Evolution by Epigenesis: Farewell to Darwinism, Neo and Otherwise

@memester,

All sorts of people use all sorts of things to bolster or belittle worldviews.

That's not necessarily a problem of the things in themselves.

In the end of the day I think you've got to ask yourself what it is you want evolution to do for you that causes so much angst (or not, I dunno).

If the answer is make you feel better for being you - it ain't likely to do it (though I think it opens up an awesome vista divorced of all the window dressing myself - just the scale of it).

If you're treating it as more important than gravity in this matter then more fool you.

If others do that - more fool them.

0 Replies

@memester,

Thanks Dave - excellent illustration of my point.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;109904 wrote:

Well, that isn't what I meant - I meant her claims - made in the video you linked to - that there was a charge of heresy throughout the scientific community on Aquatic Ape Hypothesis were overcooked.

I don't think the people on the list are assumed by anyone to be heretics.

that's nice, but does it have anything to do with your point or mine ?

Quote:

I certainly wouldn't deem them so.

I include you in "anyone", so "see answer above". It's nice to know, but has nothing to do with answering my question.

Quote:

Who is calling David Attenborough or Daniel Dennet a heretic on this issue?

were'nt you saying that she had a list of heretics which you then said proves there is no heresy ? So, to me it seerms that either she says it, or you are saying it or are saying she says it ? Let me know.

Quote:

They like it - that's their right isn't it?

certainly

Quote:

If they went about saying "that's it - case closed - aquatic ancestors for the win" that might be taking things too far based on current arguments.

But they just reckon "nice idea - might have some merit" and say so.

Oh, you say that is "how it is". I see.

Quote:

Ms Morgan, on the other hand, seems to want to bypass the scientific method in preference to her prejudices.

So you say.

However my question was about how you reason that a list proves that here is no heresy.

And, and instead of saying "You're right, it doesn't", you have merely circumlocuted your way to saying nothing on that subject.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;109914 wrote:

but surely it can be seen that there is a definite distinction between h. sapiens, with language skills, abstract reasoning ability, and all of his(her) advanced cognitive facilities and other species?

Yes, it's remarkable what we have adapted for our survival and success.

But plants and some microbes can gather sunlight and turn it into sugar and never have to say a word or move a step. It's elegant, it's metabolically efficient, it's parsimonious.

It's a different kind of sophistication, a different kind of advancement.

1 Reply

@memester,

Well sure, I wouldn't deny that for a minute. Symbiotic relationships, salmon that return to their home river, moths that mimc flowers, flowers that mimic dead bodies.... there are billions of examples of marvellous adaption. But only one amongst all these species can measure, think, speak, and argue about whether it means something, or not. So I am saying, nature finds a type self-awareness in h. sapiens which is absent in all the other creatures of the earth, no matter how marvellous they are.

Call that anthropocentriic if you like, but what I think it is really anthropocentric is for science to say that the only intelligence at work in all this is is our own, the only purposes in the universe, those which we devise. And that is exactly what the scientific ideologues are saying.

0 Replies

@memester,

Make no mistake about my position here. Evolution is the unifying theory in all of modern biology and should be taught in biology courses of schools at all levels of the educational system. Creation theories are not science and should not be taught in biology. The problem is in using evolution as evidence for a particular worldview. In particular the problem is in asserting that evolution shows nature is random, accidental, and blind or without purpose, direction or aim. Evolution is frequently misused in arguments against religious sentiment and this does not advance the understanding or cause of teaching evolution.. Dawkins in particular is guilty of this. In fact to use evolution in this manner is not science. Science does not impute purposes or lack thereof to natural phenomena.

[QUOTE=Dave Allen;109887] As far as I am aware the first major conflict between evolution and religion in the US was the Scopes trial in Kansas - which was nothing much to do with atheism as far as I can see. Rather, the right to teach science as science and seperate church and state. There weren't any atheist players in that fight as far as I know (possible exception of Mencken I suppose). [/QUOTE] There was a reason why the Scopes trial (1925) attracted worldwide attention and why Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow ended up as legal counsel. The issue of evolution versus creation was already in conflict in the society and the Scopes trial just show cased that tension. It should be remembered Scopes was convicted and fined $100 although his conviction was later set aside on a technicality. The Butler Act prohibiting teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools remained on the books until 1967. The trial was portrayed as evolution vs. creationism but in the popular mind became science vs. religion or atheism vs. religion. This conflict and tension remains to this day as well as the confusion about the science of evolution being anti religious.

[QUOTE=Dave Allen;109887] The recent publishing phenomenon for pop atheist books hasn't got much to do with evolution. However evolution gets rolled out by necessity pretty much every time popular arguments against atheism are articulated, because without evolution there isn't really a good secular answer for why life exists in the complex interweave that it does. [/QUOTE] The failure to separate the facts and the science from particular philosophical musings and interpretations is not helping advance acceptance of the science of evolution. Advocates of evolution would better serve their cause by noting specifically that evolution is not incompatible with many forms of religious sentiment. Religious leaders could likewise serve their cause by not pitting religious interpretations against established science.

[QUOTE=Dave Allen;109887] I'm not sure how you mean 'problematic'. [/QUOTE]

Dave Allen;109887 wrote:

They aren't particularly conciliatory terms, I suppose.

Language is important. The more educated a religious person is the more likely they are to incorporate evolution into their religious worldview as the scientific explanation of creation. The use of terms like random, blind, purposeless, aimless, in discussing evolution naturally engenders opposition from those with religious sentiments, particularly those without the educational background to understand evolutionary science or the use of such terms in a scientific context.

[QUOTE=Dave Allen;109887] And I don't think 'random' is really used without an awful lot of context these days. [/QUOTE] Probability and mathematical randomness (stochastic probability) is not well understood in the general population. Evolution as an entire process is not random, purposeless or aimless, anything but.

Evolution requires three things: variation, selection and time. Imputing purpose or lack or purpose to the process is not part of the science.

0 Replies

@memester,

jeeprs;109989 wrote:

what I think it is really anthropocentric is for science to say that the only intelligence at work in all this is is our own, the only purposes in the universe, those which we devise. And that is exactly what the scientific ideologues are saying.

Who and where?

Honestly Jeeprs, I see generalizations like this here and there and they are completely at odds with my own experience being surrounded by "scientific ideologues".

Science doesn't deal in "purposes in the universe".

Science doesn't deal in "the only intelligence at work in this is all our own", EXCEPT insofar as it's unsupportable in evidence to invoke something like god.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Actually, references to "purpose" are very very common in Scientific literature. The average Joe might be sorely tempted to think that there is a purpose to the scientists mentioning of it, over and over and over again, in various contexts.

If I bring examples of it being mentioned, are they to be explained away, or accepted as "mentions" ?

You know, every organ has a purpose. Medicines have a purpose. Genes hava purpose. Mitochondria have a purpose. Everything has purpose.

the sooner we admit that we all think like that, the better !

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;110003 wrote:

Actually, references to "purpose" are very very common in Scientific literature.

Purpose as a synonym of "function" may be mentioned. Purpose as a teleologic concept is not.

I'd like you to quote me some references to purpose. Start with the research articles.

Here are some free open access peer-reviewed (and quite prestigious) scientific journals, the PLoS (Public Library of Science):

PLoS Computational Biology: A Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal

PLoS Genetics: A Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal

PLoS Biology : Publishing science, accelerating research

memester;110003 wrote:

If I bring examples of it being mentioned, are they to be explained away, or accepted as "mentions" ?

You've got several tasks if you want to prove your point.

1) We need to all agree on what you mean by the word "purpose". I suspect you mean something different than what Jeeprs meant.

2) We all need to agree on what you mean by "scientific literature". I don't consider editorials and perspectives to be scientific literature. I consider them to be commentary, it's a satellite of scientific literature.

3) You need to prove "very common"

4) You need to cite actual research references and not lay-science writers like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins.

I think that's a fair challenge for you, and I won't dismiss anything that meets the above conditions.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Yup, it must be explained away.
But in reality, the word purpose is not always used as "function".

"The 'purpose' of an experiment" is much better said than
"The 'function' of an experiment.

Purpose denotes "will" or "intention" even more than "function" seems to, and it seems to me to be why they prefer it.

Can you show how "function" is free of intention ? After all, that's the real problem , isn't it? About "intentionality" ?

0 Replies

@memester,

See the addition to my above post.

Ok, so you're already acknowledging that "purpose" has several definitions.

The "purpose of an experiment" is different than "the purpose of man in the universe".

The rationale to do X or Y or Z in the lab is a legitimate use of the word "purpose", and yes that is common in scientific literature. But it's not the kind of connotation that Jeeprs meant, nor the kind that I was refuting.

So again, if that is all you mean by the word purpose, then I've got no argument, but on the other hand you're talking about something different than what Jeeprs or I meant.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 10:18 PM ----------

memester;110009 wrote:

Purpose denotes "will" or "intention" even more than "function" seems to, and it seems to me to be why they prefer it.

But that's the purpose of the authors. The purpose of an experiment is to test a hypothesis.

memester;110009 wrote:

Can you show how "function" is free of intention ? After all, that's the real problem , isn't it? About "intentionality" ?

If one talks about the purpose of a ribosome or the purpose of ATP, it's a different subdefinition that is free of intention.

The purpose of a Na+/K+/ATPase cotransporter is to exchange cations across a membrane. Fine. But in this case "purpose" has nothing to do with the INTENTION of this protein, only what it does. If you speak of intentions, then intentions have to be ascribed to an intending agent. And there ain't nothing in science that's the intending agent behind a Na+/K+/ATPase. Sure, God might be, but you aren't going to find God in a scientific paper either.

I'm acquiescing a bit. The word "purpose" is indeed used. But it's not used in a metaphysical way, or in a way that is ever meant to imply teleology (certainly conscious teleology).

1 Reply

@memester,

I would agree with Aedes that the scientific literature does not impute "purpose" to evolution or any other natural phenomena.

I would agree with Memester that non scientific advocates of evolution frequently do impute lack of purpose to evolution as an argument against religion.

And in some instances Dawkins, Dennet, etc, they deliberately blur the science with their personal worldviews imputing that the science supports their metaphysics.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;110010 wrote:

See the addition to my above post.

Ok, so you're already acknowledging that "purpose" has several definitions.

1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" (Sarah Josepha Hale).
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.

tr.v. , , To intend or resolve to perform or accomplish.

Idioms: on purpose Intentionally; deliberately.

to good purpose With good results.

to little/no purpose With few or no results.

Quote:

The "purpose of an experiment" is different than "the purpose of man in the universe".

Oh ?

Quote:

The rationale to do X or Y or Z in the lab is a legitimate use of the word "purpose", and yes that is common in scientific literature. But it's not the kind of connotation that Jeeprs meant, nor the kind that I was refuting.

In which way is it not the same ?

Quote:

So again, if that is all you mean by the word purpose, then I've got no argument, but on the other hand you're talking about something different than what Jeeprs or I meant.

how so ?

1 Reply

@memester,

Aedes I don't count you among the scientific ideologues. I think you're among the scientists. There is some overlap but they are different groups of people. I am not just being overly concilatory or anything. I learn a lot of stuff from reading your posts, but my perspective is different. I look at the issue partly from the viewpoint of the cultural implications, and partly from a 'my place in the scheme of things' viewpoint.

For reference, 'scientific ideologues' include, in my book, Dawkins, Dennett, E.O Wilson, and Jacques Monod. Science writers and scientists whom I don't regard as scientific ideologues include Stephen J Gould, Paul Davies, and Bernard D'Espagnet.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I'm saying that in one kind of mention, they sometimes use the word "purpose" as the word "function" - as when describing an organ such as liver or heart.
I think you could agree, that they really mean "function", perhaps denoting less of "will" or "intent".

correct?

And I also say that they do use the word "purpose" as "purpose". As in the purpose of the experiment. They intend to demonstrate. It's strongly indicating an intention.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;110017 wrote:

In which way is it not the same ?

Because the purpose of this or that thing I do or decision I make stands independent of any connection to the ultimate.

By ultimate I mean ultimate causes, ultimate explanations, ultimate understandings, or ultimate conclusions.

The purpose of filling my glass with water was so I could drink something. I don't care how my thirst came about or how water came about. I was just thirsty, all right?

Different than connecting thirst with an a priori design or first cause, different than connecting it with some intrinsic drive to live.

A biologist would say (at least in terms of natural selection) that thirst-induced behaviors persist because it's an enormous survival disadvantage to lack behaviors in response to thirst. A teleologist would say that we drink in order to survive. It's the opposite.

So in other words, my purpose is to drink because I'm thirsty.

A teleologist would say my purpose is to drink in order to survive, procreate, whatever.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 10:36 PM ----------

memester;110019 wrote:

I'm saying that in one kind of mention, they sometimes use the word "purpose" as the word "function" - as when describing an organ such as liver or heart.
I think you could agree, that they really mean "function", perhaps denoting less of "will" or intent".

correct?

Yes, I agree with that. This type of usage does indeed occur.

That was easy :flowers:

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;110020 wrote:

Because the purpose of this or that thing I do or decision I make stands independent of any connection to the ultimate.

I think it is not so.

Quote:

By ultimate I mean ultimate causes, ultimate explanations, ultimate understandings, or ultimate conclusions.

Right. You are denying that it has that meaning which it does.

When you say "the ultimate", that carries meaning. Not "a" ultimate cause, but "the" ultimate. The cause of everything. You don't mean THAT cause.

However, I would suggest that indeed, you do connect every decision to an ultimate cause, explanation, or conclusion.

Quote:

The purpose of filling my glass with water was so I could drink something.

The purpose was to have a glass filled with water, no ?

would you have been satisfied that your action had it's purpose met if the glass had a leak or if the water flowed up instead of down, and missed the glass ? NO.

The purpose for the filling the glass, is to have a glass full of water.

You can drink without a glass, but no, you want a glass of water, not just water.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;110038 wrote:

I think it is not so.

Prove it. I don't care about the ultimate. I don't even find it interesting. You may project your metaphysical ideas about the ultimate on my provincial little purpose, but that's your purpose, not mine.

memester;110038 wrote:

I would suggest that indeed, you do connect every decision to an ultimate cause, explanation, or conclusion.

And I would suggest not. Infinite regress isn't my thing -- it's a rhetorical trick by which you can refute anything by calling it circular.

memester;110038 wrote:

The purpose was to have a glass filled with water, no ?

That's an intermediate stage on the way to fulfilling my stated purpose, but it's not my purpose in itself. I could drink other ways, but it doesn't fulfill my purpose of drinking quite so conveniently. Just as I could walk to work instead of driving, but I live 57 miles away from where I work and walking would not be a reasonable way of commuting.

So what have these cute little purposes to do with the nature of the universe?

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 11:22 PM ----------

memester;110038 wrote:

Right. You are denying that it has that meaning which it does.

Just because a word HAS multiple meanings doesn't mean that you invoke them all every time the word is uttered.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;110041 wrote:

Prove it. I don't care about the ultimate. I don't even find it interesting. You may project your metaphysical ideas about the ultimate on my provincial little purpose, but that's your purpose, not mine.

I don't have to project it; I am proving it .

Quote:

And I would suggest not. Infinite regress isn't my thing -- it's a rhetorical trick by which you can refute anything by calling it circular.

Infinite regress is not your thing. but finite regress certainly is.

Quote:

That's an intermediate stage on the way to fulfilling my stated purpose, but it's not my purpose in itself.

Not the ultimate purpose ? Now we're getting to the proofs.
The ultimate purpose is to ...

Quote:

I could drink other ways, but it doesn't fulfill my purpose of drinking quite so conveniently. Just as I could walk to work instead of driving, but I live 57 miles away from where I work and walking would not be a reasonable way of commuting.

So what have these cute little purposes to do with the nature of the universe?

The first little admtted purpose is

1/ to fill a glass.

I prefer a glass also. Going up the "food chain" of purposes, so to speak, we get to your bigger view purpose on having a filled glass.

2/ To drink the water in the manner that you like to drink it.

But is there not an acknowlegable slightly bigger purpose than those little purposes ? How about [ just say "when" !]:

3/ to ease thirst ?
4/ to maintain hydration of bodily tissues
5/ to continue living ?
666/ you know what ? INFINITY.

guess you say "when" at 5/ ?

but not if you have children.

[sorry for the post-edit which came after reply]

then we can make 5/ into 5a/ and proceed with;

5b/ so that you can provide for the children
5c/ so that your purposeless genes ( you usually stop at genes) and their produced and producing interaction with the environment are not lost

6/ in the hope that they are never lost

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;110049 wrote:

The first little admtted purpose is

1/ to fill a glass.

No, I did not admit that.

memester;110049 wrote:

I prefer a glass also. Going up the "food chain" of purposes, so to speak, we get to your bigger view purpose on having a filled glass.

I only had one purpose:

memester;110049 wrote:

2/ To drink the water in the manner that you like to drink it.

Right. My only purpose. (you forgot the "because I was thirsty" part.

memester;110049 wrote:

But is there not an acknowlegable slightly bigger purpose than those little purposes ? How about [ just say "when" !]:

3/ to ease thirst ?
4/ to maintain hydration of bodily tissues
5/ to continue living ?
666/ you know what ? INFINITY.

guess you say "when" at 5/ ?

but not if you have children.

then we go at

5a/ so that you can provide for the children
5b/ so that your purposeless genes and their produced and producing interaction with the environment are not lost

Yeah but the thing is that is NOT why I went to get a drink of water. Those are consequences of my drinking water when I get thirsty. But they're not my purpose.

So I've now denied a couple of your assertions, so I don't accept that you've "proved" anything.

But this is again a discordance between our use of the word "purpose". MY purpose is self-defined. I've told my purpose to you. All your 4s, 5s, and so on are not my purposes. They're your projections.

The confusion of consequence with purpose is what differentiates teleologists from scientists. I don't accuse you in general of this -- but your argument here is exemplifying it.

2 Replies

Evolution by Epigenesis: Farewell to Darwinism, Neo and Otherwise

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know