Philosophy Discussion Forums

So. Quite a lot has been added and corrected since 1860. Darwin laid the foundation; he never claimed it was a finished body of knowledge, and neither has anyone else. But 'Can't turn dogs into cats' is right down there with "How come there are still monkeys?" That shows you haven't grasped enough basics to make an argument.

Even if you take the human evolutionary tree transitional forms between the different human species are absent and you have very rapid speciation taking place in less than 6 million years.

How do you mean transitional forms between human species are absent? http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils You do understand there's not supposed to be any bridge between concurrently existing types - only common ancestors of divergent types. 6,000,000 years is hardly an eye-blink! All this http://popchartlab.com/products/the-diagram-of-dogs happened in the less than 10,000 years that humans have been breeding dogs. Since canines - though not modern style dogs - may have been associated with humans for as much as 32,000 years, I'm allowing that the domestic canine species must have undergone some modifications during the whole of that association: that's 16-20,000 generations of dogs altogether; no more than 6,000 generations of purposeful breeding. Why do you consider those changes in hominid skull shape, in a variety of environments, over 350,000 generations, as very rapid?

(I'm counting 2 years for canine and 20 years for human breeding maturity. For most of the time period, both species were probably reproducing at an earlier age; closer to 15 years per human generative cycle - which makes it even more: maybe 357,000 generations. Probably 160,000 since the earliest identifiable human. That's plenty of scope for cumulative changes. Consider: we've only had 250 generations since Noah.)

The non-question of "micro" versus "macro" evolution is a red herring that was dealt with long ago by the science of evolutionary biology. Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution writ large. What biological or logical barriers prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution? These two terms are often misused by creationists in this way but the purported distinction between the two is not real and does not alter the fact of evolution. It's just religious "micro-ignorance" in the service of religious "macro-ignorance".

With all due respect, I think Ruskin is merely saying that there must be more to it than just genetic drift and natural selection. And I myself agree with this. No one is saying that those two processes don't play a role.

But when we see entirely new structures and adaptations forming - swimming, crawling, walking, hearing, seeing, flying - as well as psychological ones - emotion, cognition, reason - we have to ask ourselves if it's reasonable that only these two variables are involved....

Atreyu wrote:With all due respect, I think Ruskin is merely saying that there must be more to it than just genetic drift and natural selection. And I myself agree with this. No one is saying that those two processes don't play a role.

A role? In what larger process? Who are the unseen other players?

But when we see entirely new structures and adaptations forming - swimming, crawling, walking, hearing, seeing, flying

Where/when did we see any of those structures forming? Or being new? Where/when do we see a sharp cut-off between not crawling and crawling? Every human infant makes that transition, without magic - and does it fast enough for the fond parents to watch every flail, every flop, every carpet-swim, every failed attempt. There was no human to watch the fish do it over a 20,000 generations, and therefore the fish couldn't have done it?

- as well as psychological ones - emotion, cognition, reason

Never had a dog? Or watched a squirrel work out how to safe-crack an unfamiliar bird-feeder? Or heard a pair of jays teach their young to fly?*

- we have to ask ourselves if it's reasonable that only these two variables are involved....

How come you're asking yourself instead of a biologist, a paleontologist, a taxonomist, a geneticist, a neurobiologist, a zoologist, or any of the other researchers who have useful information on all the factors and forces and mechanics, including the only two Ruskin seems to have heard of? Was it because you gave yourself a more satisfactory, untestable and therefore uncontestable answer?


(Whereas newly-fledged starlings are natural flyers - out of the nest and air-borne, usually on the first try - fat baby bluejays tend to be afraid of heights and require hours of encouragement from both parents, stationed a few trees apart. And they do not use their 'indoor' voice!)

Alias, you have missed my point.

My point is that it's ludicrous to think that only mechanical forces were involved, when we see so much new infrastructure forming. It takes a very great imagination to imagine so much complexity solely arising from mechanical forces, without any plan or purpose.

And asking "who" else is involved is very poor philosophy. I can imagine the same question being asked of one red blood cell to another, when the latter posits that perhaps they are both actually part of some greater organism.....

Atreyu wrote:My point is that it's ludicrous to think that only mechanical forces were involved, when we see so much new infrastructure forming. It takes a very great imagination to imagine so much complexity solely arising from mechanical forces, without any plan or purpose.

Genetics works by chemistry, which works by the 'laws' or physics. You can explain anything happening in genetics by mutation. If you want to image something far more complex than genetics that is capable of intervening to plan and control this process then by scientific standards you need to tell us what it is and how it works and show evidence of the same. Until then we simple unimaginative scientists will keep assuming it's random.

Atreyu wrote:Alias, you have missed my point.

My point is that it's ludicrous to think that only mechanical forces were involved, when we see so much new infrastructure forming. It takes a very great imagination to imagine so much complexity solely arising from mechanical forces, without any plan or purpose.

And asking "who" else is involved is very poor philosophy. I can imagine the same question being asked of one red blood cell to another, when the latter posits that perhaps they are both actually part of some greater organism.....

I didn`t miss your point. It was : I can`t see it, so it must be wrong. In no wise does evolution exclude the possibility of something even larger to be a part of. It does, however, explain quite well the mechanisms of life on Earth and doesn't require any imaginary components to fill any unexplored blanks. Positing a "plan and purpose" would at the very least suggest a "who" or intelligence behind it all. If that be poor philosophy, it didn't originate with me

Why is it that those who don't understand science feel the need to denigrate it and pretend that it is not our best means of understanding reality?

There may be something "out there" that is directing the unfolding of the universe. Who knows? But unless we can make that something detectable through our senses, and our technological extensions thereof, it remains just "woo".

Few things anger me more than pointy hats and pissant woo-mongers.

Lagayscienza wrote:There may be something "out there" that is directing the unfolding of the universe. Who knows? But unless we can make that something detectable through our senses, and our technological extensions thereof, it remains just "woo".

There is very obviously lots of "something more" and it is what it is, no matter what hominids claim or don't claim about it. The broad realistic possibilities for reality are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. it's all just disparate "stuff" floating around in which order and sentience accidentally emerged

2. it's all an integrated living or mechanical system in which order and sentience are expected phenomena

3. it's all a growing living system in the process of integration, ie. if we do not detect systemic integration at the largest scales it may be because it is yet to happen

4. it's all something else again that few, or maybe no one, has imagined.

Sorry, that's a bit of a digression but I dislike the word "woo", which tells me that the speaker is speaking politically rather than analytically. Of course Ruskin, like many, looks for interpretations to support his worldview. His issues about evolution were explained in post #4 by Alias: birds evolved from small dinosaurs, shaped by the physical laws and the Earth's natural processes.

The more important issue today is not looking for flaws in one of the most successful theories in science, but considering human evolution, and how the past developments, today's tech and anticipated challenges might help us predict where we are going. Another list of possibilities (no doubt as incomplete as the above list) :

1. Ever greater technological and genetic empowerment of humans, individually and collectively, with gradual re-greening of the Earth and restoration of damaged natural systems. Onwards and upwards!

2. Devolution of individual humans, increasingly just parts of a larger evolving system (this could theoretically lead to almost complete loss of independence and individual human sentience as we know it, echoing the "devolutionary" path of mitochondria).

3. Splitting of the human species: a technologically and genetically enhanced minority effectively become Homo machina, controlling resources and leaving the remaining Homo sapiens to fight for the scraps,.

4. A return to wild living after destruction of civilisation and most of the environment.

Alias wrote: I didn`t miss your point. It was : I can`t see it, so it must be wrong. In no wise does evolution exclude the possibility of something even larger to be a part of. It does, however, explain quite well the mechanisms of life on Earth and doesn't require any imaginary components to fill any unexplored blanks. Positing a "plan and purpose" would at the very least suggest a "who" or intelligence behind it all. If that be poor philosophy, it didn't originate with me

But that's my point. I would surmise a "who" or "intelligence" behind it all, if the alternative is solely genetic drift, cross-species sex, and natural selection. Those three variables alone simply don't satisfy me. The situation simply appears more dynamic than that.

But you are correct in asserting that TOE in no way excludes any possibility of other factors being involved, and that it explains satisfactorily what is involved at the cellular level and below. It's sufficient, but only physiologically speaking.

My point is basically that there must also be a psychological side to all this change of species.....

Greta wrote: The more important issue today is not looking for flaws in one of the most successful theories in science, but considering human evolution, and how the past developments, today's tech and anticipated challenges might help us predict where we are going. Another list of possibilities (no doubt as incomplete as the above list) :

1. Ever greater technological and genetic empowerment of humans, individually and collectively, with gradual re-greening of the Earth and restoration of damaged natural systems. Onwards and upwards!

2. Devolution of individual humans, increasingly just parts of a larger evolving system (this could theoretically lead to almost complete loss of independence and individual human sentience as we know it, echoing the "devolutionary" path of mitochondria).

3. Splitting of the human species: a technologically and genetically enhanced minority effectively become Homo machina, controlling resources and leaving the remaining Homo sapiens to fight for the scraps,.

4. A return to wild living after destruction of civilisation and most of the environment.

Not to be pessimistic, but I vote for #2 and #4. #1 and #3 appear to be pipe dreams....

There could also be a mix of all four of those possibilities too.

In fact, on reflection that seems very possible - re-greening of limited areas, continued advancement and inequity, increasing specialisation of individual functions, others struggling to survive in refugee camps, barren and remote areas.

I hope for #1 but am fearful we may be in for #4.

Greta wrote:There is very obviously lots of "something more" and it is what it is, no matter what hominids claim or don't claim about it. The broad realistic possibilities for reality are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. it's all just disparate "stuff" floating around in which order and sentience accidentally emerged

2. it's all an integrated living or mechanical system in which order and sentience are expected phenomena

3. it's all a growing living system in the process of integration, i.e. if we do not detect systemic integration at the largest scales it may be because it is yet to happen

4. it's all something else again that few, or maybe no one, has imagined.

Proposition. Physics and chemistry lead to the existence of DNA/RNA which has a tendency to self replicate. Successful self replication propagates in a variety of ways because certain elements of the process introduce randomness. Does this satisfy 1, 2 and 3?

Mark1955 wrote:Proposition. Physics and chemistry lead to the existence of DNA/RNA which has a tendency to self replicate. Successful self replication propagates in a variety of ways because certain elements of the process introduce randomness. Does this satisfy 1, 2 and 3?

It looks like #1 to me, Mark. It says that stuff happens with no reason nor rhyme, it's all just arbitrary processes abiding to arbitrary laws that just happen to work the way they do because if they didn't then we wouldn't exist.

Greta wrote:

Mark1955 wrote:Proposition. Physics and chemistry lead to the existence of DNA/RNA which has a tendency to self replicate. Successful self replication propagates in a variety of ways because certain elements of the process introduce randomness. Does this satisfy 1, 2 and 3?

It looks like #1 to me, Mark. It says that stuff happens with no reason nor rhyme, it's all just arbitrary processes abiding to arbitrary laws that just happen to work the way they do because if they didn't then we wouldn't exist.

But if bacteria [and their DNA/RNA] live on me along with my DNA aren't we an integrated [or integrating] system?

If the 'laws' of physics lead to this self replication isn't it 'expected to happen'?