Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and Increased Diversity
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 140 (438860)
12-06-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Macroscopic increase of biodiversity
Why doesn't it also show that the extant biota and its potential for evolution also favored an increase in biodiversity?
It does. It just doesn't show that its necessary.
The extant biota tends to diversify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 12:28 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 140 (438866)
12-06-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 12:51 PM


Re: Macroscopic increase of biodiversity
The extant biota tends to diversify.
With or without evolution?
With evolution. How could they diversify without it?
Genetic mutations randomly provide "opportunities" for diversification, but it depends on a selective pressure for those opportunities to take hold and have an effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 12:51 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 140 (438876)
12-06-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Elmer
12-06-2007 1:03 PM


Wow, that is difficult to read.
is biodiversity, [i.e., 'variation'in bioform and behaviour], a constant or a variable, and if a variable, than the effect of what specific cause?
It's a variable caused by natural selection.
is the amount of 'biodiversity' in the biosphere inconstant and variable in the short term,[say minutes to millions of years], but deterministically expansive over the long term, i.e., the entire 'lifespan' of planet earth?
Not necessarily but things have tended to be that way.
can "Natural Selection" account for either fluctuations in the amount of biodiversity, both positively and negatively, in not only circumscribed localities, but even in the biosphere as a whole, and in both the long and short term?
Yes, as long as there is random mutation (or some other source of variation).
can "Random Genetic Mutation" do that?
No, it provides the opportunity for diversity but you need the selection to actually get the diversity.
can "RM+NS" linked together, do that?
Yes.
is the extent of biodiversity, either short-term or long-term, an adaptationist [NS], or a stochastic [RM], or a mechanically/divinely predetermined [mechanist/creationist], effect?
Couldn't it be predetermined and adaptionist? Its not stochastic.
OEC creationism, which would hold, if I understand it aright, that evolution does take place because the impulse to diversify and vary was 'built into', [i.e., predestined, predetermined, pre-programmed into], the 'original' lifeforms by a supernatural programmer, and so diversity and variation must, deterministically, [as a matter of 'predestination'] _increase_ over the long-term, i.e., the lifespan of the biosphere as a whole.
Thus the point of this thread. The ToE does not necessitate a long term increase in biodiversity, therefore we can determine that this is not what was predestined. That's not to say that the fluctions we do see are not what was predestined, but then anything could have been predestined in that sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Elmer, posted 12-06-2007 1:03 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Elmer, posted 12-06-2007 6:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 140 (438891)
12-06-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 1:42 PM


Re: two step, one step
Do I copy you correctly by saying that if a single species of bacteria were to be placed in sterile but fertile environment the only thing it could do evolutionarily would be to diversify. Otherwise it's extinction.
Or stasis.
It could thrive and not evolve and not go extinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 1:42 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 140 (438902)
12-06-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 1:57 PM


Re: two step, one step
CS writes:
Or stasis.
It could thrive and not evolve and not go extinct.
How could this viewed in an evolutionary context? Are you going to tell me that a single that doesn't evolve is engaged in evolution?
If the allele frequencies in the population changed then it would be evolving, but if it remained as one species, then there was not an increase in biodiversity.
I've come to understand biodiviersity to mean, in this thread at lease, the number of species present.
Certainly, you could argue that if the allele frequency changed, then that one species would be more biodiverse. But that would be conflating definitions.
From another angle:
If you look at what I wrote:
quote:
It could thrive and not evolve and not go extinct.
That should answer your question.
But if I look again at what I was replying too:
HM writes:
if a single species of bacteria were to be placed in sterile but fertile environment the only thing it could do evolutionarily would be to diversify. Otherwise it's extinction.
Its ambiguous as what you mean by doing things evolutionarily.
My reply might be "out of bounds" because it could be assuming that the species is not evolving when you have assumed that it is.
But things can evolve without speciating, and bidiversity is the number of species, so as long as the bateria doesn't speciate while its allele frequency changes, it could be said to be evolving without diversifying and without going extinct.
Make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 1:57 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 140 (438919)
12-06-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 2:46 PM


Re: two step, one step
Why can't it be numbers of genera or families?
An increase in the number of genera or families is also an increase in the number of species, however, an increase in the number of species is not necessarily an increase in the number of genera or families.
Sure, so long as you agree that if a species neither evolves nor goes extinct has not been engaged in that biological process we call evolution.
Agreed.
You've basically said that if a species isn't evolving then it isn't evolving. Quite tautological.
But.... heh, there's always a but
I don't think its possible for a species to not be engaged in that biological process we call evolution. Imperfect replication of DNA demands that genetic mutations arrise, thereby changing the frequency of alleles, thus evolution. If the environment lacks the selective pressure for those mutations to "stick", then the species will be in stasis and could be descibed as not evolving. It sounds like I'm contradicting myself but it really boils down to the way people use the word "evolve".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 2:46 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 7:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 140 (439104)
12-07-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Elmer
12-06-2007 6:44 PM


Sorry. Didn't intend to tax your reading ability.
Its ok. Just keep in mind that number of readers of your post is inversely proportional to the difficulty of reading.
It's {{biodiversity}} a variable caused by natural selection.
You're entitled to an opinion, just like anyone else, including any creationist. But unless you simply make that statement as an article of faith, it would be heplful to the rest of us if you would trouble yourself to back it up with empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
This thread intends to explain how the process described in Theory of Evolution does not necessarily yield an increase in biodiversity. We are not here to debate if the ToE is, in fact, correct. We are exploring the ramifications of the theory.
I’m just reiterating what the ToE says, not making matter-of-fact statements about what must be true.
Or are you saying that the ToE does not say what I said it says?
However, if you are unable to do that, I will understand.
I am able but unwilling. Can you understand that?
Not necessarily but things have tended to be that way.
Another statement of faith. It is clear that "things [have actually been] that way", but that does not logically demonstrate that this observed development was determined, inevitable, and irresistably compelled by any causal force, be that force identified as the OEC's 'divine programming', or your 'natural selection'.
Like I said, this thread does not intend to logically demonstrate the observed development. What we are doing, is discussing what the Theory of Evolution says about the observations. You don’t even have to believe that the explanations are correct to discuss them.
Do you think the ToE necessitates an increase in biodiversity?
That is the topic.
To me both are equally 'metaphysical', [i.e., non-scientific], vacuities.
Equally!? Wow. Hrm. I guess you are entitled to your opinions. But discussing this further is not for this topic.
Please show how your "NS" causes increased biodiversity, or even how it _might_ cause increased biodiversity.
According to the ToE, if the environment is favorable for a trait,
that trait will become more prominent. You need the selective factor for the traits to either “stick” or “fall”. Otherwise it would be stochastic, ie from RM alone.
and to compensate for this lacune Fisher and friends invented 'random genetic mutation',["RM"], as the basic cause of viable novel bioforms and behaviours; i.e., increased biodiversity.
Like I said in previous messages, RM provides the “opportunity” for the variation but it takes NS for the variation to take hold and be passed on. NS alone can’t do it, you need the RM for the source of the variation.
Evidently you have a more recent opinion, to the effect that "NS" can and does increase/cause biodiversity, and I would like to hear your reasoning for this, and to become acquainted with the empirical observations you use to support your reasoning to that conclusion. Please oblige me.
Again, the empirical observations are unnecessary. We are just discussing what the ToE says, not if it is really true.
I just explained how NS does it. Does that make sense? Any questions?
IOW, no. It takes your "random mutation" to do that.
RM doesn’t “do” it. RM provides for the variation, NS determines if the variation gets passed on or not, ie whether the biodiversity increases or not.
No, it {{RM}} provides the opportunity for diversity but you
need the selection to actually get the diversity.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain and justify this claim, since on its face it makes no sense.
Are you familiar with how the ToE describes the evolutionary process? My explanation seems pretty straight forward from the ToE to me. What is it that you don’t understand?
Care to justify this statement of faith?
Umm, how about no.
Couldn't it be predetermined and adaptionist? Its not stochastic.
I do not believe so, because if biodiversity is mechanically predetermined, as is widely supposed, then 'adaptation', 'adaptedness', 'adaptable', and so on, add absolutely nothing to our understanding of it.
How do they not add anything? I’m not so sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you please expand on it?
Adaptation' depends upon an implied indeterminism, IMO, as does the whole concept of variety, diversity and difference.
That indeterminism comes from the randomness of genetic mutation.
but rather they avoid the issue of causation, and scientific explanation, altogether-- by proposing that change, difference, and diversity 'just happen, that's all', and 'what you get is what you get, for no particular reason'.
Can you explain why causation is even necessary? What do we observe that suggests some causative factor?
Keep in mind:
quote:
it would be heplful to the rest of us if you would trouble yourself to back it up with empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
But if that scares you off then just explain to me, in your own words, what makes you think it is causative.
the ensuing posts do not seem to address disproving this creationist assumption, nor in demonstrating any scientific alternative.
This thread is to show that that is not what the ToE postulates.
The thread is, in fact, thoroughly muddy and directionless. People are talking at and past each other without coming to grips with the actual issue
It seems to me that Hoot Man and I were moving forward with our discussion. I think we might have actually came to some grips too. AdminNosy even said the discussion was interesting.
the actual issue--a scientific examination of biodiversity, its causes and its constraints, as opposed to the notion of biological diversity as an outcome predestined by 'god'.
The real actual issue is that creationists have claimed that the ToE necessitates an increase in biodiversity. What this thread intends to do is explain how the ToE does not necessitate an increase in biodiversity. What the actual cause of the increase is, is not really the topic. The topic is if the ToE says that the increase must happen, which it does not.
I would suggest that the notion of biological diversity determined by unspecified 'natural forces', aka "Natural Selection", amounts to the same metaphysical claim as 'predestination', stated in secular rather than theological fashion.
How is the claim the same, metaphysically, if it relies on only natural causes? The natural causes explained by the ToE are fairly simple. RM provides for opportunities for variation, and those opportunities are determined to stay or go by NS.
If NS allows the opportunity to stick and be passed on favorable, then there will be an increase in the biodiversity. If NS selects against those opportunities, then there will not be an increase. Clearly, the ToE does not require an increase.
The ToE does not necessitate a long term increase in biodiversity, therefore we can determine that this is not what was predestined.
If this is true, {How would I know, since you haven't told me why you think it true?}
We can just assume that the ToE is true for the purpose of this discussion.
then at least we can be assured that biodiversity is not mechanically determined.
What do you mean by “mechanically determined”?
Which doesn't tell us what it is, but only what it is not. Still, if _demonstrably_ true, then at least it is a first step towards understanding.
What it is is “just what happens”. You said this avoids the issue of causation, but I don’t see what evidence suggests that there is a causation. Can you show me?
That's not to say that the fluctions we do see are not what was predestined, but then anything could have been predestined in that sense.
Which would make the entire concept of 'predestined' and 'determined' vacuous and useless.
And it is, from a scientific point of view. It is only useful for Theology or Philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Elmer, posted 12-06-2007 6:44 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Elmer, posted 12-07-2007 8:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 140 (439111)
12-07-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 7:44 PM


Re: The tautology of tautology
It sounds like I'm contradicting myself but it really boils down to the way people use the word "evolve".
What people? Most biologist I know of think that biological evolution is a process of change rather than a process of maintianing the staus quo.
Well, sometimes people use the word "evolution" to meant the Theory of Evolution, and somtimes they use it to just mean change in general. It gets all confusing when we start using different definitions for the same word in the same post.
the last 245 million years of evolution on Earth have demonstrated a rather steady increase in biodiversity. Just coincidendal with environmental conditions and nothing more? Or an embedded law of macroevolution?
Good questions.
The current Theory of Evolution does not have that law embedded in it. It could very well be incomplete and missing that. But right now we do not have enough data/observation to say that the ToE is erroneous in not necessitating an increase in biodiversity.
For you to observe the trend, and then conclude the the process of evolving is a cause of that trend is the fallacy we discussed earlier.
We need more information to determine if evolving causes the increase.
Our current explanation for the evolving does not include a necessity for the increase and we don't have enough info to conclude that the current explanation is missing something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 7:44 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 140 (439115)
12-07-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Fosdick
12-07-2007 11:42 AM


Re: The tautology of tautology
Or does it mean that such muddling is totally limited by environmental conditions...independed of life itself?
That's what the ToE says. Is it correct? It seems like it. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.
why couldn't that obvious trend of increasing biodiversity in the last 245 million years be the result of an integrated sort of muddling, wherein the biota and their habitats do not change independently but are instead push and pulled by each other in combination?
Instead of asking why would it NOT be like this, why not ask, what do we see that suggests that this is the case.
Simply documenting the trend does not imply causation. Especially when a non-causitive explanation is fitting the bill.
But I stiil don't see how this negates the obvious trend toward macro-diversification on Earth.
It doesn't negate the trend. It negates that the trend must happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 11:42 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 6:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 140 (439123)
12-07-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Fosdick
12-07-2007 12:01 PM


Re: The tautology of tautology
Yes, I suppose, if 245 million years of macro-evolution on earth is not enough to test the idea.
But the data we have doesn't tell us exactly what the cause is. We have dtermined the fundamentals of evolving (the ToE) and they do not necessitate the increase. The increase is cause by something extrinsic to the ToE, ie the environment.
Or so it seems...
Maybe what we need is a sterile-but-fertile planet to infect with life to see what happens.
Why the need for a whole planet? Why not a petri dish?
You could put a species in a biodiverly neutral environment and see if there is diversification by default. You could then introduct selective pressure for either an increase or a decrease in biodiversity. If there was no increase without the pressure and the biodiversity increases and decreases with the respective pressures, then we could determine that the environment is what is causeing the changes in the diversity and not something inherant to the process that drives the diversification.
Make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 12:01 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 140 (439134)
12-07-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Fosdick
12-07-2007 12:47 PM


Re: The tautology of tautology
Maybe. Because it could go either way.
Sure. If diversification happend independent of the selective pressure, then that would suggest that there is something inherent to the process of evolving that causes diversification. We just don't have that evidence that suggests that.
All you have provided is the observation that the diversification has occurred. We don't have anything to sggest an inherent cause. We do have the sofar irrefuted explanation provided by the ToE that does not suggest an inherant cause.
Then I'm taking the precarious next step to say that macro-evolution inherently proceeds toward macro-diversification.
What, besides just the trend of diversification, suggests that there is something inherent that causes the diversification?
Without other evidence, it is the post hoc fallacy.
Side question: Isn't all evidence reducible and refutable by using your "Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument?
Not if there is other evidence that corroberates with the claim. It is the fallacy when the only thing that suggests a cause is that the one thing happened after the other.
When it rained after the Indian did his Rain Dance, it was a fallacy for him to say that his dance caused the rain. If we had evidence that shows that specific dancing actually does influences the weather, then we would no longer be committing th fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 12:47 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 140 (439180)
12-07-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Fosdick
12-07-2007 2:27 PM


Re: The tautology of tautology
Well, then the theory of the expanding universe is a post hoc fallacy, too, since there are no other universes with which to "correlate" (your term) the observation.
We don't need another universe to correlate. We just need other evidence. The other evidence is the red shift, Hubble's Law, and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Actually, what does the theory suggest as the cause of the expasion? It looks like the theory is just describing the expansion, in which case, it would not be the Post Hoc fallacy.
The fallacy would be commited if the argument was:
The Big Bang occured. Then the Universe began expanding. Therefore the Big Bang caused the Universe to expand.
That is fallacious.
However, if other evidence suggested that the Big Bang caused the expansion, then it would nolonger be the fallacy.
For example:
The Big Bang occured. Then the Universe began expanding. X observation suggests that a Big Bang causes universes to expand. Y observation does too. Therefore the Big Bang caused the Universe to expand.
That is no longer a fallacy.
Got it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 12-07-2007 2:27 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 140 (439371)
12-08-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Elmer
12-07-2007 8:15 PM


Hey Elmer,
Thanks for the well written reply. I have read it but I don't have enough time right now for a proper reply. I will get to that later.
There are a couple things I would like to say real quick.
I expect you to be familiar with the Theory of Evolution.
I'll get to your (great) questions about it when I can.
Some quick questions:
WRT bioforms, 'to adapt' means to dynamically 'make suitable to or consistent with a particular situation or use'. Since that implies teleology,
How does that imply teleology?
Can you explain why causation is even necessary? What do we observe that suggests some causative factor?
It isn't, unless you are a scientist-- or someone who wants to understand reality.
I don't get that reply. You're the one who brought up avoiding the issue of causation. If it isn't necessary then how am I avoiding it?
And to clear things up:
But if that scares you off then just explain to me, in your own words, what makes you think it is causative.
What's to be scared of?!?And if "it" refers to "natural selection",
I meant the empiricism. "It" did not refer to Natural Selection.
then it is your good self that needs to explain why you think it is causative, since, as a matter of fact, I have no reason to believe that it is any such thing.
Hrm. I though you were saying it was causitive.
I'm confused now and...shit, out of time.
I'll re-read and give you a better reply when I have more time. I think were getting somewhere

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Elmer, posted 12-07-2007 8:15 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Elmer, posted 12-08-2007 10:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 140 (439823)
12-10-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Elmer
12-08-2007 10:17 PM


Hi Elmer,
I put my replies to both of your previous messages into this one big message. Its kinda long, sorry.
In short, you are saying that 'natural selection' causes fluctuations in biodiversity, (both increases and decreases), and not just locally, but globally, as well.
That's quite a sweeping claim, and all I've asked you to do is to back that claim with empirical evidence, and sound reasoning from that evidence. Now, I simply do not see how you can do that without clearly defining 'natural selection' as a causal agency, a natural (i.e., empirical) force, similar to gravity, etc., a physical, universal, scientific, discernible and describable mechanism.
If I roll 100 dice and keep all the 1’s, remove all dice with 6’s, and re-roll all the other dice over and over again, eventually I will have a table with some amount of dice that all have 1’s on them.
This is a decent analogy to evolving although it is limited.
RM is the rolling of the dice. NS is the “rules”, which are keep 1’s, remove 6’s and re-roll all others. A number on the dice is a genetic trait that can be selected for or against. In this case, 1’s are selected for and 6’s are selected against, while all the other numbers are left to “reproduce” by the rolling again, which is like another generation. As the 1’s are selected for, each subsequent generation (group of dice) will have that number (gene). As the 6’s are selected against, no subsequent generation will have that gene, and if it comes up, it will be removed again.
Now, those “rules” are subject to change at the whim of the environment, (so, I as in me, am representing the environment by supplying the rules).
If someone later approaches the table, they will see that all the dice are 1’s
An IDist might conclude that a creator placed all the dice on the table as 1’s. It certainly looks that way. But that is not how it happened.
The actual rolling of the dice, RM, is not what “caused” the table to be filled with 1’s, although it did provide the opportunity for a 1 to come up in the first place. It was the “selective factor”, the rules, which is what caused the dice to all be 1’s.
An IDist might argue that it took me, an intelligent agent, to get the “rules”, but we can get those rules from nature without the need of a designer. If its cold and only the hairiest offspring survive, then we will see the population become hairier. We don’t need a designer to make it colder. It just happens.
Now, lets suppose the environment (me) changes sometime before we roll all the dice, and thus the “rules” change. Now we are keeping both 1’s and 2’s.
After a few more rolls we will have both 1’s and 2’s on the table. This is analogous to an increase in biodiversity. The RM didn’t cause the increase, although it is still providing the opportunity, it was the selective factor from the environment that allowed for the change in biodiversity.
Does that make sense?
Not as an observed empirical effect of some other cause, force, mechanism or assortment of mechanisms and/or unrelated events, nor as a catch-all metaphor for such indescriminate, indeterminate unknowns. Most importantly, I would like to hear how it can be that such a force, cause, universal mechanism can _increase_ biodiversity, rather than just decrease or stabilize it.
If the environment is able to support more species and provide more niches for them, then we would expect, as more and more mutations arise, that more and more traits will be selected for and bidiversity will increase. It all depends on the environment, or some other selective factor, which could be sexual selection. Also, a lack of a factor, such as genetic drift, can lead to diversification in a neutral environment.
From what I know of 'natural selection', it simply cannot increase biodiversity
Why not? Is it possible that it is by some reason that you simply do not know?
Fisher's "random, genetic mutation" is supposed, by neo-darwinists, to be the cause, force, mechanism that does that job. Except that 'random accident', "chance", "luck", "coincidence", "happenstance", being irregular and unpredictable, can never be called, nor called upon to replace, a 'force' or a 'mechanism', in terms applicable to scientific explanation for observed phenomena.
I don’t think the mutation is the “cause”. It just provides the “opportunity”.
Like I said, this thread does not intend to logically demonstrate the observed development. What we are doing, is discussing what the Theory of Evolution says about the observations. You don’t even have to believe that the explanations are correct to discuss them.
With respect, that seems silly and pointless.
Not really to me. Does the Lord of the Rings imply that in times of need, different people can get a long and work together for a common goal? We don’t need to believe that the Lord of the Rings really happened to discuss the implication of it. So, what would be pointless and silly, would be for someone to go to a thread discussing that and ask posters to prove that the Lord of the Rings really happened.
If you found their discussion pointless without the proof, then you might as well just not reply.
If that is the topic, (and I had supposed that it was), how can you discuss it if, as you say, "What we are doing, is discussing what the Theory of Evolution says about the observations. You don’t even have to believe that the explanations are correct to discuss them."?!?!
In the same way we can talk about the Lord of the Rings without actually believing in the stories.
According to the ToE, if the environment is favorable for a trait, that trait will become more prominent.
That is not a theory; that is a tautological statement of a brute fact, a truism. It's no more scientific than the observation that rain tends to fall from cloudy, rather than cloudless skies. Therefore a trait, [rain], will become "more prominent" depending upon the degree of cloud cover. It's true, but it isn't a truth that can be elevated to the status of 'scientific insight' or 'universal principle of science', or anything so edifying as all that. In short, your statement, as it stands, is meaningless.
I see RAZD exposed the problems with this analogy so I won’t repeat that. But also, NS is not the entire theory it is just a part of it. So you’re sorta right that its not really a theory.
As above, exactly what is it that you are calling, "the selective factor"- (and please do not simply say, 'natural selection')-, and how does it increase biodiversity?
A selective force is something that promotes or rejects some genotype through some property of the phenotype. As genotypes change or get added too, through random mutation, the properties of the phenotype do too, and if something in the phenotype is advantageous, it will be selected for and passed on through generations.
What I hear you saying is that "NS" does not generate biodiversity, but causes particular bioforms to expand numerically. Now, my understanding of biodiversity says that the term has only to do with the numbers of different bioforms, and has nothing to do with the number of individuals belonging to a particular bioform. Therefore your "RM" still has nothing at all to do with biodiversity. Show me where I'm wrong.
One bioform can lead to another, while the original remains. Therefore we can have two where we once had one, thus and increase. You can read up on speciation here.
Actually, you've flat-out refused to "discuss what the ToE says". And it's [forgive me], silly and pointless to tie empirical observations to "the ToE" without clearly stating the precepts and principle of that hypothesis, supported by facts and logic which imbue it with at least a fair degree of 'truth value'.
Pretty much everything I’ve typed has come from my understanding of the ToE. Why can’t we discuss it under the assumption that is true? And then discuss the implications of that assumption?
For example, the question could be:
If the Theory of Evolution were true, would it necessarily lead to an increase in biodiversity?
That is the topic.
When a novel bioform, even a single individual, comes into existence, then biodiversity may be said to have increased. So long as a single individual example of that bioform exists, it does not effect the sum of biodiversity.
Why does a single individual not affect the sum?
When the last extant individual dies, that bioform goes extinct, and by so doing decreases biodiversity. In between its coming into existence and its extinction, that bioform does not alter the sum of biodiversity in the biosphere.
Maybe we are defining biodiversity differently. I take it to mean, like the OP, the number of species present. If you’re defining it differently then you need to adjust your definition to the one assumed in the OP.
If a change in something is determined, predetermined, predestined, inevitable, inflexible, and mechanical, [see water freezing, melting, flowing, boiling, steaming, etc.], then in what sense can it be called 'adaptive', that is, 'able to adapt', where 'to adapt' means something more than simply 'to change/to be changed'?!?
But NS is not predetermined. It depends on the environment, which is fairly chaotic.
WRT bioforms, 'to adapt' means to dynamically 'make suitable to or consistent with a particular situation or use'. Since that implies teleology, how do you reconcile that teleology with your determinism, without admitting to a belief that the entire universe is "teleologically determined", as opposed to "mechanically determined"? I don't think that you want to go there, do you?
I asked how that imples teleology and you replied:
Acting with a view to a more or less definite end is what the word 'teleology' means. Anything chance-based, random, stochastic, aimless, undirected, and unintentional is not teleological. And unless a mechanically determined series of events has been intentionally put in motion with a view to a more or less definite end, it is not teleological either.
As the environment, which is aimless, undirected and unintentional, is the source of the selective factors then NS is not teleological. Also, it is not a mechanically determined series of events that has been intentionally put in motion with a view to a more or less definite end.
At least, the ToE does not describe it as such.
What makes you think that it is, in fact, teleological?
However, if a mechanically determined process has been put in place with a view to an at least broadly preconceived, more or less intended outcome, then that mechanically determined chain of events is teleological.
Isn’t that a tautology?
BTW, how do you determine if a process “has been put in place with a view to an at least broadly preconceived, more or less intended outcome”?
If you looked at my table of dice in the above analogy, wouldn’t you conclude that they have has been put in place with a view to an at least broadly preconceived, more or less intended outcome? But was the outcome of my dice game analogy predetermined? At any one time in the game, the number of 1’s on the table has not been predetermined. If we repeat the game, we will follow a different path to the outcome. What if the “rules” were picked out of a hat rather then just determined by me?
Can’t you see how things might seem that way when they have not been? Especially when looking at them “after the fact”?
By "the" theory of evolution I take you to mean Ronald Fisher's notional amalgam of population statistics, genetic inheritance mechanisms with Darwin's anthropomorphic metaphor for differential mortality, "Natural Selection". Often referred to as 'neo-darwinism, 'darwinism', 'the 'modern synthesis', and 'modern evolutionary biology', when including Sewall Wright's "drift" [i.e, random genetic mutationm without natural selection],theory, [later expanded by Motoo Kimura as "neutral theory"] and sometimes referred to as 'molecular biology' and 'biochemistry'. Am I right?
I will suppose that I am, and so I can say that I am familiar with that hypothesis, although I view it as a highly dubious proposition.
Wow. Your tone really changed. Are you trying to impress me with big words?
Simply put, it asserts, and I refuse to believe, that extremely complex and highly productive self-directed [autopoietic] systems can arise and become reconfigured [evolve over time] via a mindless chain of anomalous but happy accidents, each event relative and dependent upon local circumstances,-- i.e., 'chance'.
Wow, there are such better ways to word that, no offense.
In my dice game above, does the table become filled with 1’s by chance? Of course not. Chance was there to get any 1 in the fist place, but with the “rules” present, it is no longer a game of chance.
It wasn’t by chance that the giraffe’s neck got longer, all the ones with the shorter necks couldn’t compete. We would expect that neck length would vary among individuals, and a selective factor is present (a need for a long neck), so why wouldn’t they evolve?
Was it an “accident” that a 1 was rolled? No, dice get rolled and give a number, that’s what they do. Similarly, species reproduce imperfectly, that’s what they do.
OTH, if a series of apparently disconnected and anomalous [i.e., 'random'] events are undertaken with a view to a generally intended outcome, and are directed by a 'value system' derived from that outcome [such as an unspecified, unknown 'best available' solution to a particular 'problem'], then that 'trial-and-error' process is teleological.
Evolution doesn’t have a generally intended outcome, and natural selection is not directed from a value system.
So, sure, you can type up some big impressive words to describe evolution and appear intelligent (which I don’t doubt that you are), but it still seems that you have some misunderstandings of the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution.
In the future, lets drop the “smart” tone and go back to the previous one. Then it will be easier for us to communicate and perhaps we can iron out some of the wrinkles in you understanding of evolution. Okay?.
Of course, this part .
quote:
Simply put, it asserts, and I refuse to believe, that
. makes me a little weary about clearing up your misconceptions. Are you really going to refuse to believe something because of your preconceptions and presumptions? Have you ever heard the term Willful Ignorance?
The difference between a teleological process and any other, therefore, is that all teleological processes are 'value-constrained'
But not all ”value-constrained’ processes are teleological, right?
A 'value-constrained' non-determinist teleological process is 'heuristic'
Not all heuristic process are teleological either, right?
So, given a value constrained, heuristic process, how do we determine if it is teleological or not?
Which, BTW, makes any 'adaptationist' theory of evolution, including Darwin's,"NS", into a teleological process,
I’m not convinced that NS is teleological. I think I’ve explained how it isn’t in my dice game analogy. Can you explain, preferably in your first tone, how NS is teleological?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Elmer, posted 12-08-2007 10:17 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by MartinV, posted 12-10-2007 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 113 by Elmer, posted 12-11-2007 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 140 (439861)
12-10-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by MartinV
12-10-2007 4:41 PM


You will not have 1's on them. You somehow forgot to re-roll 1's. 1's are not immortal. They have to produce offsprings. You have to re-roll them, Catholic scientist.
The 1's signify a genotype that has been selected for. Therefore it is passed on to the next generation automatically and does not need to be re-rolled.
More than limited. It is valueless.
You're welcome to your opinions. I find value in the analogy.
It doesn't take into consideration genes pleiotropy and epistatic interactions
All that is assumed in the premise. If a gene is selected for, it doesn't matter if it is pleiotrophic or if their are epistatic interactions, it is still selected for and passed onto the next generation (the re-rolls). Its a given.
Sure, those things might make it harder for a gene to be selected for, but the premise assumes the gene has been selected for so the means doesn't matter.
It doesn't take into consideration many other allele-frequency dependancies.
Sure, as all analogies, this one is limited. But I still think it expressing the point I was making. And I still find it useful to help describe some of the fundamentals of evolution.
For example, how things can look designed after-the-fact, when they really weren't designed at all.
It shows that some processes can produce results that seem to be predetermined (or designed) when they were actually based on a random event with a selective fator.
Your dices need to proliferate themselves, you know.
I guess you could throw in a few extra dice every re-roll, but in the end the result will still be the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by MartinV, posted 12-10-2007 4:41 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024