So the sense in which you're talking about evolution has little or nothing to do with 'the theory of evolution' as science pursues it — Wayfarer

Yep.

which is not to say that it's mistaken or fallacious — Wayfarer

But it is. The OP strings together a series of misunderstandings, producing a view of evolution that has nothing to do with how things actually work. The supposed argument in the OP is from personal incredulity. It's just a bad OP.

And I suspect you agree, as do , and .

It was popular in the early 20th century but has largely been discredited by modern evolutionary theory, which emphasizes the role of natural selection and random genetic variation in shaping the diversity of life. — Wayfarer

That's because evolution is a type of religion for people. Ironically, instead of seeing animals for what they are, people want to be their relatives. As I've discovered, life is about finding union with something spiritual and running after bones will not be a way of salvation as far as I can see. This involves the philosophical questions of continuity and discreteness, much of which is addressed by Aristotle. There is no end to how small evolutionists will the make distinctions and mutations throughout history. They end up in Zeno's paradox. It's the old ancient question of how many parts individuals are made up and how this relates to combinations and species



Not a single argument from you again. For every mutation, there is a first or firsts (several). So everytime a change in the species happens it happens with a handful of members at most, because it's random. So why did they survive every time there was a mutation and there was only a few that this happened too. Millions of small groups of mutants survived without extinction, all before they became a dominant group. Or is this too ineffable you?

That is, we are still able to rely upon our theory that given enough trials, most every combination will occur. — Hanover

You can't erase the probability so that it is no longer improbable by uniting it with other probabilities. That can go on forever and then you have no science

But you didn't answer my arguments. — Gregory

They are pseudo (à la "intelligent design"). :eyes:

Because you are not my child to educate. — Vera Mont

:up:

As I noted, you have no understanding of the theory you are arguing against. Nuff said. — T Clark

:clap:

The OP strings together a series of misunderstandings,producing a view of evolution that has nothing to do with how things actually work. The supposed argument in the OP is from personal incredulity. It's just a bad OP. — Banno

:100:

It's not intelligent design because I'm not saying God did something from above. I'm far closer to Spinoza. Strange how his version of God you don't dislike

Are you this creationist guy on the right? Your knowledge of evolution is as confused as his!

You guys are too blind to even admit I have valid arguments. I suppose I'm done here unless a new *argument* actually surfaces

Not a single argument from you again. — Gregory

Yeah, there was. I pointed out this argument from incredulity:

Millions of small groups of mutants survived without extinction, all before they became a dominant group. — Gregory

Yep, they did.

Do some detailed reading on how evolution and natural selection actually works.
The problem is that you have not presented a valid argument!
Vera Mont already told you:

There is no first member of a species. — Vera Mont

There are many factors involved. Two Neanderthals cant have sex and create the first Homo Sapien. That's not how it works.
Even your god, could not achieve the 'first human.' Where did 'Cain's' wife come from? She wasn't Cain's sister was she? So did god make Cain's wife before, during or after he made Adam from dirt?
Do you know for sure which one was magicked first?

:smirk: :up:

Spinoza's God is simply another name for Nature (i.e. natural laws). As I understand it, 'evolution' quallifies as a natural law even in Spinozist terms (pace Hegel).

So everytime a change in the species happens it happens with a handful of members at most, because it's random. So why did they survive every time there was a mutation and there was only a few that this happened too. — Gregory

Any instance of mutation happens in just one individual organism. If that mutation is not fatal then the organism survives, reproduces, and multiplies that specific mutation within subsequent generations. That new mutation may or may not even confer any advantage. The slow accumulative reordering of the genome through very long periods of time eventually produce significant changes to the organism that become phenotypically obvious. At any point environmental conditions can change such as geological disruptions causing physical separation of two or more groups of the same species (plate tectonics).

At this point the different groups separated into different environments will slowly mutate (as described above). After a long enough time these separated organisms can become very different from each other, and if the mutations are of a certain type and a certain threshold eventually become a new species to the point where they may become sexually incompatible with their ancestor group.

If any of these separated groups that have independent mutations meet again and are still sexually compatible then they may reproduce. These offspring will thus have a unique genome that can further evolve in different ways than the parent groups.

This is just one way i can imagine mutations occurring to cause drastic changes in genetically coded organisms; periodically producing new lines of evolutionary development. There are many other ways.

If you're interested you should check out this video:


And then play this game:
https://thelifeengine.net/

It's a very simple evolution simulator so it doesn't include sexual reproduction, but you can learn a lot from it and get a feel for how evolution works. I played it for a few weeks about a year ago. There are more complex simulators, but i think this is a good start.

Does it matter whether or not you believe in evolution?

It is an indication of one's capacity to understand a complex argument.

Thanks for the resources. And I recommend Aristotle on form and matter, a good start as well. Science and math serve philosophy, not the other way around. Organisms can't be pulled apart by abstractions



Reality is multidimensional and science/math is one dimensional. Philosophy transcends science and math. Science can never capture reality with mathematics. There is no true Truth in science

This thread has little to do with philosophy.

I believe the majority of claims in evolution are unfalsifiable and unobservable.

And I believe in irreducible complexity such as with sexual reproduction.

A lot of the reason for creating an evolutionary narrative appears to be for ideological reasons when whether or not we used to be bipedal fish is irrelevant to our daily lives.

It is less irrelevant to peoples beliefs systems though.

:mask:

Thanks for the resources. And I recommend Aristotle on form and matter, a good start as well. Science and math serve philosophy, not the other way around. Organisms can't be pulled apart by abstractions — Gregory

Thank you as well. The evolution of knowledge in the context of the history of mankind started with the development of religion (from animism to monotheism). This was man's first attempt at understanding the world. Most of what was formulated in this stage was based on ignorance (not judging). We had no way of thinking about things other than how we thought about ourselves, thus everything that happened happened because someone did it (anthropomorphism); the birth of gods and angels, place holders for what is not known. The gods held our questions in the form of answers waiting to be questioned by the coming of philosophy.

Out of religion emerged philosophy, a new refined way of thinking and inquiry. The gods began to be questioned, and thus new understanding evolved, proliferating into a multitude of different philosophies as had happened with religion. Environmental selection pruned and nurtured the tree of this growing tree of knowledge.

From philosophy came science (natural philosophy), a fusion of logic, mathematics, and other ideas and methods developed by philosophy. Science is an even further refinement of thinking and is the leaf edge of the tree of our knowledge and understanding. A natural selection among the elements of philosophy. The methods of science for me have precedence over philosophy, and philosophy over religion. If a result is different in the context of science and religion i choose science. If science for some reason can not answer a question then neither can philosophy nor religion. A new more refined thinking must emerge.

It seems obvious to me so that is how i see it. You may disagree.

You should also look into Michael Levin who will probably win the Nobel Prize at some point in my opinion. He is doing some God level science that is extremely interesting. I check up on his work periodically and i follow him on Twitter.

"The self cannot stand in the Presence of God. God said to Moses, 'No one shall see me and live.' Where God is, I am not. Where I am, God is not. Therefore the 'I' cannot experience God, but God is experienced.. God is not an object to be experienced, and there is no experience. The two are one in experiencing. This is nonduality or oneness. Oneness with God is the open space of wakefulness where experience occurs. Even the word 'God' is problematic when talking about this. God is a word that describes a concept in the mind. I am actually speaking about a non-experience by the no-self of that to which the word 'God' points. Do you see how difficult it is to communicate this." Marshall Davis

If I said I believed in goblins and dragons, you'd laugh. But yet you'd accept aliens? What's the difference? Sounds like science wants to take the mystery out of life. I'm committed to mysticism

Reality is multidimensional and science/math is one dimensional. — Gregory

:roll:

This thread has little to do with philosophy. — Banno

:up:

f I said I believed in goblins and dragons, you'd laugh. But yet you'd accept aliens? What's the difference? Sounds like science wants to take the mystery out of life. I'm committed to mysticism — Gregory

I might laugh but i would first need to qualify what you mean by goblins and dragons. If aliens exist, and had contact with people in the past they had to call it something.. goblin is just as good as any other word. It's also interesting to me that someone may deny the possible existence of aliens but at the same time is absolutely positive that God exists; the ultimate alien superhero. I don't know it just sounds backwards to me since it seems obvious that aliens have a much higher probability of existing than the traditional conception of a God.

It sounds to me that you want to keep the mystery which is really just a nice way of saying ignorance. You want to ignore possible knowledge about the truth of a thing. You don't want to seek knowledge you simply seek a certain feeling. The joy of magic. I enjoy the uncovering of one mystery to reveal another more than just witnessing the magic. There is no shortage of mystery, the supply is ample. There is nothing bad to gain and nothing good to lose in understanding the world as it is and not as we prefer to have it. It is an immaturity in the mind of man to not want to know and that can not get us anywhere good.

Mysticism is not bad either, but the way i use mysticism is to guide me towards knowledge; if not for that then what for. Knowledge can be distinguished from non-knowledge or nonsense by it's application and result. What can the concept of God be applied to and what results does it give? What is the usefulness of that concept? All it can really do is say that "God did it" and done... next.

Look at how sad this is. Cargo cults:

There is a difference between factoids and wisdom however

There is a difference between factoids and wisdom however — Gregory

Sure sounds right. First comes data, then information, knowledge (factoids), and finally wisdom. Each one depends on the prior which means wisdom does not preclude facts or factoids, or information, etc. All are necessary to climb the latter of understanding so to say.

I have not seen a satisfactory answer concerning the conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

There is no plausible explanation of why things should get more complex over time.

For example you break an egg and it never just rearranges itself to a whole egg again.

One explanation for this is that something like an egg is made up of a huge number of atoms and they are statistically highly unlikely to return to exactly the same arrangement as before because there are so many degrees of freedom for possible states they could be in.

Things don't tend to spontaneously arrange themselves into useful formations.

There is no plausible explanation of why things should get more complex over time. — Andrew4Handel

There must be an explanation for anything that actually happens. Our level of understanding of something does not preclude it from happening. It does happen.

Things don't tend to spontaneously arrange themselves into useful formations. — Andrew4Handel

Self-organization

For example you break an egg and it never just rearranges itself to a whole egg again. — Andrew4Handel

Yes but if you leave the egg alone and incubated it organizes itself into a fully functioning organism, or does that not happen because we don't understand exactly how it happens yet. Does the universe depend on our knowledge of it or do we depend on the universe for our knowledge? Are we supposed to be in charge of what happens in the universe?

Unless we are physicists then our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics will come from popular explantions of it.

The academic discussion of thermodynamics is highly complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Various_statements_of_the_law

But it is portrayed to the general public frequently as a tendency to disorder including the eventual heat death of the university.

The degrees of freedom model is fairly easy to understands because know from breaking something like a vase or using a jigsaw puzzle breaking things up is much easier than reassembling them. So what force would make things usefully assemble and combat the destructive forces of nature?

Intelligent human volition is a prime example of the speed at which intelligent volitional activity can make long term meaningful useful change without waiting on chance.

Such as a human picking up a log and placing it in a stream to cross the stream without waiting for the log to randomly fall there and current examples such as the dense reasoning and design that goes into computers to make them so efficient.

No organisms developed on Mars, — Hanover

This is not known to be true. There is no evidence of biological organisms currently living on Mars, but there is evidence that organic compounds and water are present and have been present for billions of years. It is still possible that life exists on Mars in an area not open to examination or may once have been present in the past when conditions there were different.

The next question though, is whether it was possible that the primordial mass that constituted the Big Bang could have lacked the components to ever yield life. If the answer is it could, then the only way to assure it was statistically likely it would, would be through the existence of many Big Bangs. — Hanover

This is the fine tuning argument for either 1) the multiverse or 2) intelligent design/creationism. It is based on a misunderstanding of how probabilities work.

This is not known to be true. There is no evidence of biological organisms currently living on Mars, but there is evidence that organic compounds and water are present and have been present for billions of years. It is still possible that life exists on Mars in an area not open to examination or may once have been present in the past when conditions there were different. — T Clark

There is no evidence of life on Mars. If you simply mean there is carbon, then OK, but that's not life.

This is the fine tuning argument for either 1) the multiverse or 2) intelligent design/creationism. It is based on a misunderstanding of how probabilities work. — T Clark

I'm not arguing either. Buti if I've misunderstood probability theory, then correct me.

Evolution, creationism, intelligent design, Big Bang, whatever can't offer an explanation for the first cause. The best you can do is explain how things behave now, but not where they came from.

For evolution to work, you must have billions of years of trial and error. That's not a difficulty, because you do have that time span.

But if you wish to ask the question of where a system that operates as ours does came from, you can't answer that. But, if you wish to apply the same logic, you've got to argue the same trial and error theory.

The degrees of freedom model is fairly easy to understands because know from breaking something like a vase or using a jigsaw puzzle breaking things up is much easier than reassembling them. So what force would make things usefully assemble and combat the destructive forces of nature? — Andrew4Handel

Thermodynamics is just one variable or constant in the equation. There are also the forces of nature (strong, weak, EM, and gravity). The confluence of all these things interacting together is what's responsible for the formation of areas of order and chaos; simply caused by the entire system of interactions "seeking" it's lowest energy state. Because there are so many degrees of freedom this process is imperfect (that's a good thing).

It may be useful to think of the universe as essentially having two forms of action. One is expansive or dispersive and the other is contractive, and the balance between these two tendencies of the universe determines how much order emerges. Thermodynamics is responsible for the expanding quality of things, and what i call the symmetry laws are responsible for the contracting or gathering quality of the universe. If things were one or the other then no order would emerge, both have to be active in a dynamic balance. If it were all thermodynamics then it would all be a soup of nothing, and if it were all laws and no thermodynamics then it would crystalize into some static singular thing; nothing worthy or useful would happen.

The laws of the universe also tend to sort matter gravitationally and electromagnetically which goes towards inducing different conditions for different types of order and organization. It results in different gradients in space of energy density distributions. The interaction between the gradient boundaries induce active forms that can develop into full homeostatic systems that gather and dissipate heat or energy. It's the stuff of life!