How is Natural selection a mechanism?

Prof. Steve S. Steve.

JonF writes: But any "evolutionist" could sign that with a clear conscience.

That's the part that cracks me up. You could completely retitle the list as "People who think this description of evolution is incomplete".

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

I am skeptical as well. I would also need to include neutral drift and speciation. On top of that, I would also encourage everyone to carefully examine every single theory in science.

quote:

---

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

---

That's what science is all about.

My Dad, who taught Biology and Ecology could have signed this without qualms -- except for the inteniontal misuse of this list by people lying about what it means to sign it.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” https://dissentfromdarwin.org/sign-the-list/

(A) being skeptical of any claims of science is what science does -- that's why theories are tested and tested and tested, and can never be "proven" ... and so the result are regarded tentatively. After years of testing the theory without any instances of invalidation the theory may be regarded as a strong theory and scientists can accept the theory with high confidence as providing the best explanation known.

(B) as has been pointed out "random mutation and natural selection" are not the only processes known to affect the evolution of populations, so of course they alone are not sufficient, you need the whole enchilada.

(C) "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” ... is what science does.

So this list is meaningless in regards to the value of evolution in science ...

And beyond that, it is not the people that validate the science, it is the evidence and the testing results, the objective empirical evidence that validates the science.

You've been scammed. You need to be more skeptical of such claims.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

I attempted to start a thread a related issue a while ago.

"The essential questions being: Why do organisms create increasingly bizarre and incredibly elaborate schemes to reproduce?

Why do things attempt to survive? Why do genes have a survival motive?

Why the need for survival at all? (Including what does actually survive?)"

It seems the most important thing for selection is continued reproduction. And as I say reproduction happens in numerous bizarre ways and more bizarre ways to reproduce emerge, but why does inanimate or soulless matter or genetic information care to survive or try to in such elaborate ways?

AndrewPD writes: ... why does inanimate or soulless matter or genetic information care to survive or try to in such elaborate ways?

Why does hydrogen chose to burn in the presence of oxygen?

Chemistry.

RAZD writes: It looks like AndrewPD is trying to make the argument that consciousness is god-given rather than an emergent property of the brain due to our current lack of knowledge re the connection between brain function and consciousness.

I would describe myself as an agnostic who is skeptical of any claims. I have no interest in invoking gods. You can suggest the deficiency of one explanation without proffering an alternative.

I used to be quite atheistic (after a traumatic religious childhood) until I did my degree later in life which involved a lot of philosophy mind and some cognitive science and theorizing about perception.

It is in these areas that you explore how we might access reality, the scope of the physical, problems with squaring mind and matter and the problems are nontrivial.
Philosophy of mind also studies philosophy of language as did cognitive psychology and looks at the problem of semantic and representational properties.

An example of representation issues might be this. Someone may say "The moon looks like a peeled orange" What they are usually saying is that they see the moon as similar in appearance to an orange. But in the case of mental representation the brain has to actually turn brain matter into real representational states such as the vivid memory I have of what my deceased grandmother looked like.

In the case of the moon it is not attempting to represent an orange, that similarity is made in our minds, but for memory and language the brain has to have semantic properties to represent to our consciousness as the meaning of words, ideas, memories and concepts etc. (ie we don't just experience neuronal properties)

Perception theory undermines our knowledge of and access to the world and ends invoking mysterious homunculi receiving representational maps in the brain.

And the properties of mental states like representation are not those found in descriptions of other scientific disciplines (qualia properties, representation, subjectivity etc).

ringo writes: Why does hydrogen chose to burn in the presence of oxygen? Chemistry.

There is no motivation involved there it just happens instantaneously.

I think you mean spontaneously; although nothing happens if it is untroubled by a spark.

Why the need for survival at all? (Including what does actually survive?)"

It is silly to ask the question of need regarding inanimate objects while the purpose for an instinct to survive for animals is a pointless question.

These kinds of why questions presuppose a particular type of universe that simply may not exist.

AndrewPD writes: There is no motivation involved there it just happens instantaneously.

Then why do you expect "motivation" for molecules changing from non-living to living?

Why do things attempt to survive? Why do genes have a survival motive?

The animals that don't have a strong drive to survive and reproduce tend to not end up passing on their genes that cause that behavior because they die before they mate.

AndrewPD writes: Why do things attempt to survive? Why do genes have a survival motive?

Because it is the genes that do increase the rate of survival that are passed on. It is a feedback loop that increases the rate of survival over time.

I would describe myself as an agnostic who is skeptical of any claims. I have no interest in invoking gods. You can suggest the deficiency of one explanation without proffering an alternative. I used to be quite atheistic (after a traumatic religious childhood) until I did my degree later in life which involved a lot of philosophy mind and some cognitive science and theorizing about perception.

Fair enough, but the problem I see is your reluctance to see consciousness as an emergent property of brain function. It's one thing to be skeptical, but an agnostic should be skeptical of alternative arguments in the same degree, and the only alternative that I can see is that it would be some spiritual essence: if it doesn't come from inside then it must come from outside.

As an agnostic leaning deist I lean towards the former explanation as having more credibility.

Philosophy of mind also studies philosophy of language as did cognitive psychology and looks at the problem of semantic and representational properties.

I explored some of this in Perceptions of Reality v3 (there are several versions, this one is open for comments).

Perception theory undermines our knowledge of and access to the world and ends invoking mysterious homunculi receiving representational maps in the brain.

For me this gets into the individual's worldview with cognitive dissonance\consonance acting as a filter for what is accepted and what is rejected. See Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs, particularly Message 8

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

it is that consciousness is private subjective and only directly accessible one person the experiencing subject. It is not accessible in principle to any other than the self.

The same thing is true about your brain. It is not accessible to people around you. Again, you haven't made a meaningful argument.