Dawkins on Evolution

@richrf,

I think there's been a big misunderstanding when people think that scientists claim to have it all "figured out". The very nature of good science is based on doubt and uncertainty, basically the assumption that things are not figured out. Theories may work quite well, but they are always being tested and developed.

The physicist Richard Feynman stated as much, when he said,

"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

So, science does doubt, and it is (usually) very critical of its own proposals, but it can only go so far. The methods of science cannot extend into the realm of the metaphysical, by definition, as has been stated in this thread over and over I believe...and vice versa.

This understanding should be enough to stop certain lines of faulty reasoning like: 1. God exists, therefore, 2. Evolution is a myth. Or, 1. Evolution happens, therefore, 2. God does not exist.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;92768 wrote:

Daoists and Heraclitus did not have evidence, though -- not to mention that they wouldn't have even agreed with one another. Furthermore, a LOT was said 2000 years ago -- Pythagoras and Heraclitus said the opposite of one another, so did Plato and Aristotle, and then there were Anaximander and Anaximenes who were all over the map.

Daoists and Heraclitus observed the world back then just as we do today and based upon what they saw, came up with their own views of things. The only differences are that nowadays, using instruments we can see smaller things and things that are further away. But there are similarities in it all. I guess they might have called it a theory since theory comes from the Greek root theoria "contemplation, speculation. Not everyone agreed. Parmenides viewed things differently - as illusions surrounding a central, unchanging core.

Aedes;92768 wrote:

Some of them had ideas that have proven tenable based on current evidence and understanding, but there's a difference between speculation and deduction based on systematic observations.

They speculated on what they observed and they called it a theory. There is really no difference other than there are simply more observations today.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 01:02 PM ----------

Zetherin;92772 wrote:

And current observations.

Rich, evolution isn't what "might have happened in the past" (I'm referring to your comment on millions of years ago). There's evidence of it currently! Realize that human evolution is not the only kind of evolution, as you seem to be focusing on. More importantly, evolution hasn't stopped, it isn't a stage. It's currently progressing in all living creatures as we speak.

OK, science can present what they see today, use it to predict what they might (I doubt they can predict much when it comes to life) and see how accurate they are, and leave it at that. No problem with that.

It is when scientists suggest that they know what happened over millions of years of past evolution that things go from a theory to a belief. Anyone can interpret past events as they wish since there is really no way of knowing. Same thing with history.

Really, the only difference between your viewpoint and Dawkins is that you believe evolution in a different way.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf wrote:

It is when scientists suggest that they know what happened over millions of years of past evolution that things go from a theory to a belief. Anyone can interpret past events as they wish since there is really no way of knowing. Same thing with history.

It's induction. We use it everyday when we press on the brakes in our car and expect our car to stop, when we get out of bed and expect to step on the floor, when we turn on the shower and expect water to spray. There's nothing wrong with that, and scientific induction is much different than a blind belief. Stop putting scientific induction on the same grounds as uncredible, senseless beliefs.

We don't know for sure if pink hobgoblins holding toothbrushes slabbed with peanut butter reigned the earth before humans, but we have no evidence to believe such. Likewise, we have no reason to believe evolution didn't occur millions of years ago as it occurs now.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;92782 wrote:

It's induction. We use it everyday when we press on the brakes in our car and expect our car to stop, when we get out of bed and expect to step on the floor, when we turn on the shower and expect water to spray. There's nothing wrong with that, and scientific induction is much different than a blind belief. Stop putting scientific induction on the same grounds as uncredible, senseless beliefs.

Nice word for a guess. When I press the brakes I can test my theory. What you are doing is guessing about what happened in the past based upon lots of assumptions and ignoring anything that gets in the way of your assumptions. Really, it is just history under the umbrella of some scientific theory.

Now, put that little car in a garage and wait one million years, and then press on the brakes and see how well your induction works. You really have no sense of the variables associated with millions of years of history.

Zetherin;92782 wrote:

Likewise, we have no reason to believe evolution didn't occur millions of years ago as it occurs now.

Define evolution and I will tell you whether I feel it may have occurred or not. If you are suggesting that things changed, well - probably. But what Dawkins does is pile a whole bunch of assumptions under the umbrella if evolution hoping that no one will notice. I am still do not know of a clear concise definition of evolution.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

There are those who try to accomadate reason, fact and science into their religious and spiritual worldviews and there are those who reject reason, fact and science when it does not coincide with their preconceived religous or spiritual worldview.

I can not help but think of the warning of the medieval scholastics about interpretations of scripture which contradicted reason and experience. Such interpretations must be wrong they warned. They also cautioned the faithful about persisting against experience and reason in that they made religion look foolish, ignorant and irrational.

I regard myself as a religous person but evolution is a fact which my religous views must accomadate in forming a rational and coherent view of the world. That is not to say I agree with Dawkins interpretation about evolution and god.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf wrote:

Nice word for a guess. When I press the brakes I can test my theory.

We're 'testing' our theory now by observing and documenting evolution currently. It's just the same as pressing on the brake pedal.

Quote:

What you are doing is guessing about what happened in the past based upon lots of assumptions and ignoring anything that gets in the way of your assumptions.

It's no more ignorant of an assumption than assuming pressing on your brake pedal will stop your car.

Quote:

Now, put that little car in a garage and wait one million years, and then press on the brakes and see how well your induction works. You really have no sense of the variables associated with millions of years of history.

Care to share the myriad of variables? Say the same car was made a million years ago. Why would we assume the car wouldn't stop when you pressed on the brake pedal?

Quote:

But what Dawkins does is pile a whole bunch of assumptions under the umbrella if evolution hoping that no one will notice.

You're aware that Dawkins has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, right? Evolution is out of Dawkin's hands; it is observed and studied by thousands of scientists around the globe now and there is much evidence to support the theory.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;92787 wrote:

I regard myself as a religous person but evolution is a fact which my religous views must accomadate in forming a rational and coherent view of the world. That is not to say I agree with Dawkins interpretation about evolution and god.

Well then, I don't know what you agree with then - since I haven't heard of a coherent definition of evolution that is accepted by anyone. And I am glad to hear that what ever you decided is evolution has evolved from a theory to a fact.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

Quote:

Well then, I don't know what you agree with then - since I haven't heard of a coherent definition of evolution that is accepted by anyone. And I am glad to hear that what ever you decided is evolution has evolved from a theory to a fact.

You've never heard of a coherent definition of evolution that is accepted by anyone? Well, rich, I'm a bit astonished.

I'd link you to a few articles, but I have the feeling they wouldn't suffice for you.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;92790 wrote:

We're 'testing' our theory now by observing and documenting evolution currently. It's just the same as pressing on the brake pedal.

Fine. I have patience, even if it takes a few million years.

Zetherin;92790 wrote:

It's no more ignorant of an assumption than assuming pressing on your brake pedal will stop your car.

We'll know better in a million years.

Zetherin;92790 wrote:

Care to share the myriad of variables?

Physical conditions on earth. The nature of consciousness. The mixture of living and non-living life. Stuff coming from outer space. Stuff coming from inner space. Millions upon millions of variables - all totally ignored by what is happening in a simple little lab dish. How about having a comet hit that dish and see what happens.

Zetherin;92790 wrote:

You're aware that Dawkins has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, right?

I wonder what Dawkins would have to say about that?

Zetherin;92790 wrote:

Evolution is out of Dawkin's hands; it is observed and studied by thousands of scientists around the globe now and there is much evidence to support the theory.

Yes. Now, tell me what they have all concluded. I have really no idea what is evolution other than everyone thinks it is something different. The only common idea I find is that things change. So, what else is new?

Rich

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 01:42 PM ----------

Zetherin;92793 wrote:

You've never heard of a coherent definition of evolution that is accepted by anyone?

Well, rich, I'm a bit astonished.

Lay it on me. I am very interested in a single definition that everyone will agree on.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf wrote:

We'll know better in a million years.

Will we? A person a million years from now could make the same argument you're making today.

Quote:

Physical conditions on earth. The nature of consciousness. The mixture of living and non-living life. Stuff coming from outer space. Stuff coming from inner space. Millions upon millions of variables - all totally ignored by what is happening in a simple little lab dish. How about having a comet hit that dish and see what happens.

None of these things change the theory that is evolution. They only change the process, the progression of evolutionary chains.

Quote:

Yes. Now, tell me what they have all concluded. I have really no idea what is evolution other than everyone thinks it is something different. The only common idea I find is that things change. So, what else is new?

Do you really want a full-fledged analytical explanation? You really can't be bothered to do this research on your own? And if you don't even know what evolution is, what exactly are you arguing again?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;92798 wrote:

Do you really want a full-fledged analytical explanation? You really can't be bothered to do this research on your own? And if you don't even know what evolution is, what exactly are you arguing again?

Yes, it would be great to finally have a concise definition so that I know what every one agrees is a theory, a fact, or whatever. One cannot agree on something until it is defined.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92799 wrote:

Yes, it would be great to finally have a concise definition so that I know what every one agrees is a theory, a fact, or whatever. One cannot agree on something until it is defined.

Rich

But you've already said this:

[QUOTE]Testimony, evidence, proof, beliefs, ideas, hypothesis. It call kind of gets mashed together in evolution in order to support a given view.[/QUOTE]
This holds the implication that you at least have an understanding of evolution. Yet, you've outwardly stated you do not. If you don't even know what the theory of evolution is, I don't know exactly why you've painted the picture of this "mashed together", uncredible opinion regarding how humans came to be.

Regardless how I or anyone else explains the evolutionary process, you will still conclude that we don't know for sure how humans came to be because of the length of time involved (in human's case, millions of years). You're stuck on Hume's problem of induction. Which is fine, but don't act like you're genuinely asking for answers when, with your mindset, you'll shoot any semblance of an answer down.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92799 wrote:

Yes, it would be great to finally have a concise definition

Population allele frequency change as a function of time.

Any other definition you find of it is simply a restatement of the above or a very close idea.

'nuff said.

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 03:56 PM ----------

richrf;92778 wrote:

Daoists and Heraclitus observed the world back then just as we do today and based upon what they saw, came up with their own views of things...

But it was not systematic -- they did not observe in a way that allows others to reproduce their observation. It's fundamentally different than science.

richrf;92778 wrote:

They speculated on what they observed and they called it a theory.

They could have called it a hamburger for all it matters. The important point is not the label but rather the foundation for the conclusion.

And again, Heraclitus and Daoism are mutually incompatible ideas in my reading of them, so I don't really see this connection you bring up.

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 03:58 PM ----------

richrf;92783 wrote:

Define evolution and I will tell you whether I feel it may have occurred or not.

Population allele frequency change as a function of time.

You want to talk about change in phenotype over time? Or diversification over time? It's all the same, because it's genetic change that mediates phenotypic change and species diversification.

I'm notably leaving out abiogenesis from this definition, because it's fundamentally a different process than evolution as it is otherwise understood. At some point genetic determinants became the driver of homeostasis, survival, phenotype, and genetic evolution. Before that point (the point of having stable nucleic acid-based genetics), the process, whatever it was, had to have been different.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;92809 wrote:

Population allele frequency change as a function of time.

Any other definition you find of it is simply a restatement of the above or a very close idea.

'nuff said.

Fine with me. Simple enough. I think I have said something very similar many times. But we all have our own vocabulary which I find perfectly reasonable.

Now, does everyone agree with Paul's definition? It is certainly something that I understand, and find most agreeable.

Now, anything beyond this, I would consider an interpretation.

Aedes;92809 wrote:

But it was not systematic -- they did not observe in a way that allows others to reproduce their observation. It's fundamentally different than science.

Certainly the Daoists did. They observed lots of phenomenon, and shared their experiences with each other. Much of which I find very practical in my day to day life.

Aedes;92809 wrote:

And again, Heraclitus and Daoism are mutually incompatible ideas in my reading of them, so I don't really see this connection you bring up.

I read them as being extremely compatible as have other authors that I have read. However, seeing as much of what they wrote is up to interpretation (I base much of what I understand on experience), then I would say it would be a discussion for another thread.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 05:05 PM ----------

Zetherin;92804 wrote:

This holds the implication that you at least have an understanding of evolution. Yet, you've outwardly stated you do not. If you don't even know what the theory of evolution is, I don't know exactly why you've painted the picture of this "mashed together", uncredible opinion re

Never said this. I said I have no idea what you are talking about when we talk about evolution. Notice how the concept is being used differently. Look at Paul's definition, compare it with the way others have stated it.

Now Paul's definition I can get my arms around and I agree with it. I am waiting patiently for others to see if they agree, because if they do, then this thread is over.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

I agree! I agree!

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;92831 wrote:

I agree! I agree!

A clear, well thought out definition, based upon available evidence, is always the best way to bring parties to agreement.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

I don't think that expansions on my definition are interpretive, since most particular areas of evolutionary biology research are ultimately easily and directly reducible to it.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;92834 wrote:

I don't think that expansions on my definition are interpretive, since most particular areas of evolutionary biology research are ultimately easily and directly reducible to it.

Well, I guess the thread is still open. Now for the expansions. You see, it is going to be really difficult to get a clear idea of what evolution is, which is why I think it is a farce.

In order to placate every little view that some scientist might have, we have to leave it open-ended. Dawkins still lives.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Rich, would you be open to the idea that we have a fair idea of the processes of evolution, right down to a pretty detailed picture of the descent of man, but what we are wrestling with in this thread is what evolution means for us as human beings?

Note that Aedes has acknowledged that evolutionary theory does not account for the origin of the process of evolution - the beginnings or the origin of life. I think that both sides of this debate could tentatively agree that this is something for which there remains no real hypothesis, and everything said about it is conjectural.

So - there is plenty of scope for interpretation about the meaning of life and whether evolution proceeds by way of random mutations or somehow has an inbuilt goal-seeking ability. And so on. And these are philosophical, not scientific, questions. They don't dispute the evidence for evolution, but they are grounds for different interpretations of the evidence.

Surely the reason the whole question is so vexed is because it is very much about who we are, the picture we form of our origins and place in the Universe.

I don't want to start the whole argument all over again - but could you acknowledge at least that the discussion hinges around, not whether evolution occured, but what evolution means?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;92836 wrote:

Rich, would you be open to the idea that we have a fair idea of the processes of evolution, right down to a pretty detailed picture of the descent of man, but what we are wrestling with in this thread is what evolution means for us as human beings?

I don't think so. I think that one can interpret the evidence in a multiple ways. Particular the mechanisms or impetus of evolution and change. That is why I am comfortable with Paul's initial definition. It is limiting and clearly states what evolution means in biological terms.

But then, if anything that anyone wants can be added to it, there is no limits. Really, I think biologists need to take a basic course in how to formulate a theory. It appears they like loosey-goosey, since the whole field is dealing with the subject of life, which in itself is loosey-goosey.

jeeprs;92836 wrote:

Note that Aedes has acknowledged that evolutionary theory does not account for the origin of the process of evolution - the beginnings or the origin of life. I think that both sides of this debate could tentatively agree that this is something for which there remains no real hypothesis, and everything said about it is conjectural.

Paul can state that certain ideas are excluded, but what he needs to state what specifically what is included in the definition - and nothing more. Otherwise it turns into something like the U.S. Constitution where you need to decided what is in and what is out on an ad hoc basis.

jeeprs;92836 wrote:

So - there is plenty of scope for interpretation about the meaning of life and whether evolution proceeds by way of random mutations or somehow has an inbuilt goal-seeking ability. And so on. And these are philosophical, not scientific, questions. They don't dispute the evidence for evolution, but they are grounds for different interpretations of the evidence.

I agree.

jeeprs;92836 wrote:

Surely the reason the whole question is so vexed is because it is very much about who we are, the picture we form of our origins and place in the Universe.

I agree.

jeeprs;92836 wrote:

I don't want to start the whole argument all over again - but could you acknowledge at least that the discussion hinges around, not whether evolution occured, but what evolution means?

For me, the discussion hinges on the definition. I don't like agreeing or disagreeing with loosey-goosey. Dawkins, I can definitely disagree with. He laid out his ideas, and I explained why I didn't agree in my critique.

Now, before anyone tells me evolution is a fact, I would have to have a definition of evolution (and not an open-ended one), so that I can agree or disagree. I would point to quantum theory as an example of a well formulated theory where there is constant debates about interpretation.

Rich

0 Replies

Dawkins on Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know