Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Whether microbe-to-human evolution is something you want to deny or support is an entirely different matter than the one I was addressing, and perhaps that is why there was disagreement between us.

It's still a creationist model being touted that has derailed the thread. Creationists deny that species can change, that invertebrates preceded vertebrates and so on: once an ape, always an ape; once a human, always a human; once a rib then a woman, and so on.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

I understand, Greta. That is why I said that the matter Anthony brought up was separate from what I was addressing.

[Anthony Edgar]

It's still a creationist model being touted that has derailed the thread. Creationists deny that species can change, that invertebrates preceded vertebrates and so on: once an ape, always an ape; once a human, always a human; once a rib then a woman, and so on.

Every aspect of science should be open to debate and skepticism - just ask Galileo.   In a free society, the claim that "macro-evolution is a fact"  can be questioned as long as the questioning is confined to science.  Whether the questioning is done by creationists or not is irrelevant.  I might be wrong, but I think science should be open to everyone.

Unlike the very useful fact of micro-evolution, macro-evolution (speciation) is utterly useless to science.  So why should anyone care if it's questioned?  Or even debunked?   

I find it fascinating that lots of folks get really upset whenever the perfectly useless "fact" of macro-evolution is doubted.  How can one explain this phenomenon?  Is it possible that the displeasure displayed can be traced to some motive that's totally unrelated to science?  If so, I wonder what that motive could be?

[Anthony Edgar]

perhaps that is why there was disagreement between us.

The disagreement here is:  You accept as fact the theory of evolution in it's entirety (most of which is scientifically useless), whereas I accept only the parts of this theory that can be verified as fact (which, surprise suprise, are the only parts that are scientifically useful).

------------------------------------------------

Who built Seth Lloyd's "quantum computer" ... or did it build itself?  If it built itself, is it scientific to believe that any kind of computer can build itself?

[ThamiorTheThinker]

perhaps that is why there was disagreement between us.

The disagreement here is:  You accept as fact the theory of evolution in it's entirety (most of which is scientifically useless), whereas I accept only the parts of this theory that can be verified as fact (which, surprise suprise, are the only parts that are scientifically useful).

------------------------------------------------

Who built Seth Lloyd's "quantum computer" ... or did it build itself?  If it built itself, is it scientific to believe that any kind of computer can build itself?

Anthony Edgar, you seem to misunderstand the difference between the Neo-Darwinian synthesis (our modern understanding of the theory of evolution) and the actual process of evolution itself. Evolution - the change of traits between generations of organisms - is a directly observable fact, and there is really no denying that it happens. The THEORY of evolution is a holistic theory that is meant to explain and predict the effects of the mechanisms behind evolution - the genetics, physiology, natural selection, mechanisms of mutation, etc.

Furthermore, scientific theories are not "accepted" as fact. Facts are directly observable features or events in nature. THEORIES are systems of models, explanations, and predictions that can be tested and refined, or rejected if they don't adequately predict or explain behavior we see in the natural world. We keep and accept theories, but we do not seek to "prove" them. Evolution is a FACT, but there are theories of evolution that explain and predict certain aspects of evolutionary processes, and these theories can either succeed or fail in each aspect that they try to explain or make a prediction about.

Right now, biologists are uniformly accepting of the much-touted Neo-Darwinian theory, and unless you have a specific argument or set of evidence against the piles and piles of evidence that support it.

All of this is beside the point, anyway. You're trying to reinvent the wheel, while the rest of us are trying to discuss the car's engine - if that analogy makes sense. You're asking a question that has already been settled, as far as I'm aware, and is so far removed from the original poster's question that you aren't actually contributing much to the conversation. It would be in your best interest to take your scientific grievances elsewhere. That is, unless you have something of value to contribute to the orginal question asked in this forum, which is about human agency and our power to control our gene pools.

-- Updated October 6th, 2016, 11:28 am to add the following --

Furthermore, Anthony, your claim that macro-evolution is "useless" is just plain wrong. We have many uses for the idea of speciation, such as the study of how different species, through genetic drift, divvy away from their original population and inherit new traits which either help or hurt their survival and repopulation capacity in a new niche. Macro-evolution helps us understand why species live in different niches, and can even help us understand human bioculture. You should study biological anthropology if you haven't yet. Macro-evolutionary studies provide us a wealth of understanding and scientific guidance in our modern world.

-- Updated October 6th, 2016, 11:32 am to add the following --

EDIT: In using evolution to study bioculture and occupation of niches by various groups, we come to understand human and nonhuman animal diversity much more holistically and with a rigorous, scientific eye. The biology, genetics, and physiology of evolution is so key to understanding our ideas of ethnicity, disease resistance, sex, gender identity, societal roles and politics/economics in various regions. Once we understand why people take the shapes and forms they do, and why they occupy the regions they do, we can understand how and why they survive and work within the cultural and political confines that they do. Simply put, evolution is a key source of insight in cultural and physical anthropology.

[Felix]

For the record, Mr. Edgar is correct, the idea of a favorable mutation leading to the formation of a distinct new species is a cornerstone of Darwin's theory but we have never observed it. Doesn't it mean it can't happen, but there's no concrete evidence to support the idea.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Okay, fair enough, speciation is not something that has been directly observed, but we have plenty of indirect evidence to suggest it makes sense, and frankly no model of evolutionary history makes sense without speciation... when populations of a species change, occupy new niches and succumb to evolutionary forces, divergence between them and the original population becomes distinct enough for our concept of 'species' to fit, so it only makes sense to assume that speciation can and has happened. We have plenty of geologic and fossil evidence to suggest this is the case. I'll give you sources if you'd like, but not here, and I'll explain why: ALL of this is beside the point. The original post was not about speciation of humans - it was about the micro-evolution of humans, which Anthony Edgar seems to have no problems accepting. So, this entire back-and-forth game has no ground in this discussion. It's completely irrelevant. Can we get back to the original discussion now?

[Sy Borg]

Speciation occurs over long time scales. It would be irrational to disbelieve something just because it occurred on long time scales. The idea that forms are set for all time with only minor modifications is absurd. The evidence showing the relationship between birds and dinosaurs is overwhelming.

Today, speciation is in different phases on progression in different species: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/ ... speciation

Moving away from neo-creationist digressions, as regards the thread topic, humans themselves appear to be in the process of speciation. The wealthy and enabled will be ever more augmented by biotechnology and implanted AI. If humanity persists over a long period then there will come a time when different kinds of humans will be incapable of breeding with each other.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Interesting point about biotechnology and bodily augmentation, Greta! Should evolution be considered organic/unartificial for the sake of this debate, or do you think your points have a stake in this discussion?

[Sy Borg]

Interesting point about biotechnology and bodily augmentation, Greta! Should evolution be considered organic/unartificial for the sake of this debate, or do you think your points have a stake in this discussion?

Sure, the points directly pertain to the OP - drugs, stem cells, gene therapy and "deep science fiction".

Things will change whether humans direct some of the processes or not. Put a number of people in an area (or other animals, for that matter) and they will form groups and assert dominance and territory. Groups will compete and there will also be competition within the group for resources and mating rights.

It's the relentless maddening competition - either in the wild or in human societies - that drives evolution. It's a harsh system. Changes can manifest over generations via DNA or they can happen relatively quickly via synthetic augmentation. There is always the concern as to whether societies are mature enough for such empowerment, but those concerns tend to be rendered moot by unethical power players who take advantage of any ethical hesitancy in their competitors.

The result? The usual - the tragedy of the commons. SNAFU :lol:

[Anthony Edgar]

Furthermore, Anthony, your claim that macro-evolution is "useless" is just plain wrong. We have many uses for the idea of speciation, such as the study of how different species, through genetic drift, divvy away from their original population and inherit new traits which either help or hurt their survival and repopulation capacity in a new niche. Macro-evolution helps us understand why species live in different niches, and can even help us understand human bioculture. You should study biological anthropology if you haven't yet. Macro-evolutionary studies provide us a wealth of understanding and scientific guidance in our modern world.

Using one theory to embellish another theory is not my idea of a practical use; rather it's just more useless talk. practical use = a use in applied science (eg, medicine, animal or plant breeding, farming or agriculture).

[ThamiorTheThinker]

I will reiterate, Anthony, my recommendation that you study bioculture - a concept formulated and researched by anthropologists. The gains made by anthropologists by applying macroevolutionary concepts are far from impractical.

I would also ask, then, why we study particle physics and formulate/test theories regarding cosmology and the Big Bang if none of these things apply to our modern world and its demands for practicality?

All of this is beside the point, anyway. You should message me personally if you wish to continue this diverging debate. We're polluting the forum by debating macroevolution when the original topic wasn't about macroevolution at all.

[1i3i6--]

A great deal of tragedy and suffering occurs in the world when people engage in actions for which they have little understanding of.
Alas, here we are having already chosen to be in command of an incredible responsibility : Consciousness.

Powerful and highly complex processes are many times observed to be 'slow'.

Your thread opening question is "Should humans be responsibile for their own evolution?"
In many and incredible ways, we are and have been for a long time.
As an example, gene expression in the body can be influenced simply by one's 'mood'.
Gene conditioning occurs from mother to child while it is in the womb via its Mother's mood.

There are things within our scope/control and there are things beyond our scope/control.
It will always be this way in this Universe.
By the way, the evolutionary process that governs many aspects of our make up is hardly understood w.r.t to its scope and influence.
For all intents and purpose, it is a living dynamic feedback system.

So, if you research this very deeply, you'll find that human beings have long since been responsible to varying degrees for their evolution. The question then becomes how much respsonsibility? When? why?

Our technlogical advancements 'seem' to be giving us more power over the process and with great power comes much responsibility.
When?/Why? Consult the arrow of time and why it seems to point in a certain direction.

1) Drugs : Technology that does great good and great harm. (chemical)
2) Stem Cells : Technology that does great good and great harm. (Biological)
3) Gene therapy : Technology that does great good and great harm. (Biological)
Were already editing our genome via CRISPR/CAS9. China has already introduced edited factors into human beings.
4) Deep Science-fiction : Deep Science Fiction is already quickly becoming reality

Should we do it?
This gets back to the 'creator' inquiry that many Scientist can't wrap their heads around.
We can and thus seemingly will. The arrow of time points in a certain direction and we are riding it.

The Answer I provided was beyond yes/no.
What are ethics? With great power comes great responsibility. You learn that the easy or hard way. This truth simply is.

As far as the mathematics :
Infinite Set has Countably Infinite Subset

What 'is' simply is. If x is possible in the sea of infinite possibilities, it will seemingly come to be.