EvC Forum: Teleological Science?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Teleological Science?

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 16 of 114 (452962)
01-31-2008 9:42 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
01-31-2008 9:22 AM

To stimulate further thoughts, here is one possibility I came up with: If it could be shown that the overall gene pool of any population of organisms changed in advance of a change in selection pressures on that population, even if (or especially if) the change temporarily reduced the population’s net fitness locally (i.e., moved the population “down” from a local fitness peak), this would be an indicator that something was going on that had nothing to do with the current understanding of evolution by natural selection.

To be clear, what you do NOT mean is the diversity of variations of alleles within a population that just happens to include ones outside the average\median pheno\genotype and that are better adapted to the future ecology, ...

NOR do you mean a spreading\widening of the diversity of variations to cover a greater range than previous generations, ...

but a shift of the whole population towards some new pheno\genotype before the ecology changes. A clear anticipation.

Note: I personally do not believe there is any positive evidence in favor of teleology writ large, but if there were, how would we know?

It would be more in the things you would NOT see that are present:

99% of species going extinct would not happen if the new ecologies were anticipated and pre-adaption took place.
wishy-washy changes back and forth, like the Galapagos finches would not occur.

Just to name a couple.

You wouldn't have the appearance of bad design.

Teleology has been discarded in science due to the overwhelming evidence that contradicts it.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : •

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 01-31-2008 9:22 AM		Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 8:02 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 44 of 114 (453678)
02-03-2008 5:00 PM

Reply to: Message 20 by Quetzal
02-01-2008 8:02 AM

I wonder if I can get the DI to spot me a couple million $$$ for this experiment that would "prove" ID?

You never know until you try eh? I've wondered if they could be used for a source of funding before. Wonder what their criteria is.

I was thinking about how I would design an experiment that might show this. It would obviously have to be really fine-grained to show subtle change, and deal with an organism or group of organisms that were very sensitive to subtle shifts in selection pressures.

It occurred to me today that you might have a problem if you did have an instance of anticipation, and that would be discerning if

it was a designer anticipating (or knowing) upcoming changes, or

a population that was sensitive to information we don't notice, a "sixth sense" like the cat that visits the dying ...

How would you control for that?

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 8:02 AM		Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 46 by Quetzal, posted 02-03-2008 7:17 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 65 of 114 (455300)
02-11-2008 8:09 PM

Reply to: Message 64 by Quetzal
02-11-2008 7:42 PM

Re: Teleology from another viewpoint

After all, if the Designer really did create everything for them, don't you think It would intervene to prevent the destruction of Its chosen, erm, people?

Unless the chosen tribe is bacteria, and all the other organisms are designed to provide cozy environments and transportation and nourishment (to say nothing of entertainment).

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 64 by Quetzal, posted 02-11-2008 7:42 PM		Quetzal has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 80 of 114 (458574)
02-29-2008 10:46 PM

Reply to: Message 79 by mrjoad2
02-29-2008 9:50 AM

Can we know?

However teleology suggests that "form follows function"; a person has eyes because of the need to see vs the other way around. It's like looking at our development within only the last thousand years and saying that life could not have developed any other way, and your right in that:

But if you lose the anthropomorphic egotism, we see that other forms of life have eyes, so not just our specific development is needed for life to see, to perceive.

So how do you assign a "purpose", and what is it?

What would be the common purpose of life, all life? Survival? That doesn't explain diversity or the elevation of more complex forms from simple forms.

Again form follows function; what is the function?

Redundancy of function that ensures continued trending independent of species specific short term trends, able to survive set-backs.

This is a good point, as far, ulterior motives, you first would have to know the rules or the purpose.

What do the predator and prey have in common, what are they both developing?

How do you cheat in a game where you don't know the rules?

How do you know what you are looking for without knowing what you are looking for?

Enjoy.

ps - welcome to the fray.

Edited by RAZD, : ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 79 by mrjoad2, posted 02-29-2008 9:50 AM		mrjoad2 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 81 by mrjoad2, posted 03-03-2008 9:38 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 89 of 114 (459290)
03-05-2008 5:01 PM

Reply to: Message 88 by Eclogite
03-04-2008 11:29 AM

Re: Can we know?

Welcome to the fray Eclogite.

To repeat, I wish to totally separate the notion of Intelligent Design as a fatuous excuse by Creationists to pretend they are engaged in science, from intelligent design, in which we acknowledge the possibility of external controls and remain alert for their potential appearance.

In other words, any branch of science (including evolution) could provide that potential appearance. What you may want to consider is using Deism rather than ID.

Scientific hypotheses never are proven, so I am not sure what point you are making.

I would say that ID has not been demonstrated. Probably 99% of ID has to do with non-testable assertions, and the remaining 1% amounts to trivial conclusions that do not differentiate ID from standard (agnostic) scientific studies. This means that there is no difference to science with ID from science without ID, so it has no proven benefit to consider ID.

It has been taken as serious scientific premise until two hundred years ago. My point is precisely that it should be given more attention - the words 'baby' and 'bath water' come to mind.

Yet 200 years ago science was not defined the way it is today. Is alchemy science?

The difference lies in the fact that ID is ideologically based, whereas intelligent design should be investigated with the full rigour of the scientific method. But that requires that no a priori judgements be made. The scientific community has been making such a judgement - by and large - for the past century.

Can you demonstrate this having happened? People keep making assertions like this, but I don't see it. Can you enlighten me?

My personal take is that this is a philosophical question that lies outside of the realms of science, that science can support your personal philosophical views (and should for those views to be rational), but not that science rules one way or the other.

All science shows is that certain concepts are false. Those concepts are false whether you believe in god or not. Science can steer you away from false beliefs, but cannot tell you what are true beliefs.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 88 by Eclogite, posted 03-04-2008 11:29 AM		Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 94 by Eclogite, posted 03-07-2008 1:19 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 90 of 114 (459291)
03-05-2008 5:03 PM

Reply to: Message 81 by mrjoad2
03-03-2008 9:38 AM

Re: Can we know?

I realize this is just one example, however, if the teleological argument is valid then all animals would develop eyes to see right?

If the purpose is to generate a species with the intelligence to contemplate the existence of god/s, while protecting life in general from trendencies towards extinction by maximizing diversity, you have both niche filling (survival) plus some organisms reaching higher consciousness.

For example the need for eyes arouse because of a superior advantage over those that could not see, and so on.

And other senses - sonar, radar, infrared (heat) vision. Perception of reality, as a basis for intellectual contemplation of a greater reality.

What do the predator and prey have in common, what are they both developing?

I am not quite sure I understand what your asking in relation to the topic.

The predator-prey relationship drives development of both predator and prey - it is a tool for improvements.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 81 by mrjoad2, posted 03-03-2008 9:38 AM		mrjoad2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 91 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-06-2008 4:04 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 98 of 114 (459969)
03-11-2008 3:12 PM

Reply to: Message 94 by Eclogite
03-07-2008 1:19 PM

Re: Can we know?

This would be inappropriate, since it implies the nature of the intelligence providing the design as being some kind of supreme being, when it may be another alien life form, or our own descendants with a penchant for time travel, or......

Which are just lame excuses in order to enable pursuing the question as one of supreme being. I prefer being honest.

No seeming benefit. If we have ruled it to be unecessary, then we are not going to be alert to possible clues as to its presence.

To echo what Stiles said, there is no benefit -- science looks for what happens and how best to explain it, and if the science done with ID is no different to science done without ID there is no benefit: either to science OR to ID.

You have to be able to show a difference between the results of concept {A} and concept {B} or they are indistinguishable in productivity. All you end up doing is catering to religious people looking for an excuse to tack supreme beings into equations -- something you said was inappropriate ... (truth will out).

There are two reasons a phenomenon is not observed - a)it does not exist; b) no one is looking for it.

Or you are not looking for the right "IT" in the right place or in the right way.

I think there is sufficient evidence for a teleogical explanation of aspects of the Universe, that we ought to spend some effort in looking.

In other words you want people to cater to your belief in a supreme being, whether they believe what you do or not, rather than do the work yourself?

If there is "sufficient evidence" then let's detail it and discuss it. We had a whole thread on this evidence and the best anyone could come up with is "gosh it sure looks designed to me" argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Evidence that is appropriate for belief in Deism but not much else.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
	Message 94 by Eclogite, posted 03-07-2008 1:19 PM		Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 102 by Eclogite, posted 03-12-2008 9:51 AM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	AZPaul3, nwr, Omnivorous, Taq
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0