|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Methodological Naturalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
But my description of the selfish gene theory was right, where the description of someone else of it was demonstrably wrong, to the point of how much selfishness there is in nature according to Dawkins.
The hypothesis of the book is twofold, first that the gene is the unit of selection that natural selection operates on, which had been mentioned by numerous scientists before, second that genes are selfish, which is Dawkins own invention. The two issues, what the unit of selection is, and whether or not this unit of selection can be said to be selfish, are really separate questions. You could write a similar book entitled the selfish individual, or the selfish group, there is no relation between selfishness and what the unit of selection is. First is to make a hypothesis of selfishness. Dawkins phrases it like this: "An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible. One of the surprising consequences of the modern version of the Darwinian theory is that apparently trivial tiny influences on survival probability can have a major impact on evolution. This is because of the enormous time available for such influences to make themselves felt." Dawkins is describing the relations between individuals in terms of wellfare, based on who produces the behaviour. An overview of the theoretically possible relations between 2 individuals gives following possibilities: sA A- B+ altruismsB A- B+ selfishness sA A+ B- selfishnesssB A+ B- altruism sA A- B- ?sB A- B- ? sA A+ B+ ?sB A+ B+ ? Where for example sA A- B- is A produces a behaviour which results in loss of wellfare for both A and B. Who produces the behaviour is part of the requirements, otherwise a baboon who get's killed by another baboon, can be said to behave altruisticly. But if it were so that the baboon who get's killed, invites to be killed, then of course that does qualify as altruistic behaviour. What's first noticeable is that there aren't actually any words for half the possibles in Dawkins definition. There is no either selfish or altruist dichotomy which Dawkins presupposes, there are more possibilities then that, which Dawkins ignores. It starts out with a fault of systemacy. Of course any trait or behaviour which negatively affects wellfare would likely be lost in competition with individuals which don't have such traits that negatively effects wellfare, because of the strong relationship between welfare and reproductive rate. It's basicly irrellevant to add that the negative trait has a positive effect on another individual. That part would be cut by Occam's razor, another fault. But still we do see altruism as defined by Dawkins in nature, which Dawkins then reinterprets as not being "genuine" altruism but reciprocal altruism, or kin-selection. That is a fault of making special exemption for evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis. Dawkins is of course your typical methodological naturalist, ranting against religion, meanwhile establishing his own substitute religion by injecting subjective discourse into science, as if it were objective. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
nosyned,
OK, let's get down! There is, or was when the science was more respectable, a vision of an adaptive landscape, a topographic map of fitness or adaptive advantage. It was supposed that natural selection could always move you uphill, and you could get anywhere as long as you always took a step uphill, into a state of higher relative fitness. But, in real travel, it is expedient to sometimes move downhill before going uphill. There are mountain peaks that cannot be reached, or better, most paths to the peak go across, at least, a slope with a downside. Since natural selection cannot be expected to know any rare, existing path that only goes uphill, we suppose that certain peaks, certain phenotypes are almost certain to be unreachable. Natural selection naturally tends to go up the steepest climb available to it. As mutations are available, of course. Enter artificial selection. It knows where the peak is, and where the existing creature is, and therefore what the shortest line between the two is. It can artificially select intermediate phenotypes that get closer to the adaptive peak, but which are short-term disadvantageous in nature, are downhill. Naturally disadvantageous but artificially advantageous. (Thank God this is not sneer reviewed! "Free, Free, Thank God, we are free at last!")(Hey, check the date!) Where was I? Oh, yeah---The point is that you can certainly get places faster with artificial selection, and there are some places where paths that only go uphill are so rare that you would never get there. Hence, artificial selection takes you places you won't get naturally. Note that the evolutionists (who, I must point out sooner or later, are leagues ahead of creationists) when they thought about this, adopted an "evolutionary stable strategy" ESS, believing that most ecotypes were stranded on an adaptive peak. From such peaks, there was no way to change, because all directions of change were less adaptive, even if in the long run they took you to a higher peak. Unless you introduced, ta da, artificial selection. That could make you change in a way that was temporarily maladapted, in order to get you to another higher peak. (There are more greyhounds than wolves. Well, chihuahuas anyway.) But, from what Jehovah says in the Bible, independently discovered I think by Darwin, with one or the other, artificial or natural selection, the normal process of change is babysteps, descendence, from where you are to where you are going. But, with artificial selection, you often survive at some not so great intermediate step, and sometimes are simply "carried" by the Lord. (The wildly popular poem, Footsteps.) So it is we get to where we need to be to be really happy. Aren't you glad you asked? Need another glass of wine. More later. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
That was a fairly lucid, though flawed, post Sy.
quote: The unit of selection is critical to Dawkins book and cannot be replaced. At its extremes, either the entire genome is co-selected or individual genes are in competition. Dawkins is an extreme reductionist and proposes the gene as the primary unit of selection. There is evidence for such genetic behavior for some genetic elements such as certain retrotransposons, but not for all genes. However, your fallacy that you cling to like a porcupine to velcro is that you equate observed changes in allelic frequencies with behavior of sentient individuals.
quote: Bzzzt..wrongo...there are many more options besides extinction. Type C endogenous retroviruses such as HERV-L have multiplied dramatically in the human genome wherease HERV-W is a group that is not particularly abundant though extremely well conserved. Thus, both persist in the genome though HERV-L has a much higher relative fitness. HERV-L's do not actively kill HERV-W's. And it is not traits affecting welfare as you put it. It has to do with traits that affect relative reproduction i.e. the ability to produce offspring who in turn can produce offspring.
quote: Dawkin's aside, since you make a general statement against MN, give us an example of ANY process of discovery or scientific endeavor that has not been accomplished via MN...answer there are none. You will just have to get over the fact that being willfully ignorant yet arrogant and opinionated are not going to overturn or become a substitute for the basis of the scientific endeavor which has been the most successful of humankinds achievements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Of course there is a distinction. The supernatural is not observable either directly or indirectly. It is niether testable nor falsifiable. In what way does invoking any mythological god/gods/pink unicorns/gremlins inform my research on prion pathogenesis? Scientific hypotheses allow one to test each one under as many conditions as possible to reject as many as possible in order to establish which one describes natural phenomenon most accurately. They remain tentative precisely because one does not know all there is to know. Your appeals to the supernatural involve a claim that because you believe in god/gods/ID/pink unicorns, that they therefore exist and are responsible for an observed phenomenon. This cannot be tested and cannot be falsified so is scientifically useless. And it is profoundly anti-scientific because as opposed to the tentativity of actual science, you advocates of pseudoscience claim to have the answer to everything via some none observable and variable mythical being(s). Anyone who disagrees is told "you just did not look hard enough or you looked the wrong way".
quote: Wrong, it is not reclaiming the supernatural. I don't know how prion pathogenesis occurs but I can observe it occuring. Anyone can. It is a natural phenomenon. What science "reclaims" is how an observable but unknown mechanism most probably works. When you and your fellow "goddidit" advocates can propose a1. testable hypothesis of "goddidit" 2. that is falsifiable then maybe science would "reclaim" your supreme being. But until these two simple requirements are met, there is absolutely no scientific reason to take such musings seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Generally, all but your last paragraph explains things, as I understand them, reasonably well. It might be that a strict "uphill" in the adaptive landscape could be contradicted slightly since only some genetic changes are expressed in the phenotype. The possibility of changes accumulating might allow a sort of "leap" over some parts of the landscape.
However, in general, the adaptive landscape and ESS ideas make sense to me. And if we examine the nature of living things we see odd forms that are what you might expect under such conditions.
But, from what Jehovah says in the Bible, independently discovered I think by Darwin, with one or the other, artificial or natural selection, the normal process of change is babysteps, descendence, from where you are to where you are going. But, with artificial selection, you often survive at some not so great intermediate step, and sometimes are simply "carried" by the Lord. (The wildly popular poem, Footsteps.) So it is we get to where we need to be to be really happy. Oh, the Bible is an document about evolutionary theory is it? Could you site chapter and verse about the changes in living forms taking place in babysteps? You have evidence for being "carried by the Lord"? You were doing so well, then you went off a some silly spin to try and make the Bible something it is not. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Nosyned,
I'll respond later to the details of your post, but thought you'd like to see this site: Ten major U.S. disasters on dates significant to treatment of Israel-Truth! - Truth or Fiction? reflecting artificial selection by Jehovah in action. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
ROFL!!!
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Sorry, haven't been around long enough to know what
ROFL!!! Means. And, while you're at it, how about LOL, and ... there's another common one....Thanks, Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
LOL - laughing out loud
ROFL - rolling on the floor laughing Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
LOL,
Are you a scoffer? Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Mammuthus<< The supernatural is not observable either directly or indirectly. It is niether testable nor falsifiable.>>
Your definition of the supernatural must be "that which does not exist." But unless you are omniscient you are not aware of everything that exists, therefore, how do you determine something is supernatural? I define anything that exists as natural. I see no reason to suspect that intelligent design of any kind requires some supernatural cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
A skeptic.
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Nosyned,
Choosing to be a skeptic puts you in some questionable company historically. Lots of lives lost to skepticism, and being lost. Love believes all things, or so I've heard. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Skepticism has been the root of many great discoveries, from Columbus to Einstein. An unquestioning mind believes all things. A skeptical mind finds new things for the unquestioning to believe in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
quote: Can you name one life which hasn't been lost throughout history?... besides Jesus?
quote: Yet you seem unable to believe in some very common scientific methods/paradigms... hmmmmmmm. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024