Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 211 of 243 (315073)
05-25-2006 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Well since it is you we are trying to demostrate it to what we need is your definition of complex. It is arguably more complex because the argument is about this very issue of complexity. There has been more than one occassion where people have gone into in depth demonstrations of how coomplexity or information may arise only for their oponent to say , 'oh, that isn't what I mean by complexity. Since you first made the assertion that everything is becoming more complex why has this only suddenly ocurred to you that actually defining complexity might be an issue?
What I am thinking of specifically is drastic reductions in the size of the genome and the loss of genes which would be required for the organism to exist in isolation from a host.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 243 (315103)
05-25-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-25-2006 1:25 AM


Re: Woo Hoo! Quotemines. My Favorite
There are actually quite a few scientists here and many who have spouses for scientists.
The few scientists here are certainly welcome to express all the knowledge they have accrued over the years. I don't, however, think that having a spouse in any designated field would make either one of us more or less qualified. For instance, my wife is an IT, but I'm computer illiterate in comparison to her. Unless of course their spouse was actively engaged in field as well.
Others of us (like me, an engineer) certainly have a good science background.
I'm an engineer as well but I don't think that automatically places us in a scientific bracket. I mean, obviously there is a high level of physics involved but we couldn't split an atom if we were a hydrolectric engineer. I was working as a research assistant a few months ago in hopes of getting hired on full time. We recieved a grant to create an implantable subcutaneous glucose sensor in hopes that it would lead us towards an artificial pancreas to counter the increasing number of diabetics. Aside from that nominal experience, all the applicable knowledge gained, was gained like most everyone else. Read, read, read.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-25-2006 1:25 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 213 of 243 (315105)
05-25-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:23 AM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Maybe you can engage us with something more than quote mines. Those are eminent evolutionists, eh? Did you actually read what they said?
quote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." -Newton Tahmisian
Yep, he sure sounds like one.
quote:
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." -Nils Heribert-Nilsson
So does he.
quote:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." -Stephen Jay Gould
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." -Stephan J Gould
Including this is just plain dishonest. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you'd know that Gould (the only name I recognised on this list) is talking about gradual evolution vs punctuated equilibrium.
The first quote is from this paper:
quote:
" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)
I've gotta go to class, ciao.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:02 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 243 (315106)
05-25-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Belfry
05-25-2006 6:18 AM


Logical coherence
It's important when the quote indicates a lack of "logically coherent evidence." We have gained gobs of logically coherent evidence since 1929 that has supported and formed evolutionary theory. We don't rely on Darwin's data to support evolution.
ToE has changed very little since Darwin. Evidence was scant or non-existent then and its the same today. Again, instead of anyone presenting actual evidence of such a transition, instead, we're giving some abstract theorum describing why it should be taking place. So whether it was in 1929 or 1999 makes no difference.
Quotes taken out-of-context so that they seem to say something they weren't intended to say are indeed deceptive. Your argument that they "say what they say" is specious.
What is specious about it? If a prominent creationist wrote a paper including his or her reasons for believing in the creation account, but within the text there was a whole paragraph devoted to paradoxes and anamoles within the theory, then why is that wrong for an evolutionist to capitalize on that which the creationist cannot logically reconcile? If Dembski said something like: "Creationism is lacking any qualities that offer the kind of empirical evidence required by science, however, with the introduction of [this or that] method, we hope to find a conclusive, ground-breaking theorum. As it stands now, there is a sickly pall looming over the normative creation account"
What would be wrong, or what would be taking out of context his lack of evidence? What would be wrong with capitalizing on that? Stephen Jay Gould is probably the worst offender to act as a detriment to his own theory by the very words he spoke. We all know how he felt about evolution and that he believed in it wholeheartedly. No one contends with that. He believed in it up until his death as many do. But that doesn't detract from the fact that he recognized certain conundrums within the theory and spoke about such findings. Quoting those findings is NOT deceitful. What is deceitful is to know of better model and suppress the evidence anyway simply because it doesn't satisfy some philosophical predisposition. That is an agrecious and insufferable deceit.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Belfry, posted 05-25-2006 6:18 AM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2006 10:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 216 by AdminWounded, posted 05-25-2006 10:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 215 of 243 (315107)
05-25-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 10:29 AM


Re: Logical coherence
...Dembski said something like: "Creationism is lacking any qualities that offer the kind of empirical evidence required by science,
I knew it!!
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 10:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 243 (315108)
05-25-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 10:29 AM


Topic drift
This is for NJ and his various interlocutors. Discussion of the various quotes NJ provided is not a suitable topic for this thread. Can we make some attempt to get back to addressing the topic at hand?
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 10:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 243 (315123)
05-25-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Alasdair
05-25-2006 10:27 AM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Maybe you can engage us with something more than quote mines.
I have been engaged in extensive debates and have taken on the task of debating several people since the moment I arrived. To say otherwise isn't truthful. So, your clever quip doesn't meet the criteria that I only quote mine.
Including this is just plain dishonest. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you'd know that Gould (the only name I recognised on this list) is talking about gradual evolution vs punctuated equilibrium.
This whole time I've been leading everyone into making their own self-refuting, contradictory statements. On the one hand, certain individuals tell me that there is much evidence of transitional forms, yet haven't presented an iota of such. The best they can do is parrot TalkOrigins '29 evidences of macroevolution', which is leaving so much more up to the imagination as opposed to actual evidence. Then in the next instance, they find themselves in agreement with punctuated equilibria. The two are not homologous, as Gould illustrates in the paper you provided. In fact, Gould basically demonizes neo-Darwinians, however courteously he does it, he still says it. Gould, is extremely articulate and leaves no doubt that he agrees with someone such as myself, that evidence of transitions is virtually non-existent. That's where the quote comes in to play. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with Gould as much as you are with me. And yet, everyone here is telling me otherwise. I then direct my focus onto Punc Eq to show that the two are incompatible with one another. This is where Gould and myself are not in agreement. And if you read the full paper on punctuated equilibrium written by Gould and Eldridge, and sift through the verbal detritus, he basically says that punk eek offers no proof and actually cannot offer proof. In my best estimation, punk eek was developed as a way to keep evolution without any actual evidence. Beautiful. That's fine. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't believe in a stepwise, gradualistic evolution and also believe in punctuated equilibrium because they are odds with one another.
You can accuse me of quote mining, as if I haven't presented anything beyond that and you can accuse those statements, taken straight from the source, spoken eloquently and clearly, and say that I've distorted it, but your full version of Gould just solidifies the case against gradualism all the more.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Alasdair, posted 05-25-2006 10:27 AM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2006 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 218 of 243 (315124)
05-25-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:02 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
The two are not homologous, as Gould illustrates in the paper you provided.
I don't think this means what you think it means, perhaps compatible would be a better term rather than homologous.
as if I haven't presented anything beyond that
Which is pretty much the case in terms of anyhting resembling science or a coherent chain of thought.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 219 of 243 (315125)
05-25-2006 12:15 PM


d**m it people, can we get back to my OP already. Take this "evolution has direction" and "Gould" crap to the Evo Simplified or start a new thread (NJ).
How about trying to respond to the altruistic bacteria?
Or how about refuting any example we've shown you (NJ) as to why moralism can fit into evolution?
And I think you're getting pretty close to playing a shell game by saying that all our examples are imaginary and weak, and by not providing examples yourself of how moralism does or can not fit into evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by AdminModulous, posted 05-25-2006 12:31 PM kuresu has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 220 of 243 (315128)
05-25-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kuresu
05-25-2006 12:15 PM


Time Out
d**m it people, can we get back to my OP already.
Agreed. A quick scan through this thread has led me to believe that the topic has been all over the place and has now become a generic evolution thread. The thread needs a timeout whilst its participants consider the topic. If, after it reopens, morality and charity are still not the primary focus of discussion suspensions might be required. The current offtopic subthreads can either be taken to another thread or a new topic can be proposed.
Comments to the apt thread in my sig. Thanks.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Force a rescan of AdminModulous's sig to get correct text size.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kuresu, posted 05-25-2006 12:15 PM kuresu has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 221 of 243 (315254)
05-26-2006 8:18 AM


Let the topic be addressed!
Off topic posts about the evidence (or lack thereof) for evolution in general will result in temporary suspensions (after a short grace period to allow you to read this message and edit if necessary).
For those who haven't even looked at the OP, it can be summed up with:
In the Biological evolution forum, the topic "intended mutations" ended up into a partial debate about how morality and charity fit in with the evolutionary model.
Please stick with continuing the debate about how morality and charity fit (or don't fit) into the evolutionary model. Thank you for your consideration. Comments etc, to the normal place (link in my sig)

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 222 of 243 (315269)
05-26-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
05-07-2006 4:53 PM


Memitic evolution
I haven't actually read every post here because of the topic drift. So I might be being redundant.
Isn't survival what evolution is all about? You know, surviving so that you can reproduce and have offspring. Working together to survive increases your reproductive success because you live longer and have more oppurtunities to procreate. Just becasue you cannot see how this is so does not mean that this is not so.
Indeed - a genetic influence that leads to either kin selection or even just general altruism can spread quite easily. If you have that gene, you will be penalized for it initially (assuming that everyone around you is selfish) since you will be exploited by your nasty neighbours. However, if you do manage to reproduce, your offspring may have inheretid the altruism gene. Now we see can how a family might build up which helps each other out doing better (propagating more of the same genes) than those that are indifferent to one another (or hostile).
However, it isn't just genes that can cause altruism, ideas can. A stirring speech can rally soldiers, a concept of martyrdom can inspire someone to kill themselves (for obvious reasons a gene of this type might not spread so easily). Memes are interesting (though many still reject them as replicating entities with differential reproductive success) and can explain less obvious points of culture such as charity, morality, music and jokes etc. All these things have probably have a genetic inspiration, but have been refined and altered in meme form.
I personally think this is another way of discussing nature versus nurture. Actually it is genes vs memes. Memes are more powerful for specific effects, but genes achieve a statistical influence that cannot be easily ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 05-07-2006 4:53 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by kuresu, posted 05-26-2006 9:41 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 226 by Omnivorous, posted 05-26-2006 10:00 AM Modulous has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 223 of 243 (315276)
05-26-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Modulous
05-26-2006 9:16 AM


Re: Memitic evolution
I've never heard of "memes". Could you clarify what they are, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Modulous, posted 05-26-2006 9:16 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2006 9:50 AM kuresu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 224 of 243 (315280)
05-26-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by kuresu
05-26-2006 9:41 AM


Re: Memitic evolution
Susan Blackmoore is one of those who have picked up the 'meme' concept and run with it. Richard Dawkins coined the term but has not really gone anywhere with it.
Blackmoore defines a meme as...
information copied from person to person by imitation.
Dawkins defined it more extensively thus...
We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ”Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ”gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. ... Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by kuresu, posted 05-26-2006 9:41 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by kuresu, posted 05-26-2006 9:57 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 225 of 243 (315282)
05-26-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Wounded King
05-26-2006 9:50 AM


Re: Memitic evolution
so it's sort of like non-genetic inheritance? wierd, though it makes sense, but I'm still not sure how it fits into ToE. That's for another thread, though.
abe:
an evolutionary replicator solely for imitating organisms and it affects the genes that are passed down, because one must have an "imitating gene", and good behaviours imitated (good in terms of reproductive fitness, I suppose) help keep the "good" genes in the population.
this would help to explain not only human society, but most societal organisms, I would say. Still way to wierd, and I need to dig further into it, but a very interesting concept.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2006 9:50 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024