Dawkins on Evolution

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

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

If we try to interpret from Aedes' definition:

"population of organisms" = "population"
"genetic material" = "allele"
"the change" = "frequency change"
"from one generation to the next" = "as a function of time"

Where's the difference?

I highlighted this to clarify one thing. You need to keep "allele frequency" together. This is an expression of the prevalence of certain genotypes in a population. So if brown eyes is B and blue eyes is b, one population is 80% b and 20% B, but over time they become 50% B and 50% b, then this is a change over time in the frequency of these two alleles.

I might be being ignorant here, but what other interpretations of evolution are there besides the one Aedes noted, rich?

I really don't think it's as open-ended definitionally as you're making it out to be. I think you may misunderstand people because they don't use terms like "allele", which is a specific, scientific word. Instead, people laxly use "creature", "species", "organism", "gene" (I'd argue that while this is a scientific term, it's widely used), or other such layman terms. Still, as Aedes notes, it reduces to the same process.

Here's wikipedia's layman definition: "The change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"

If we try to interpret from Aedes' definition:

"population of organisms" = "population"
"genetic material" = "allele"
"the change" = "frequency change"
"from one generation to the next" = "as a function of time"

Where's the difference?

As I said, if this is it, then this is it. I am not concerned with synonyms, I am only interested in so-called reducible ideas. I am quite comfortable with the sentence as it stands and any synonyms that someone wants to use.

Rich

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but if you're talking about non-scientific musings of scientists when they write essays for the Wall Street Journal, then you're no longer talking about evolution anyway.

Oh, well, then, I think this discussion is over.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Would an appropriate but crude analogy be:

B is fins
b is flat feet
X is species

Initially most of the population of X has b, but over the course of time, the majority of the population develop B (in this case, for adaptation purposes). The allele (I assume a type of gene) has changed over time, or, is it not that the allele changes, but rather that b is "phased out"? B begins to be the dominant allele and the organism is said to have evolved.

While I think that Dawkins would take exception to your statement, I certainly wouldn't and he can fight his own battles.

whether other scientists would agree - as I said, that's not my prob.

Aedes, that's more information than I can wrap my head around at the moment!

part of the whole point of religious faith is that you can't prove God, and shouldn't need to. That is why it is called 'Faith'.

Dawkins is just pathologically theophobic, that is all there is to it.

Meanwhile check out this article. It is where the cartoon came from. I don't agree with the philosophical point, but I like the humour and it contains some interesting observations. Also the site it is on is really interesting.

Dawkins (and I) hold the position that has already acknowledged such doubt and moved on to attempt to show that religious faith is unjustified, even where such epistemological faith is justified.

I think it reinforces something that I've been considering recently in the wake of this particular conversation, that when you observe a tree, or a bird, or a blade of grass, you are looking at a literal relation.

A literal relation? As opposed to a figurative relation?

Just using the word as an exaggerative, really. She's a real woman, he's a true scotsman - that sort of thing.

Can you expound on this position?

Why does religious faith have to be justified? And if we are to assign these descriptions, justified and unjustified, what exactly do we mean when we do so? Are we speaking purely from a formal epistemic logic standpoint? You must be if you're using justified in the same sense you're using justified in application to epistemological faith.

Keep in mind when reading I do understand your distinction between religious faith and epistemological faith (which ultimately, like you say, is all we can go by). This has begged the question to what sort of justification you're attempting to show religious faith doesn't have. If you're attempting to show that religious faith isn't abiding by standards of correct reasoning (by whatever method), I would say it's a waste of time.

This is precisely why we have science and more abstractly universal logics of reason and grammar. We have to break the arbitrary nature of subjectivity. With science we define phenomenon and describe the steps for recreating and observing phenomenon, with the understanding that repeated observation by others increases the likelihood of our holding a correct true belief. This is justification, at least what we can make for ourselves. With arguments, we have universal rules of logic that allow us to say "Your argument cannot be true" or "my opinion is true because this is true and this follows from this from this". Again we have bridged the arbitrariness of subjectivity and moved closer to a broader and more reliable objectivity.

Religious observations and arguments completely defy the confines of science and logic and therefore are entirely arbitrary.

First off, justification is everything. It is a key component of consciousness. If you wish to act, speak, or think without justification, you exist in arbitrary random world, and you might as well turn in your person card right now.

There are many thoughts, concepts, and beliefs which would fall into the same category. Love, justice, empathy, the taste of food, nearly all qualia experiences, etc.

The fact that something cannot be evaluated through the scientific method or a method of correct reasoning (logic), does not mean that that thing is unimportant, meritless, or meaningless.

Justification is not everything, at least not in the context of logical analysis, as you seem to be using it. Many people have acted, spoken and thought about a multitude of things and didn't always hold justification for believing or thinking such. Heck, this is the basis of creative thought. Clearly not everything must be evaluated through the rigors of a logical method. That's absurd. Every novel of fiction known to man would be wiped from the earth!

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.