Ignostic regarding evolution.

[GrowingSmaller]

I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything. All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?

 

[UnReAL13]

From Online Etymology Dictionary:

evolve
1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "to unroll," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Meaning "to develop by natural processes to a higher state" is from 1832. Related: Evolved; evolving

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you recall, when asked for a definition of the term "God" I referred to a dictionary definition. How is this fair or adequate play for the term "evolution" and not fair play or adequate for the term "God". I can easily imagine the fallacy of "double standards" being applied. Maybe I am just imagining things.

btw: I want to debate biological evolution. Also, you might commit the 'etymological fallacy' which assumes the origin of a word is semantically significant in relation to its modern usage.

 

[UnReAL13]

If you recall, when asked for a definition of the term "God" I referred to a dictionary definition. How is this fair or adequate play for the term "evolution" and not fair play or adequate for the term "God". I can easily imagine the fallacy of "double standards" being applied. Maybe I am just imagining things.

btw I wany to debate biological evolution.

How is this unfair? Where did I ever state what type of "dictionary" needed to be used, and what makes this site not a dictionary: Online Etymology Dictionary


Biological evolution? The etymological definition already covers that:

"to develop by natural processes to a higher state"


Now feel free to "deconstruct", although I don't really see the point...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything. All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?

Ultimately you can always just point to stuff. Instead of uttering "Chair" just point across the room.

Similar with all kinds of scientific questions. You just point at stuff, ideally (necessarily?) empirical evidence. DNA and how it looks here, a bunch of fossils there, and this and that too.

And in fact that is what we have in the scientific arena.

So, you want to know about evolution, huh? Just look long and good, and you are as clever as anyone. If you just don't have the time, I think it is perfectly OK to just leave off with "What do I know of this stuff, anyway."

 

[jayem]

Biological evolution? The etymological definition already covers that:

"to develop by natural processes to a higher state"

Strictly speaking, that definition is outdated and misleading. To evolve is to develop, by natural processes, traits enabling a species to proliferate better in its ecological niche. Evolution is not a matter of "higher states" of development. It's a matter of producing more surviving offspring.

 

[UnReAL13]

Strictly speaking, that definition is outdated and misleading. To evolve is to develop, by natural processes, traits enabling a species to proliferate better in its ecological niche. Evolution is not a matter of "higher states" of development. It's a matter of producing more surviving offspring.

Isn't the whole concept of macro-evolution to develop gradually from one form of being to a "higher state" of that being?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Isn't the whole concept of macro-evolution to develop gradually from one form of being to a "higher state" of that being?

That is a bit of an ill conceived idea that would ultimately crumble to pieces, not entirely unlike a supernatural God.

 

[UnReAL13]

That is a bit of an ill conceived idea that would ultimately crumble to pieces, not entirely unlike a supernatural God.

Why is this ill conceived? Explain.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Why is this ill conceived? Explain.

Higher organisms for one. You can't really have a higher/better per se. You need a higher/better in terms of something else.

Another is, that saying 'that the "concept of macro-evolution [is] to develop gradually from" X to Y' smacks of a purposeful action. It is almost as if you introduced a hint of a telos and an actor into your concept evolution.

I am not saying that this kind of concept does not exist, just that it is a little ill conceived.

 

[UnReAL13]

Higher organisms for one. You can't really have a higher/better per se. You need a higher/better in terms of something else.

Another is, that saying 'that the "concept of macro-evolution [is] to develop gradually from" X to Y' smacks of a purposeful action. It is almost as if you introduced a hint of a telos and an actor into your concept evolution.

I am not saying that this kind of concept does not exist, just that it is a little ill conceived.

Are we not a higher form of species than the apes we evolved from?

 

[jayem]

Isn't the whole concept of macro-evolution to develop gradually from one form of being to a "higher state" of that being?

Not really. The primary engine of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection only favors traits which lead to reproductive success. Whatever characteristics enable an organism to make more babies will become manifest. Things we'd consider "higher" states of development--like more intelligence, keener senses, increased strength, longer life spans, etc--may be selected for if they also contribute to the production of more offspring. But those aren't the "targets" (I hate to use a teleological term) of evolution. The real driving force is simply to get more copies of an organism's DNA into the next generation, and the next, and the next.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are we not a higher form of species than the apes we evolved from?

No. Evolution isn't a scale whereon species advance. Modern humans are as evolved as modern chimps and modern E. coli.

 

[UnReAL13]

No. Evolution isn't a scale whereon species advance. Modern humans are as evolved as modern chimps and modern E. coli.

Except our intelligence advanced. We have a higher capacity for understanding than our ancestors, as well as modern chimps.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Except our intelligence advanced. We have a higher capacity for understanding than our ancestors, as well as modern chimps.

By and large, but that doesn't make us more evolved, or more advanced. It just means that one of our traits is superior to another species'. Our ability to swim in the water is far inferior to that of other animals. We have no ability to see the polarisation of light, but squid can see the 'angle' of a photon as clearly as we see its colour. Chimps can out-do humans in certain cognitive tasks (mainly memory- and reflex-based tests).

But even if we out-did all species in all things... that wouldn't make us 'more evolved'. Such a phrase makes no sense, unless you butcher the word 'evolve'.

 

[variant]

I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything. All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?

Ok...

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

An introduction to evolution

 

[Blackmarch]

I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything. All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?

evulotion in simplest terms means many small changes over a long period of time ends up being a big change in the end.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok...

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

An introduction to evolution

Well howzabout I qoute you from the other thread (ETA oops misquote, quatona rather than variant is quated. Apologies to all involved).

As soon as a term must be expected to mean pretty much anything it becomes meaningless in a discussion in which it is a key-term.
This doesn´t exclude that every individual using this term attaches an individual (and meaningful) concept to it.

There are at least 5 distinct definitions of the term "evolution" on thefreedictionary.com.

On the page you linked to (at Berkley's educational dept) there are 167 words used to outline evolution, and Lamarckianism wasn't even mentioned. Lets assume that each of those words has 5 possible definitions, as things stand. I am trying to find an exact number of possible meaanings, but that billions upon billions of possible meanings for that one discussion alone. An online estimate is 5.3455 X 10^116* possible interpretations of that text.

If it's appropriate for you or other 'ignostics' to play "Please elaborate, I'm lost!!!" isn't it appropriate for me to play the same game? If not, why not? If the principle of charity applies here, doesn't it work both ways, from you to me as well as from me to you?


*fifteen septentrigintillion,
three hundred forty-five sextrigintillion,
five hundred quintrigintillion!!!

 

[UnReAL13]

By and large, but that doesn't make us more evolved, or more advanced. It just means that one of our traits is superior to another species'. Our ability to swim in the water is far inferior to that of other animals. We have no ability to see the polarisation of light, but squid can see the 'angle' of a photon as clearly as we see its colour. Chimps can out-do humans in certain cognitive tasks (mainly memory- and reflex-based tests).

But even if we out-did all species in all things... that wouldn't make us 'more evolved'. Such a phrase makes no sense, unless you butcher the word 'evolve'.

I acquiesce to your deeper knowledge of the subject. Perhaps I need to catch up and go study the whole theory of evolution a bit more in depth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I acquiesce to your deeper knowledge of the subject. Perhaps I need to catch up and go study the whole theory of evolution a bit more in depth.

Hey, you don't get 12.5k posts on CF without learning a thing or two