hermit 6] I think our disagreement is based primarily in the fuzziness of "evolution" (now hopefully finished with Ref [Hermit 6.2 supra]) and secondly on the (still on the agenda Ref [Hermit 6.1 supra]) meaning of "creation". I was addressing Wonko's statements about Natural Selection, the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. Your responses spoke to the modern comprehension of the "evolutionary process" (which include the mechanisms of diversity and drift).
[Lucifer 7] Everything created even by your definition arises from mindless mechanisms if you look closely enough.
[Hermit 8] Before accepting your qualified assertion on this issue, perhaps you can explain which mechanisms you postulate exist which are not mindless - and what scale is required to avoid the "mindless mechanisms"?
[Hermit 8.1] Has this debate perhaps reached a point where we are looking "closely enough" to invoke "mindless mechanisms"?
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #25 on: 2003-09-23 16:24:02 » |
|
[Hermit 8] As previously observed, in the US (and it seems Canada) the language is contaminated.
[Lucifer 9] Whether or not it is "contaminated" is irrelevant. The fact is that the word no longer has necessary implications of intent. If you really don't believe me, I suggest we have a Virian vote on acceptable usage of the word "create". The vote will have several sentences using the word and we can vote on which ones we find acceptable (whether or not we agree with the truth of the content). I've seen this mentioned in online dictionaries that make use of expert panels to determine acceptable usage of words.
[Hermit 8] Hmm, given that your Christian neigbors are a majority and in your neighborhood, why bother with dictionaries? Can't you simply ask some of them whether, when they claim "God created the world', they meant that this was done mindlessly and without intent. If they don't mean that, wouldn't that mean that the same word has now two simultaneos and opposing meanings? And wouldn't that make the word itself meaningless?
[Lucifer 9] Your suggestion makes no sense. If I said that someone created an artificact, then there was likely intent. If I said a natural pattern was created (e.g. sand dunes created by wind) there there is no intent implied. The word create can be used validly in both contexts. I never implied otherwise.
[Lucifer 7] I said that evolution requires both variation and selection. If you don't have both, you don't have evolution. It is an error to suggest that only selection is evolution. Nothing in the linked articles said that evolution is only selection.
[Hermit 8] Your assertion is incorrect in relation to "Darwin's wonderful idea", evolution through Natural Selection. e.g.
[Hermit 8] Restored quotation from [Hermit 4.1]: The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects: 1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection....
[Lucifer 9] I disagree. Natural selection cannot work without variation.
[Lucifer 7] Everything created even by your definition arises from mindless mechanisms if you look closely enough.
[Hermit 8] Before accepting your qualified assertion on this issue, perhaps you can explain which mechanisms you postulate exist which are not mindless - and what scale is required to avoid the "mindless mechanisms"?
[Lucifer 9] In case it isn't obvious, this message was created by me with intent. It was also created by neurons acting mindlessly (unless you believe neurons have minds). It was also created by atoms acting mindlessly (unless you believe atoms have minds).
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #26 on: 2003-09-23 18:18:47 » |
|
[Hermit 8] As previously observed, in the US (and it seems Canada) the language is contaminated.
[Lucifer 9] Whether or not it is "contaminated" is irrelevant. The fact is that the word no longer has necessary implications of intent.
[Hermit 10] This may be true in the US, but see [Hermit 10.1] infra.
[Lucifer 9] If you really don't believe me, I suggest we have a Virian vote on acceptable usage of the word "create". The vote will have several sentences using the word and we can vote on which ones we find acceptable (whether or not we agree with the truth of the content). I've seen this mentioned in online dictionaries that make use of expert panels to determine acceptable usage of words.
[Hermit 10] Are you now asserting that the CoV can form an expert lexicographical panel? Personally, I find it easier to consult an impartial authority which is doing that job anyway. In this case, the Oxford English Dictionary (which does cover American usage as well). Please see [ Hermit, "Trolling for Donations for Definitions" ] for one possible mechanism.
[Hermit 10] However, a vote might be interesting. If you establish such a vote, please create two votes. One for North Americans, one for everyone else. I hypothesize that if anyone supports your asserion of the meaning of "creation", that there will be a geographic difference in the results.
[Hermit 8] Hmm, given that your Christian neighbors are a majority and in your neighborhood, why bother with dictionaries? Can't you simply ask some of them whether, when they claim "God created the world', they meant that this was done mindlessly and without intent. If they don't mean that, wouldn't that mean that the same word has now two simultaneous and opposing meanings? And wouldn't that make the word itself meaningless?
[Lucifer 9] Your suggestion makes no sense. If I said that someone created an artificact, then there was likely intent. If I said a natural pattern was created (e.g. sand dunes created by wind) there there is no intent implied. The word create can be used validly in both contexts. I never implied otherwise.
[Hermit 10.1] So, by your argument, the word does have two contradictory meanings. To deliberately establish something, and for something that happens by accident. In other words, everything is "created". Now tell me, how is this different from saying that everything that is, is? Given your sense of "created", what is it that makes "created" a useful word? If everything is "created", it is not useful to say that something was "created", as this in no sense qualifies it from anything else.
[Hermit 10.2] Would you say that a child who accidently knocked over a tin of paint had "'created' a mess" or would you say "he made a mess"? How about a painter? Would you say he "made a work of art" or would you say he "created a work of art"? What is the difference between these phrases? Do you see all the above as correct, idiomatic usage?
[Hermit 10.3] If, all things are "created" [Hermit 10.1]and there is no difference implied in the process of "creation" and other words like "make" and "happened" and "instantiated", e.g. there is no difference between an intentful action (e.g. creating a meaningful message) and an unconsidered side effects (e.g. "creating" a puddle of coffee) [Hermit 10.2], we have to ask why the word "created" exists?
[Lucifer 7] I said that evolution requires both variation and selection. If you don't have both, you don't have evolution. It is an error to suggest that only selection is evolution. Nothing in the linked articles said that evolution is only selection.
[Hermit 8] Your assertion is incorrect in relation to "Darwin's wonderful idea", evolution through Natural Selection. e.g.
[Hermit 8] Restored quotation from [Hermit 4.1]: The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects: 1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection....
[Lucifer 9] I disagree. Natural selection cannot work without variation.
[Hermit 10] Of course not. As I have repeatedly said before, we know this - today. But then, as the article shows, this isn't part of Darwinian evolution. I guess it is a pity you were not there to have this argument wth Darwin or perhaps he would have included it in his theory, and we needn't have had this debate at all.
[Lucifer 7] Everything created even by your definition arises from mindless mechanisms if you look closely enough.
[Hermit 8] Before accepting your qualified assertion on this issue, perhaps you can explain which mechanisms you postulate exist which are not mindless - and what scale is required to avoid the "mindless mechanisms"?
[Lucifer 9] In case it isn't obvious, this message was created by me with intent. It was also created by neurons acting mindlessly (unless you believe neurons have minds). It was also created by atoms acting mindlessly (unless you believe atoms have minds).
[Hermit 10 Only if you accept your assertion that creation can be mindless or that it is possible to assert intent in the same model as you are using to deny it. For myself, I try to view mechanisms at the level where they can have an effect. I find the idea of an intentional atom - or neuron to be meaningless. I'd suggest that the illusion of a mind is created by sum of the atoms and neurons, but that individually they are incapable of any form of creativity - just as you would have difficulty playing chords on a single organ pipe. Minds, like chords, require many simultaneous effects. Once you descend below the level where mind is present, you can't assert meaning anymore. So the message was not "created" by your neurons or their component atoms, any more than a single mindless violin string or organ pipe creates a performance of a symphony. Instead, the minds of the musicians acting under the guidance of the mind of the conductor, translate the work of the mind of the composer into operating their instruments to establish a well defined composite effect.
[Hermit 10] If the atoms making up your neurons stopped obeying the constraints placed upon them by physics, or if your neurons did not act as constrained by their construction, then the illusion of "your mind" would cease to exist, and no meaningful message could be created. But your "mind" is not a component, it is an illusion created, like the performance of a symphony, by a large number of components and mechanisms working together.
[Hermit 10] I'm going to leave this section alone until we resolve the "create/ creation/creates" problem as I don't think it is going anywhere.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Cassidy McGurk
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 128
Reputation: 7.64
Rate Cassidy McGurk
http://www.isec.info/ get me out of here!
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #27 on: 2003-09-24 18:59:15 » |
|
I agree with Lucifer, this is just a row about grammar, "create" has no religious connotations it is just a synonym for make.
Will that do David, you can pay me through Paypal 
|
I must remember to change this sig regularly
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #28 on: 2003-09-24 20:06:39 » |
|
I also have thought, and said, it was a row over grammer - amongst some other misunderstandings.
But the discussion has raised an interesting curiosity about the word "create."
The disagreement over "create" and "creation" is not over any religious meaning, but whether the act of creating something requires intent and whether this meaning is different between North America and the rest of the world. I say, based on the etymology of the word, and its meaning in the English dictionaries I have consulted (OED, Hamlin and Cambridge) that it means intentional production. Lucifer has said that this is not required, has cited an American dictionary to support his perspective and asserts that "creation" refers to anything which comes into existence through any mode.
We are in the process of establishing a vote to determine the memberships opinion.
Regards
Hermit
BTW Where have you been? Some of us did notice your absense.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #29 on: 2003-09-27 14:50:05 » |
|
[Hermit 10] Are you now asserting that the CoV can form an expert lexicographical panel? Personally, I find it easier to consult an impartial authority which is doing that job anyway. In this case, the Oxford English Dictionary (which does cover American usage as well). Please see [ Hermit, "Trolling for Donations for Definitions" ] for one possible mechanism.
[Lucifer 11] No, I am suggesting that we as a community can decide how to interpret the language we use. Maybe we can vote on an external authority to resolve discussions like these, but it will have to be something readily available to all participants. Unfortunately the OED can't be used.
[Hermit 10] However, a vote might be interesting. If you establish such a vote, please create two votes. One for North Americans, one for everyone else. I hypothesize that if anyone supports your asserion of the meaning of "creation", that there will be a geographic difference in the results.
[Lucifer 11] That might be interesting, but unless you want to split our community along those lines I don't see how that is relevant.
[Hermit 10.1] So, by your argument, the word does have two contradictory meanings. To deliberately establish something, and for something that happens by accident. In other words, everything is "created". Now tell me, how is this different from saying that everything that is, is? Given your sense of "created", what is it that makes "created" a useful word? If everything is "created", it is not useful to say that something was "created", as this in no sense qualifies it from anything else.
[Lucifer 11.1] The meanings are not contradictory. If you say that something is created by a woman, and something else is created by a man, does that mean the word create has two contradictory meanings? I don't think so.
[Hermit 10.2] Would you say that a child who accidently knocked over a tin of paint had "'created' a mess" or would you say "he made a mess"? How about a painter? Would you say he "made a work of art" or would you say he "created a work of art"? What is the difference between these phrases? Do you see all the above as correct, idiomatic usage?
[Lucifer 11.2] Yes I would say that the child "created a mess". Irvken not only agreed, he said that most people in Britain would agree that is a sensible use of the word.
[Hermit 10.3] If, all things are "created" [Hermit 10.1]and there is no difference implied in the process of "creation" and other words like "make" and "happened" and "instantiated", e.g. there is no difference between an intentful action (e.g. creating a meaningful message) and an unconsidered side effects (e.g. "creating" a puddle of coffee) [Hermit 10.2], we have to ask why the word "created" exists?
[Lucifer 11.3] English contains synonyms because it is a natural language. Why do synonyms exist if they are redundant? Should synonyms be eliminated? Interesting questions, but I hardly think you are in a position to dictate how the language evolves.
[Lucifer 9] I disagree. Natural selection cannot work without variation.
[Hermit 10] Of course not. As I have repeatedly said before, we know this - today. But then, as the article shows, this isn't part of Darwinian evolution. I guess it is a pity you were not there to have this argument wth Darwin or perhaps he would have included it in his theory, and we needn't have had this debate at all.
[Lucifer 11] Darwin knew this too. Otherwise what do you think that natural selection selects if not variations?
[Hermit 10] I'm going to leave this section alone until we resolve the "create/ creation/creates" problem as I don't think it is going anywhere.
[Lucifer 11] Good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
