Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 318 (282340)
01-29-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by babelfish
01-29-2006 2:30 PM


Grampa and Gramma Gene Pool
I mean, isn't it vitally important that you exist now because of evolution not only because of where you came from, but where you and your descendents are going. Doesn't that make your life more significant? Doesn't that place vital importance upon you being here now? You are the result of an extensive and ancient gene pool and it is important that you add your own to it.
Amazing what can be said with a straight face.
This OUGHT to be lines for a comic routine.
I guess we can learn to accept anything if we work at it.
Reminds me of a little comedy routine a friend would do -- Variations on behavioristic desensitization routines, for instance as applied to Fear of Driving -- or fear of having an accident while driving.
quote:
...now imagine you are getting your speed up to fifty, good, good, breathe deeply, relax .. now sixty... fine, you're doing very well, just remember to relax and breathe deeply... Now I want you to imagine the brake giving out... that's just a little hard, isn't it, but you got this far last time, so just relax, relax, good, good. Try it again. Picture the car, hear the hum of the engine, see the tractor trailer jackknife across your lane. Doing MUCH better with that. Feel the brake pedal giving way under your foot ... just let it go, breathe deeply. Steering to avoid the pile-up... Now the car is leaving the highway... good good ...and now you can see the concrete wall coming up fast ... good good, you're doing very well... and now that is the engine hurtling toward you through the dash board...
I'm sure it was funnier the way he did it. But all this insistence that the principles of evolution don't diminish us as human beings, how we just have to learn to take comfort and pride in our place in "an extensive and ancient gene pool" reminds me of the same kind of thinking.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 04:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by babelfish, posted 01-29-2006 2:30 PM babelfish has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 318 (282341)
01-29-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by nator
01-29-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Just a little theory
A major tenet of the faith is that it is GIVEN to us for NO merit of our own.
quote:
That's one of many interpretations.
Since there's no such thing as a "correct" interpretation of the Bible, all interpretations are equally valid.
Well, some do manage to regard it as a mere interpretation so I'm not going to argue it, but I will quote this statement of it, which seems pretty unambiguous to me, but then I'm sure it can be made into something ambiguous if somebody has a mind to, which, again, I won't argue:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 04:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by nator, posted 01-29-2006 3:34 PM nator has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 273 of 318 (282343)
01-29-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by robinrohan
01-29-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Just a little theory
robinrohan writes:
Now it is true that evolution tells us that we are no more significant than a snail.
Evolution says nothing at all about our significance, other than that we are well adapted to our niche (as is any successful species).
If you see evolution as speaking to our significance, that is something you are reading into the theory. It isn't anything that is part of the theory.
I see our significance as having to do with who we are and what we do (as a species). I don't see "how we got here" as relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 11:54 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 4:46 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 274 of 318 (282347)
01-29-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by nwr
01-29-2006 4:27 PM


Re: Just a little theory
It's a logical inference from the theory which has been effectively defended on this thread. To keep arguing this is just to keep the whole thing in confusion. You are simply insisting on your own definition and your own criteria and refusing to grasp what is being said here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 04:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 4:27 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 5:14 PM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 275 of 318 (282350)
01-29-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
01-29-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Just a little theory
It's a logical inference from the theory which has been effectively defended on this thread.
There is no logic that would allow inference as to our significance from the theory of evolution. Those who make such an inference are bringing in their own assumptions, and relying on those assumptions as part of the premises they use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 4:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 5:21 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 318 (282352)
01-29-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by nwr
01-29-2006 5:14 PM


Re: Just a little theory
No, you are merely insisting on your own definition of "significance" and imposing YOUR assumptions on this conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 5:14 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 5:26 PM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 277 of 318 (282354)
01-29-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
01-29-2006 5:21 PM


A challenge to Faith
If it is logical inference, then post the logic steps to demonstrate the inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 5:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 6:34 PM nwr has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 278 of 318 (282355)
01-29-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by robinrohan
01-29-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Just a little theory
robinrohan
But the Christian or whatever does not believe that. He believes that everyone is monitored by God. I suppose one might say that the Christian is conceited about the entire human race, but that's not egotism
So what does it mean that you are conceited about the human race? How does this affect how you interact with your fellow man? Terrorists who sacrifice themselves on the belief that they are to be rewarded for the death of those who do not believe as they do are included in that human race you speak of? Are Transexuals ?, child molesterers?
Is everyone in your view entitled to equality in all aspects of human relationship?
Now it is true that evolution tells us that we are no more significant than a snail. (Gastronomically speaking, we are inferior to the snail--if you care for escargot). What we do or don't do matters not in the least in the long run, in the objective run. It is of no more importance than any other natural event.
Evolution does not employ significance. Significance is a matter of human convention based on comparison of one or a few aspects of an animal with others of another species. Do you beleive humans to be superior RR?
But I do find it very strange that my great-to-the-nth grandfather was a lizard, large or small. That's the part I find mind-boggling.
So you have traced your family tree back far enough to conclude what your ultimate ancestor was?

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 11:54 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by NosyNed, posted 01-29-2006 6:07 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 282 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 8:19 PM sidelined has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 279 of 318 (282357)
01-29-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by sidelined
01-29-2006 5:47 PM


Nth to the ... grandfathers
So you have traced your family tree back far enough to conclude what your ultimate ancestor was?
Why do you make this comment?
The whole point is that we all find the idea that at some point in the past a real, actual grandfather of ours was a lizard (or a reasonable facsimile of it) to be something significant. I think it is cool.
Clearly others do not find it so cool. It for them very unsettling. Of course, there are lots of truths that are unsettling; some of us deal with them and others have to hide from them.
We all hide from some truths. It seems some hide from more. Why someone can't deal with somethings is an interesting thing to explore with them. I don't see your comment helping with that explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by sidelined, posted 01-29-2006 5:47 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by sidelined, posted 01-29-2006 6:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 280 of 318 (282366)
01-29-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by nwr
01-29-2006 5:26 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
I don't know if I can make a syllogism out of this. Maybe you can after you read it.
I would start with a definition: Significance = objective significance, not subjective. Value, importance, in the Great Scheme of Things, not just to ourselves or selected others in our lives.
Usually includes the idea that human beings are something different from and superior to animals, morally and intellectually. Certainly places a high value on our moral abilities, and also on our capacities for feeling.
Western Civilization in particular has developed a very high view of humanity, largely based on Christianity -- until the last couple of centuries.
Since science became God as it were, we are told we are arrogant for thinking highly of humanity as such. We are to understand that as far as objective significance in the Great Scheme of Things, that we are of no more importance than snails and amoebas and skunks. {abe: I don't know if escargot tastes better than human flesh. I guess we could get really Objective and along with abortion and euthanasia on demand, start pushing for human "crops" for supplying the Gourmet Palaces of Gracious Living. Martha Stewart could do quite a series on it I'm sure. Evolution wouldn't care. Sorry, don't mind me, just got a little carried away there}.
Evolution treats us as nothing special at all, just another animal, oh yes a highly specialized and perhaps interesting one from the point of view of some scientists (not that many it seems), but nothing different in kind, or superior except in the most accidental and unimportant ways.
There is nothing about us that makes it either necessary or important that we exist at all. The universe could very well do without us, and as a matter of fact we hear it all the time that the universe would do a LOT better without us altogether (of course those who say that do tend to exempt themselves, being themselves paragons of care for the good of the planet and other life forms, etc, but that's another subject).
According to Evolution, all our capacities for thought and feeling are nothing more than adaptations for the sake of improved survival. The highest value in the evolutionary scheme is survival. Love, for instance, from the point of view of evolution, is of value only in that it tends to enhance bonding, which enhances the survivability of the species. There is nothing of any intrinsic importance about love in the Great Scheme of Things. If hate did a better job of enhancing survival, then hate would be the defining characteristic wherever it confers that "benefit." Evolution doesn't care. Same with all our abilities, higher math for instance, their value is in their ability to keep the "species" moving along evolutionarily.
So from the point of view of classical Western liberal humanism (which I claim developed out of the Christian worldview but that's neither here nor there at this point), there is something tragic about our condition, all this capacity for great things that developed for the most trivial of purposes.
We're way overqualified for the job evolution assigned us.
This is something we must accept by accepting evolution, to tie it into the title of the thread.
I'm sure there are many ways this post can be misunderstood and garbled, but I hope you will make an effort to see where I'm coming from and how it is a different perspective from yours that you can't just answer by asserting yours.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 06:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 5:26 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 8:45 PM Faith has replied
 Message 284 by Quetzal, posted 01-29-2006 9:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 285 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 9:39 PM Faith has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 281 of 318 (282369)
01-29-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by NosyNed
01-29-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Nth to the ... grandfathers
NosyNed
Sorry to upset you big guy, but it was a joke and not a personal jab. I should have placed a smiley face at the end of it I suppose but you need not take it as serious.
The image in my head I got from RR's post was opening a family album to reveal a very old graying picture of a lizard with a pitchfork in one hand with a farm in the background.
I blame a misspent youth for the terrible sense of humour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by NosyNed, posted 01-29-2006 6:07 PM NosyNed has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 318 (282383)
01-29-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by sidelined
01-29-2006 5:47 PM


Re: Just a little theory
So what does it mean that you are conceited about the human race?
A Christian might be called "conceited" about the human race. We are made in God's image and so forth.
How does this affect how you interact with your fellow man?
I don't know. You would have to ask a religious person. Maybe it makes one value humans more. Everyone you talk to--terrorist or not--is an immortal soul, in their eyes.
Evolution does not employ significance. Significance is a matter of human convention
That's right, and that's all it is. It means nothing--objectively speaking. We are of no more significance than the wind blowing across the Texas plains.
Do you believe humans to be superior RR?
Only in a subjective, emotional way.
So you have traced your family tree back far enough to conclude what your ultimate ancestor was?
Yeah, I have this map of my family tree. The lizard's name was "Roscoe." Quite a character he was. Great with his tongue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by sidelined, posted 01-29-2006 5:47 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 10:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 318 (282386)
01-29-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
01-29-2006 6:34 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
there is something tragic about our condition, all this capacity for great things that developed for the most trivial of purposes
Yes, although "tragic" might be a little too superior. The tragic person, in classical terms, is the man who has good intentions but has some fatal flaw, or there is a series of fated accidents that destroys him. It's more like the graveyard scene in Hamlet: just a skull. A fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. Where are your jokes now? Might make a good doorstop. Or paper weight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 6:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 10:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 284 of 318 (282402)
01-29-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
01-29-2006 6:34 PM


Humanity's Place in the Cosmos
Faith: It’s been awhile since I’ve been tempted to post on the board. I just wanted to say that I thought your post was really quite good with reference to how science in general and evolutionary biology in particular view humanity’s place in the universe. Well, the hyperbole about human food cropping aside, that is.
I would like to comment on a couple of areas, however:
Significance = objective significance, not subjective. Value, importance, in the Great Scheme of Things, not just to ourselves or selected others in our lives.
As I read this, I’m struck by an apparent contradiction. It appears (and I may simply be misunderstanding your meaning), that you are conflating two vastly distinct concepts. You seem to be advocating that there can be assigned an intrinsic, inherent “objective significance” to an object - or at least to humans. However, you then equate this “objective”, intrinsic concept with the wholly extrinsic, subjective concept of “value”.
I find this apparent contradiction somewhat confusing. Think of it this way: what is the “value” of a rock lying on a forested hillside? And yes, I’m aware that you are probably restricting the “significance” argument to humans alone, but bear with me. It may be possible to determine that that rock in that location has “value”. However, the specific definition of value in the case of our chunk of granite is entirely dependent on subjective assignment of significance based on wholly external perspectives. For instance, from one perspective, the rock may be providing shelter to numerous organisms from beetles to grubs to soil nematodes who would be completely unable to survive if the rock weren’t there at that precise location. It may also (and simultaneously) be providing a substrate for various lichens and mosses, which again would be unable to survive in that place in the rock’s absence. From the perspective of living systems, therefore, the rock has “value” as either shelter or substrate. From a completely abiotic standpoint, the rock may be said to have “value” for its interactions with the rest of the environment (for instance, because of its location it may be implicated in soil retention, retardation of rainwater runoff, slope stabilization, etc.) From a human perspective, the rock may have “significance” because of the uses to which we can put it. For example, it may be the exact right shape to be useful in grinding grain, cracking a coconut, or bashing in the head of an opponent.
In short, an object only has that significance which is imputed to it by external actors or systems. Although the significance of humans - and the “values” imputed to an individual or the species as a whole - is orders of magnitude more complex than that of a rock, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. The significance of a human is dependent solely on the individual’s myriad interactions with others - and hence the “value” of a human is dependent on the rest of the system, and the significance others impute to him/her. It is, in my opinion, rather difficult to determine any “objectivity” in this type of valuation. Please elaborate on your meaning if I have misunderstood.
There is nothing about us that makes it either necessary or important that we exist at all.
As to the remainder of your post, with one minor quibble (see below) and a couple of unimportant details, I think you have basically hit the nail on the head in terms of how evolutionary biology views humanity’s “place” in the cosmos. We are, in essence, merely one of a myriad of exquisitely adapted species on this planet. We are not inherently special by any reasonable definition of the term. I think you have struck to the heart of the difficulty many have in accepting the observations and conclusions of evolutionary science. Your post might serve as an excellent framework for exploring the “why” of this difficulty (although we don’t have much room remaining in this thread, unfortunately). To wit: why don’t so many biologists and others see the lack of “special-ness” in humans (or at least the concept that we have the same level of “special-ness” as any other of the wondrous and intricately evolved organisms on this amazing planet) as a negative? Why is that many people - and in some cases the majority of people in a given place or country - are very uncomfortable with the lack of “special-ness”, to the point that they reject one of the fundamental principles linking all of life? Does this sound like a reasonable framework for discussion?
As to my qubble:
We're way overqualified for the job evolution assigned us.
If this is merely rhetoric, then I have no argument. In fact, I think it’s kind of a neat way of phrasing it. However, I just wanted to be sure you understood - really understood - that evolution doesn’t “assign” a place to any organism. There is no progress inherent in evolution, merely survival and reproduction. What makes evolutionary theory so absolutely absorbing to me is the unbelievable complexity of both the interactions between organisms and between organisms and their environment - in short, how evolution actually plays out in time and space.
Just my thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 6:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 9:46 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 11:05 PM Quetzal has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 285 of 318 (282404)
01-29-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
01-29-2006 6:34 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
I don't know if I can make a syllogism out of this. Maybe you can after you read it.
I'm sure neither of us can.
The starting point is your definition of significance:
Value, importance, in the Great Scheme of Things, not just to ourselves or selected others in our lives.
That's not anything that science addresses at all. No science has anything to say about significance.
Since science became God as it were, we are told we are arrogant for thinking highly of humanity as such.
You are misunderstanding that (and some scientists also misunderstand it). When studying homo sapiens, science takes a value-neutral stance toward them, as it does for anything else it studies. But this is just a stance. It carries no weight on how society should value humans.
Scientists also follow pretty strict ethical rules, when using people as experimental subjects. That should at least hint that the value-neutrality is merely a stance, and not how people are really viewed.
Evolution treats us as nothing special at all, just another animal, ...
But this is not just evolution. Biology treats us as a collection of cells. Astronomy treats earth as an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star. Again, this is a stance scientists take, so that there method of study will be uniform and consistent.
If scientists didn't consider us significant, they wouldn't be so diligent about doing their science.
This is something we must accept by accepting evolution, to tie it into the title of the thread.
But we only have to accept it as a stance scientists adopt while carrying out their scientific study.
Most physicians will not handle medical problems for their family (other than trivial ones). And it is for the same reason. In order to do the best medicine, one must take a neutral stance toward patients, which is very hard to do if the patient is family.
Sure, Dawkins treats the stance as if it is the reality. But that comes from his atheism, not from his being an evolutionist. We don't have to follow Dawkins in that respect. It is entirely possible to maintain one's Christian values with respect to the significance of humans in the great scheme of things, and still be an evolutionist. Many people indeed do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 6:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 1:03 AM nwr has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024