Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bio evolution, light, sound and aroma
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 23 of 142 (716588)
01-19-2014 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Col2v8
01-18-2014 2:42 PM


I'll be blunt. If someone where to explain the evolution of senses to the best of human knowledge - you wouldn't understand it. I would recommend a BSc in molecular biology and a Masters in evolutionary biology or some similar combination. Really, if I started to talk about seven-transmembrane domain receptors or the precursors to opsin would you consider yourself informed or would you find that you were actually having to learn pretty advanced stuff before you could follow along?
In short - you are starting with an incredibly advanced question, and I feel that if you don't get an answer that you can understand or is insufficiently complete, you will simply dismiss it. This is not the way to learn.
There are natural processes that you probably don't deny that sort things.
For instance - grind some grain and then feed it through a mesh/sieve. How does the sieve know to let fine flour through but not let large kernels through?
Put a mixture of sand, small stones and larger stones in a container of water. Vigorously mix it, then let it settle. You'll find the bigger stones towards the bottom and the sand will tend to settle on top. How does it know?
How do the small objects know to orbit the larger ones? When you throw lots of objects around - how do they know to form distinct orbits?
The answer is, no knowledge is present. It is just a natural consequence.
Are there any scientific papers/studies by evolutionist
Yes.
New insights into the evolutionary history of photoreceptor cells. Plachetzki DC, Serb JM, Oakley TH.
Why not start there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Col2v8, posted 01-18-2014 2:42 PM Col2v8 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 136 of 142 (718102)
02-04-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2014 10:08 AM


Dispositions
quote:
A glass has certain dispositions, for example the disposition to shatter when struck. But what is this disposition? It seems on the one hand to be a perfectly real property, a genuine respect of similarity common to glasses, china cups, and anything else fragile. Yet on the other hand, the glass's disposition seems mysterious, ‘ethereal’ (as Goodman (1954) put it) in a way that, say, its size and shape are not. For its disposition, it seems, has to do only with its possibly shattering in certain conditions. In general, it seems that nothing about the actual behavior of an object is ever necessary for it to have the dispositions it has. Many objects differ from one another with respect to their dispositions in virtue of their merely possible behaviors, and this is a mysterious way for objects to differ.
quote:
An object is disposed to M when C iff it would M if it were the case that C.
or
quote:
An object x is disposed to M when C iff x has an intrinsic property B such that, if it were the case that C, and if x were to retain B for a sufficient time, then C and B would jointly cause x to M.
It's a philosophical term of craft/art, for what its worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 1:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 138 of 142 (718113)
02-04-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2014 1:31 PM


essential dispositions
Thanks for the link!
The Goodman (1954) reference might be of interest too. It talks about possibilities and dispositions from about page 40, but I think its a little excessive.
What is so mysterious about it?
I'm guessing because it is uncomfortably haunted by ideas of essentialism.
Where is flexibility? What does fragility weigh?
It seems like "disposition" is just a place-holder for a lack of understanding of the underlying physics.
That's almost certainly how it started. But any physicist will tell you that while it is possible to describe the wave function of a specific glass vessel interacting with a specific concrete floor at a certain energy, it's easier and precise enough to say 'glasses are disposed to smashing if you drop them', 'lead is malleable', etc.
Fragility is not something that is 'obvious' like size or shape. It's a property something has, that only manifests under certain conditions.
So is it different from a possibility or not?
Well dispositions are specific to entities, and are referring to real properties that have not yet manifested, but will under some condition. It's a philosophical possibility that the glass will turn to gold, but I don't think glass is disposed to turning into gold.
In that way, it seems like disposition is a bit stronger of a claim than possibility. That is, when something is disposed to whatever given such-n-such, then the whatever happens, no matter what, if such-n-such does. Conversely, if it is just a possibility, then it may or may not happen... it could, but it doesn't have too.
Does that sound right?
Sounds good. A coin might be disposed to coming to rest flat, but its only a possibility it will be head side up.
Because if it is, then Andrew isn't really using the word properly.
I'm shocked!
A disposition is a property that even though it may not emerge over a given time, or at all, has the ability to emerge none the less.
That sounds just like "possibility" to me.
No, its not bad. Not all glasses shatter. I'm not sure 'ability' is the best choice but while it remains a glass, it has the disposition to shatter.
Again, I'm not seeing how that is different from a "possibility".
In general parlance I think its quite alright to use either word, disposition is probably a more specific and perhaps more precise word. It's possible that the glass will bounce around chiming the notes from the Godfather theme but I think it would be a push to say that glasses are disposed towards doing that even in common English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Stile, posted 02-04-2014 3:24 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 9:37 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 140 of 142 (718118)
02-04-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Stile
02-04-2014 3:24 PM


Re: essential dispositions
I'm not sure if I don't like the word
I'm pretty sure I dislike it.
But I don't like using it for specifics about evolution.
I think it has to do with how specific it is.
Evolution has a disposition to generate human eyes. - Big red flags here
Generally, we should reserve the use of disposition to objects or entities. Evolution, being a process, doesn't really work.
How about:
Genes have a disposition to replicate.
or
Genomes have a disposition to mutate.
You might get away with
populations have a disposition to change.
Anything too specific involving evolution gives the feeling that evolution is aiming for something.
Yeah, the goal-oriented implications of disposition can cause problems with discussing a non-goal oriented process. Used carefully, it has utility but having read a bunch of discussion in philosophy my overall conclusion is that it serves to confuse when examined closely.
Andrew, in typical creationist ability to not stick to one topic, decided to discuss the dispositions of early chemical environments (eg a primoridal soup or whatever) towards forming life . If we say that certain chemical environments, under certain conditions, will form life then we can say such an environment constitutes a mileu of dispositions that results in the overall disposition to form life. 'The disposition of something on its own is different then its disposition in a context interacting with other things in its environs.'. He does argue this is also true of 'new forms emerging', that there must be some disposition for this for it to occur.
His argument seems to be exactly this goal oriented issue. That since chemistry has a disposition to form life, there must be some reason for this disposition. That reason, he argues, is a disposition giver, or creative entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Stile, posted 02-04-2014 3:24 PM Stile has seen this message but 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