Teleological Science?

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. 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) • • •

There is not two sets of scientific facts. There is only one. Currently, and since 1859, there are two major interpretations of these facts: the pro-evolution and pro-creation/ID interpretation.It is perfectly legitimate to interpret a fact differently from the person who produced any given fact.For example, Charles Darwin says the only unique discoveries that he offered were how species become modified (which presupposes evolution) and "to a certain extent how the theory of descent explains certain large classes of facts" (| Darwin Correspondence Project).But even this is deceiving. We know Darwin received his insight into natural selection while reading Reverend Robert Malthus or the Malthusian geometric population principle (Autobio:120). Many people do not know that both he, and subsequently Reverend William Paley, argued that said principle would prevent evolutionary change (references available upon request). Darwin inverted the explanation. In other words he re-explained the fact claiming the same would cause evolutionary change.It is also said that Darwin's homology facts were instrumental in convincing the scientific community that evolution had occurred. But we know that these facts were first produced by leading paleontologist Richard Owen - a Creationist - who became Darwin's chief nemesis.IF Randman is attempting to offer a different explanation or better explanation of a fact then he is certainly entitled to do so, whether a evolutionist produced that fact is irrelevant.Ray

Q, I think you'd enjoy a book by Niles Eldridge that I got for my birthday, Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life. It outlines Darwin's life and the processes that led to the publication of The Origin of Species.I mention it particularly in this thread because in the final chapter, Darwin as Anti-Christ: Creationism in the Twenty-first Century, he discusses what we would expect to see if biological systems were intelligently designed. He shows a traditional cladogram for Devonian trilobites and compares it with a cladogram illustrating the "evolutionary history" of the cornet.The cladogram for the cornet shows mixing and matching of different design features from one to another, information transmitted "horizontally" between different models, in short, a complete departure from the nested hierarchy that is the hallmark of the cladogram of any biological series.Let me illustrate the idea this way. A cladogram of the automobile would show similar features appearing at similar times in completely unrelated makes and models of cars, because as new features are developed for cars, all cars incorporate them. Compare that to biological cladograms, where we never see features appearing at the same time in different species, nor do we see pre-existing species developing features from newly appearing species.If my garbled account of this idea is hard to follow, get the Eldridge book. He makes the idea quite clear.His basic point is that adaptation in biological organisms only travels downstream, but adaptation in designed systems travels across all boundaries in all directions, precisely because there's an intelligence behind the process. That's how Eldridge looks for intelligence and work and, finding that absent in biological systems, he concludes there's no intelligence at work.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You've presented some ideas that I don't recall having previously encountered. Not quite a post of the month, but I think those ideas deserve a topic of their own. Seems like a good thing for the Book Nook forum.If you do, please link back to message 18 also.Moose

Exactly. It would have to be an unambiguous change before we could rule out known processes. 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.I realized I have a ready-made possibility. During the rather abortive conversation with Elmer on your diversity thread, I brought up the use of subfamily Scarabaeinae as bioindicators precisely because the guild can be so clearly mapped to an ecological gradient. Now, since I plan to use them to track changes in study plots where I am deliberately modifying a microsite, thus changing the microsite characteristics in a known direction. IF the guild composition, functional structure, and species distribution changed BEFORE we start the restoration project in the direction of the expected end state, this would be a super example of teleology, IMO.I wonder if I can get the DI to spot me a couple million $$$ for this experiment that would "prove" ID?

Sounds like an interesting read, subbie. I'll have to wait until I get back to the US for a visit next summer, however. Not a whole lot of libraries out here. The idea of a complete lack of a nested hierarchy certainly sounds reasonable.I'd be interested to hear more, if you wanted to put together a book nook topic like Moose suggests.

Sure, go ahead, provide references. I agree, but what Randman does is different. He reads a paper and offers his own interpretation of it, then argues that that was the interpretation intended by the paper's authors. Within a couple posts of trying to explain that that's not what the authors meant Randman will be accusing you of indoctrination, group think and misrepresentation.--Percy

Be advised I originally also said that Darwin re-explained a fact.These facts are published here: Before DarwinProfessor Keith Thomson, Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature (2007:260-61).In a more general sense, concerning only Paley, selection, and Darwin, the fact is published here: Structure of evolutionary theory"Darwin's inversion of Paley...."Professor Stephen Jay Gould, Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002:120,121,124,127 quote from pages 124,127). Perhaps he is being misunderstood. In any case all he needs to do is state clearly that he is offering a different or better explanation or interpretation of said fact.RayEdited by Admin, : Shorten links.

CFO, Please supply relevant quotes (in context) from the references.Your posts should stand reasonably alone.

As WK noted on another thread, it must be getting extraordinarily chilly down in hell, because I agree with you here when you say: That, in fact, is almost precisely what I was after in this thread. Come up with a way of determining - operationally - teleology as a conceptual tool. The subject could be approached from a "fact" starting point, or do what I tried to do and develop a scenario along the lines of, "If A is true (teleology), we should see B, C, D, E, and F."Unfortunately, based on past history, that is not what rand tends to do. On the contrary, he doesn't reinterprete data published by anyone. He seizes on a single word or phrase (not the data) in the published paper, then argues for 200 posts that what the writer really meant was something completely different than what they wrote. I simply refuse to go down that rabbit hole again.As to the other two areas I requested he avoid: the Cambrian/no-new-phyla schtick has a) already been demolished on another thread, and b) is an obscure anti-darwinian screed NOT positive evidence for ID (might be okay on another thread - just not this one). QM, rand's other pet stalking horse, is also not appropriate here. Besides, that issue has already been argued ad nauseum on this forum. Again, I simply chose NOT to go down that particular rabbit hole once more.I'm really hoping someone - IDist or evo - can brainstorm some other way of demonstrating teleology. I started the ball rolling. I'd like to see someone else's actual ideas.

Admin: the links provided correspond to the actual page. Simply click and read.Ray

Evolutionist thinking does not allow teleological thinking, the same is incomprehensible. Your science cannot fathom or exist within any teleological framework. This was the foremost foundational conclusion of Darwinists after transmutation conquered biology circa 1875. I have no doubt that Randman disagrees. Have you defined teleology for purposes of this discussion?In any case, I am glad to have an exchange with you Quetzal, hell aint all that bad is it?Ray

quote:

---

His basic point is that adaptation in biological organisms only travels downstream, but adaptation in designed systems travels across all boundaries in all directions, precisely because there's an intelligence behind the process. That's how Eldridge looks for intelligence and work and, finding that absent in biological systems, he concludes there's no intelligence at work.

---

The fact that we can classify species in an objective nested hierarchy is very strong evidence of a genealogical relationship between the species. It basically proves beyond a reasonable doubt that every species wasn't created from scratch by an intelligent creator. But the evidence doesn't say that life in general wasn't created by an intelligence or whether evolution isn't goal-oriented somehow.Wrt to a teleological theory of evolution, I think it would be rather obvious. Say there was an ultimate goal that life was evolving towards. Wouldn't the long periods of stasis in the record show that this isn't the case? My logic is as follows: It seems to me that in the course of millions of years the organism would evolve to a design better approximating the end product or goal. And though the number of possible designs may be restricted by the environment, I find it hard to believe that it would be restricted to one.Not the most watertight argument, but that's my general idea. Edited by humoshi, : Clarification

...consider Dawkins biomorph program. This is a good model of a teleological process. The user has an ultimate goal in mind and searches throughout the variants every generation to find the one which best approximates it. This variant is then used as a template to produce more variants, and the process continues until the goal is reached.My argument basically says it would be unlikely that so many generations would go by without the metaphorical "user" choosing a variant which better approximates its goal.

i don't understand the concept.its apparent that some evolution evolves to a greater form, while other forms of the same initial start appear to devolve.the devolution leads to extinction, while the evolution leads to survival.for instance: if we say ape's evolved upward to man, but evolved form the lesser initial, the lesser initial is the start of man. but if all evidence was to show man before apes in the fossil records, then it would be apparent that apes are a devolution of man.in lack of any evidence, there can be no conclusion. but this is conclusive: that dogs "appear" to be a devolution of the wolf, since the wolf has a greater mind. the devolution of the aggressive properties leads to a less aggressive, less smart, yet more man friendly version of wolf: dog.a evolution project on foxes discovered that quite quickly by selective breeding of an animals flight distance led to a friendly colorful fox ina very short period of time, much shorter than what initially was believed to be possible.I'm not sure where there observation would be relative to teleological science tho. i fail to understand where a=b,c,d,f.when more apparent is a=b AND B AND B AND B AND THEN B= C C C C C C and then c c c c c c= d d d d d d d d d d d d.i hope i didn't overstep my abilities in my lack of understanding.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides