Philosophy Discussion Forums

Belinda,

Straw man. I never said or implied that intelligence was a universal. Try again.

Alun,

I think that we are operating from unresolvably different frames of reference on this subject. What I am stating about intelligence, i.e. that only the product of intelligence is discernible because no material or entity can be found to be intelligent in and of itself, is as obvious in my frame of reference as stating that the sky is blue.

However, when I say that, apparently it means something else in your world, in Belinda's, and in Athena's; it means that the sun must be intelligent, or radiation must be intelligent, or that I'm invoking supernatural agents or universals, metaphysics or religion, or applying the definition "intelligent agency" to metals or toxins or their sources.

Intelligent Design is process for the classification of product or outcomes; it is not a process of identifying intelligent agents. You and others seem to be stuck on the idea that ID identifies the agent, which is why you keep trying to identify the materials or the source as intelligent, or why others keep insisting there is some supernatural or metaphysical agency involved.

Gravity is not something you see. Entropy is not something you can see. Time is not something you can see. However, what we can see and quantify are the effects of what these forces produce; they produce quantifiable and recognizable characteristics in physical phenomena.

So does intelligence. You cannot see intelligence even when humans apply it; you can only recognize what they produce as intelligently designed.

Meleagar wrote:Athena,

Why do you think the term "selection" is prefaced with the modifier "natural"? What was the point of calling it "natural" selection, instead of just selection? Furthermore, why is the modifier "random" used in front of "mutation"? Why not just call them "mutations"?

You don't hear about "natural" gravity, or "random" turbulence. What about "natural" erosion or "random" meteorite strikes? Ever hear those terms used?

There's a reason why the words "random" and "natural" were inserted into Darwin's theory; Darwin, his contemporaries and those coming afterward were making a deliberate, specific argment against design. He was making an ideological assertion and argument by using those terms.

The real debate was started when scientists decided to adopt the ideoloigcal therms "random" and "natural" without ever offering a shred of evidence that those are proper characterizations of the phenomena in question. They won the ideological war by simply inserting such terms into the lexicon of evolution without warrant or vetting.

The real debate is about which characterization is more suitable; intelligent, or unintelligent.

Since that is the real argument that the term Darwinism points towards, nobody gets to remove intelligence from the debate by fiat or decree of supernaturalism. Intelligence exists; humans have it. Whatever it is, it affects things, and leaves recognizable configurations.

In order to argue about Darwinism, one must engage the positon that Darwinism was invented in deliberate contradiction to: intelligent design.

I believe in universal intelligence. I do not believe in a Zeus like God, and that is what is implied by intelligent design. I am one hundred percent in favor of declaring evolution is natural, rather than what we have is the result of a God thinking it so, and making it so by means other than natural means.

Mutations are random, as are the events on the quantum physics level random. Why do you object to this? Do you want to claim some individuals get skin cancer and some don't because of intelligent design? That is the argument, and it should not have become the argument in a science forum. You are not treating the subject scientifically, because you are imposing religious beliefs in a scientific discussion.

These discussions about evolution or Darwinism are so out of control. Life does not begin with single cell animals but with acids the contain the DNA for life. If we can not discuss science, because of constant interference from the religious minded, than we will never get to truth.

Meleagar wrote:it means that the sun must be intelligent, or radiation must be intelligent, or that I'm invoking supernatural agents or universals, metaphysics or religion, or applying the definition "intelligent agency" to metals or toxins or their sources.

No, it means that the intelligence has to do something at all to be relevant. Whether it is material in nature is not the issue; it just has to have phenomenal effects. So I'm trying to understand; are you worried that we cannot rule out whether the sun was intelligently placed? Or whether chemical principles are intelligently designed so that each protein works the way it does?

Meleagar wrote:You and others seem to be stuck on the idea that ID identifies the agent, which is why you keep trying to identify the materials or the source as intelligent, or why others keep insisting there is some supernatural or metaphysical agency involved.

No, the problem is that there is no scientific explanation of design that does not utilize the features of the designer in order to successfully characterize the design itself. Only ID purports to know something about the nature of designed things themselves, regardless of the designer.

This doesn't really address what I thought we'd been talking about, however--it seems to belong in the ID thread. So are you going to tell me where the evidence is lacking? Or why my reasoning is incomplete?

Alun,

I've already shown where your reasoning is lacking and incomplete; you're still looking for ID to establish the identity of the agent by looking into the materials or tools that generate a product. The intelligent design of a sand castle cannot be found out by examining the properties of the sand, or the waves, or the sun, or the wind. Just because you don't see the agent around, or see how they are doing what they are doing, doesn't mean that we are incapable of discerning the sand castle as the product of ID.

As far as your argument that design cannot be inferred without knowing the designer, I've already addressed that with my "alien artifact" scenario; of course ID can be inferred without knowing the "features" of the designing agent, whatever that means.

The only necessary "feature" is that it had/has intelligence, and that it expressed that intelligence in a manner comparable to how humans express it when generating discernible ID phenomena. If some unknown intelligence expresses ID in phenomena in a manner utterly unlike how humans express it (when recognizable), then that would be ID design we would be currently incapable of recognizing.

Darwinism is the assertion that what we observe in life (outside of known human activity) is not the product (in any way, or in any amount) of intelligent causation and organization; as such, it is primarily an ideological position comparable to materialism that has no evidence to support its ideological characterizations.

Straw man. I never said or implied that intelligence was a universal. Try again.

Meleagar

It's either a universal or it inheres in particulars. There is no middle way. I wonder if you understand the theory of universals.

Just because you don't see the agent around, or see how they are doing what they are doing, doesn't mean that we are incapable of discerning the sand castle as the product of ID.

Meleagar replies to Alun

ID inheres in particular things though, as I keep insisting. If you think that intelligence, or design, or intelligent design dont inhere in particular things, where and what are they?
************************************************** *********
Re: Meleagar's quote in Athena's #107

The reason that 'natural' is used with 'selection' and not with ' e.g. 'meteorites' is that selection was already well known for centuries past. With the knowledge that came after Darwin, it became necessary to compare and contrast artificial selection with natural selection. I daresay that if meteorites were to be articially made we would distinguish between natural meteorites and artifical meteorites for the same reason.

************************************************** ***

Darwinism is the assertion that what we observe in life (outside of known human activity) is not the product (in any way, or in any amount) of intelligent causation and organization; as such, it is primarily an ideological position comparable to materialism that has no evidence to support its ideological characterizations.

I agree with Meleagar in this. The metaphysics of existence that are implicit in Darwin's work were naturalistic metaphysics.Did D ever make this explicit? I dont know. I understand that most scientists are metaphysical naturalists, if they are interested in metaphysics at all._________________

Meleagar wrote:I've already shown where your reasoning is lacking and incomplete; you're still looking for ID to establish the identity of the agent by looking into the materials or tools that generate a product.

I meant about the argument for natural selection. E.g. my most recent post on it. I think the challenges for you with ID are laid out in the other thread.

Alun wrote: I meant about the argument for natural selection. E.g. my most recent post on it

That post only reveals the gaping chasm between what I say, and what you understand of what I have said, which is why I elected to not respond to it.

Meleagar, Let us assume everything is the result of Intelligent Design. Now how does that Intelligent Designer create life?

Life on earth begins with acids that hold the DNA code. This means the way the Intelligent Designer did things is evolution, right? If not explain how you think the Intelligent Designer created life.

athena wrote:Meleagar, Let us assume everything is the result of Intelligent Design. Now how does that Intelligent Designer create life?

Life on earth begins with acids that hold the DNA code. This means the way the Intelligent Designer did things is evolution, right? If not explain how you think the Intelligent Designer created life.

Evolution, as it is currently defined, requires heritable variation. Without reproduction passing along heritable traits, evolution isn't in operation. One cannot create life through evolution when life is necessary for evolution to function. Catch-22.

You don't need to hypothesize how an intelligent designer might try to create life; intelligent designers involved in origin of life research have attempted to accomplish that very thing.

My personal opinion is that observing consciousnesses (like ours) retro-collapse historical quantum pathways (observer collapse, delayed-choice experiments) in a necessary pattern so that our existence is supported by cause and effect sequence, regardless of how unlikely such a sequence of occurrences may be.

IOW, the history of evoluion is in fact teleological for our existence, but only because history has been retroactively organized via quantum collapse by our own consciousness. This of course requires that time be a true fourth dimension, but at least there is some scientific support for all of this. It also makes mind primary and idealism necessary.

See? No supernatural entities, no metaphysics, just good old scientific quantum theory interpretation. This would explain both how and why highly improbable collections of amino acids formed, evading the chirality problem, collected into functioning sequences of folding proteins, etc.; not because of chance or random mutations or later natural selection, but because of teleologically guided (via delayed-choice quantum collapse)chemical bindings and arrangements that were necessary to provide for our existence elsewhere in 4-dimensional space (meaning: later in time).

Also, this intelligent manipulation would be entirely unnoticeable outside of the designed results it generates in order to achieve the necessary end of providing for our physical existence. Mutation would not be random; selection would not be "natural". There is no such thing as "chance" in such a cosmological framework, and everything from point A to B is necessarily teleological, because without the teleology it is nothing but uncollapsed potential.

John Wheeler (eminent physicist) was the first (I believe) to come up with this scientific theory.

That is, of course, if we begin with your postulate that everything is intelligently designed.

Please note, this thread is not about alleged supernatural activity or gods. There are plenty of people who believe in god and evolution, plenty of atheists or agnostics who believe in evolution, as well as some people who have doubts about certain aspects of evolutionary theory or even consider presented empirical evidence to be hoaxes or lies.

Evolution science does not scientifically refute or confirm the existence of a god.

If one wants to talk about the belief of intelligent design of life (i.e. the belief that certain life, particularly humans, were created by a god or gods), then do that in another thread. You can use Juice's thread about intelligent design or start your own new topic about a different type or aspect of intelligent design.

Frankly, I feel any mention of a supernatural intelligent designer in this thread is off-topic and greatly risks derailing the discussion.

If any of you know of any empirical evidence from a credible source that refutes an evolution-related scientific theory or an aspect of it, please present it. And please do so in a respectful, open-minded manner--at least no more condescending than a quality teacher to a student. Please provide sources for any allegedly factual claims. For the most part, leave out any opinions (which are subjective) or other statements that are both non-philosophical and unscientific.

Needless to say, to even be a scientific theory, the principles must be derived from empirical evidence (i.e. observed, verified facts) and must be testable and possibly falsifiable or refutable by definition.

Additionally, ad hominem arguments or hasty generalizations made against "Darwinists," theists, or those believing in the scientific theories and facts of evolution are not only off-topic but against the forum rules (see #2 and #5).

Let's remember to stay on the topic of the question asked in the OP about how evolution occurred: " trying to get a handle on how man evolved from a cell to a creature with complex organs that are interdependent on each other."

There's no need to refute what has never been evidenced in the first place.

To answer the question, " trying to get a handle on how man evolved from a cell to a creature with complex organs that are interdependent on each other."

I refer you to the book "The Lives of a Cell" by Lewis Thomas.

"The viruses, instead of being single-minded agents of disease and death, now begin to look more like mobile genes. Evolution is still an infinitely long and tedious biologic game, with only the winners staying at the table, but the rules are beginning to look more flexible. We live in a dancing matrix of viruses, they dart, rather like bees, from organism to organism, from plant to insect to mammals to me, and back again, and into the sea, tugging along pieces of
DNA in the widest circulation among us."

We should know our bodies are not one organism, but are many organisms living together. We could not move a muscle if it were not for the mitochondria living in our cells. A mitochondria is an organism with its own DNA and it is what makes our cells work. That is, the complex cell is a colony of organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion

In cell biology, a mitochondrion (plural mitochondria) is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in most eukaryotic cells.[1] These organelles range from 0.5 to 10 micrometers (μm) in diameter. Mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because they generate most of the cell's supply of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), used as a source of the chemical energy.[2] In addition to supplying cellular energy, mitochondria are involved in a range of other processes, such as signaling, cellular differentiation, cell death, as well as the control of the cell cycle and cell growth.[

"If any of you know of any empirical evidence from a credible source that refutes an evolution-related scientific theory or an aspect of it, please present it."


I know of several. One is "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" it is by Professor John A Davison a former Professor of Biology at Vermont University

There is absolutely no evidence, natural or experimental, that selection has ever played a role in either speciation or the generation of any of the higher taxonomic categories.

Davison's ideas are not new but represents an extension of the convictions of other great scientist like Berg, Broom, Bateson, Punnett, Grasse, Osborn, Schindewolf, and Goldschmidt.


2005: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

John A Davison

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

1. Introduction
2. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
3. The Indirect Evidence
4. The Direct Evidence
5. Conclusion

Abstract. I propose that phylogeny took place in a manner similar to that of ontogeny by the derepression of preformed genomic information which was expressed through release from latency (derepression) by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information (position effects). Both indirect and direct evidence is presented in support of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.


l. INTRODUCTION

Historically there have been two major hypotheses to explain organic change, that of Lamarck, based on the transmission of characters acquired during the life of the individual and that of Darwin, which placed Nature in the role of selecting and thereby preserving those genetic changes which proved to be of advantage to the organism. These changes were presumed to be the means by which evolution proceeded. Each of these hypotheses has been thoroughly tested. The Lamarckian hypothesis was tested by August Weismann in Darwin’s own day with negative results. The Darwinian hypothesis has been tested with limited success. There is no question that artificial selection can significantly alter the phenotype as demonstrated with dogs, goldfish, and a host of other domesticated forms, both plant and animal. Nevertheless, the products of the most intensive selection have not exceeded the species barrier. It seems that sexual reproduction is incapable of transforming species even to new members of the same genus. Even if this could be demonstrated, it seems very unlikely that such a process could ever produce the higher categories of genus, family, order or class. I realize that these are contentious matters and it is with some trepidation that I have abandoned each of these hypotheses in order to offer what seems to me the only real viable alternative. It is the responsibility of the scientist to expose failed hypotheses, but it is equally his responsibility to offer a replacement for them. That is the purpose of this paper. Some of what I will present is not new with me but was proposed long ago by those I will cite, in their own words, so there is no misunderstanding of what they meant.

2. THE PRESCRIBED EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Just as differentiation involves the ordered derepression of pre-existing information, so then I propose, did evolution proceed by a similar means. Viewed in this way, ontogeny and phylogeny become part of the same organic continuum utilizing similar mechanisms for their expression. For those who may be unfamiliar with the history of evolutionary thought, these notions may seem bizarre, but they are in no way original with me. I only propose to extend them somewhat further.

Leo S. Berg in 1922 published his remarkable book, Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law, in which he presented several examples of what he called phylogenetic acceleration or the premature appearance of advanced features in primitive organisms. Among these were the development of a true placenta in certain sharks (Mustelus laevis), the ciliate protozoon (Diplodinium ecaudatum) in which whole “organ systems” are elaborated within the confines of a single cell, the possession of pneumatic bones in certain flightless reptiles and many other examples of the appearance of advanced features even in organisms for which there is no apparent adaptive significance. Generalizing from several such examples, Berg concluded:

“Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”

I personally believe in evolution.
But I know that there are actually a lot of things that it doesn't explain, or which it doesn't explain well. It also has never been empirically proved in a lab, so most of the work done on it has been supposition or hypothesis.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein