"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[gurneyhalleck1]

I am a bit blown away by how the science book we have at school, most of the videos shown, and the science camp we attend for a week are all completely into the idea of adaptations.

Sometimes I truly question how wholeheartedly people jump into theories. It seems that every single facet of the animal kingdom is now an adaptation. I've heard turtle shells considered an "adaptation." Supposedly turtles developed their shells, rattlesnakes adapted and developed rattlers, bats developed echo-location to deal with blindness, eagles developed awesome vision to deal with altitudes to catch fish and what not, on and on and on.

I know we've all hashed out evolution in here, but this "adaptation" angle is particularly fascinating to me. It's such a given now. I often wonder why adaptation and evolution are never questioned and are seen as such no-brainers. Did anyone ever consider a turtle might've been created by God with the shell on?

Sorry to vent. I just love teaching science and yet this language is strewn throughout the book and every video we use.

 

[jckstraw72]

Did anyone ever consider a turtle might've been created by God with the shell on?

they mighta considered it. but everyone knows that only evolution counts as real science, so all such thoughts must be discarded.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Confirmed. These guys had shells before their mutation.

 

[Cappadocious]

Gurney,

I'm not sure what your objection is, but you may be edified by hearing the distinction between acclimation and adaptation.

Acclimation is when a given organism in a given environment, in a given generation, undergoes changes to better thrive in that environment. For example, humans who have lived for periods of time in high altitude experience an acclimation of their blood vessels, where the blood vessels change to cope with lower levels of oxygen.

Adaptation is usually a multi-generational phenomenon. Environmental pressures act upon a population, and those within the population which have traits allowing them to thrive are more likely to survive. One exception to this is certain forms of bacteria, which have the ability to exchange DNA between themselves in one generation. This still requires a population, however, and not merely a single organism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Capp,

Yeah, I'm aware of the distinctions, but your explaining them to everyone is perfectly fine. I'm not objecting so much as just weary of us speaking of adaptations as given factual objective, obvious truths. The "turtles didn't used to have shells!" and "these talons on this hawk are adaptations they developed to catch prey" are not things we have observed much less have evidence of, right?

Gurney,

I'm not sure what your objection is, but you may be edified by hearing the distinction between acclimation and adaptation.

Acclimation is when a given organism in a given environment, in a given generation, undergoes changes to better thrive in that environment. For example, humans who have lived for periods of time in high altitude experience an acclimation of their blood vessels, where the blood vessels change to cope with lower levels of oxygen.

Adaptation is usually a multi-generational phenomenon. Environmental pressures act upon a population, and those within the population which have traits allowing them to thrive are more likely to survive. One exception to this is certain forms of bacteria, which have the ability to exchange DNA between themselves in one generation. This still requires a population, however, and not merely a single organism.

 

[jckstraw72]

such ideas are extrapolated from observations of a much smaller scale. it is assumed that there is no limit to adaptations - it is assumed that no creation has its definition that it cannot transgress (basically it assumed that there are no logoi defining created beings).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm assuming you don't agree with that, jack

such ideas are extrapolated from observations of a much smaller scale. it is assumed that there is no limit to adaptations - it is assumed that no creation has its definition that it cannot transgress (basically it assumed that there are no logoi defining created beings).

 

[Cappadocious]

such ideas are extrapolated from observations of a much smaller scale. it is assumed that there is no limit to adaptations - it is assumed that no creation has its definition that it cannot transgress (basically it assumed that there are no logoi defining created beings).

You are suggesting, per classical greek thought, that a being of a kind cannot acquire predicates that are beyond the bounds of its nature.

Evolution does not violate this. Speaking more precisely, an organism does not evolve into another organism; rather, a kind of organism evolves into another kind of organism; it ceases to be one kind and members of the new species (kind) instantiate a new, distinct nature. So, when one kind of organism evolves into another, it is not exceeding the bounds of its nature. We mark the difference by referring to reproductive incompatibility, among other things.

 

[Cappadocious]

I'm not objecting so much as just weary of us speaking of adaptations as given factual objective, obvious truths.

If we're being charitable, and not polemical, we can admit that material scientists treat inferences from material observations as implicitly conditional.

So, the statement, "The turtle shell is an adaptation" contains the implication "If the theory of evolution is true, if our observations thus far are not mistaken, etc. then the turtle shell is an adaptation." When something has enough support behind it, we tend to treat it as simply true for functionality's sake. Otherwise you wind up stuck in your mind doubting the external world, a la Descartes. So a coherent challenge to the theory of evolution would be met with a degree of skepticism in the scientific world, but would not be simply "thrown out" as certain copyright-violating movies have portrayed the scientific world acting.

The theory of evolution is not a trick of the devil, nor a plot by modernists, nor a misguided explanation concocted through the circular reasoning (see Descartes, again) of well-meaning but deluded materialists. It is a persuasive explanation for the "how" of biological diversity. Orthodox hostility to it is immeasurably depressing, and unnecessarily (operative word) scandalizing to young people in particular who may, as St. Augustine said, doubt the faith itself based on well-known inaccuracies members associate with it.

 

[buzuxi02]

Sometimes I truly question how wholeheartedly people jump into theories. It seems that every single facet of the animal kingdom is now an adaptation. I've heard turtle shells considered an "adaptation." Supposedly turtles developed their shells, rattlesnakes adapted and developed rattlers, bats developed echo-location to deal with blindness, eagles developed awesome vision to deal with altitudes to catch fish and what not, on and on and on.

I used to have a large Macaw as a pet (those large parrots that pirates have in movies). According to one of the more popular scientific theory is that these large birds evolved from dinosaurs. Obviously just like humans they are one of the very few animals that walk on just two legs (as many dinosaurs did), there shape conforms to that of a miniature tyrannosaurus rex right down to an extrememly long feathered tail, etc.
The only problem is how does it evolve from a species that was completely extinct? There was several million years between the existence of these two species, so im not sure how certain scientists come to such a conclusion.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Orthodox hostility to it is immeasurably depressing"

not sure if you are implying there's a general Orthodoxy hostility (if not please correct me, thanks)

I think there is hostility from a very tiny minority, mostly Westerners, and mostly converts, who are creating an issue where there isn't any.

Both the hard core evolutionist and hard core anti-evolutionist are two sides of the same coin, they are both have a materialistic and literalist world view.

The main problem I see here, isn't evolution per se, but rather, how we choose to respond to it. We do not cultivate and encourage our children (both secular and the faithful are guilty of this) to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for the information they receive. We encourage them to be passive, rather than active responders to what we are learning and to what is being taught to us.
For the secular person, they might just blindly accept whatever the media tells them, and for some of the faithful, to resort to a rather protestant way of approaching the Scriptures and the faith and create a strawman in regards to evolution.

 

[GregConstantine]

to that question about birds and dinosaurs, the theory is that they evolved from certain species of dinosaurs, by the time they evolved into what we call birds today, the other species of non avian dinosaurs had died out.

 

[jckstraw72]

You are suggesting, per classical greek thought, that a being of a kind cannot acquire predicates that are beyond the bounds of its nature.

Evolution does not violate this. Speaking more precisely, an organism does not evolve into another organism; rather, a kind of organism evolves into another kind of organism; it ceases to be one kind and members of the new species (kind) instantiate a new, distinct nature. So, when one kind of organism evolves into another, it is not exceeding the bounds of its nature. We mark the difference by referring to reproductive incompatibility, among other things.

thank you, you are correct - i did not word my statement very carefully. but my statement could simply be applied to the logoi of kinds. St. Maximus speaks about natures never changing because logoi never change (since they are Uncreated). at the very least this is something that Orthodox evolutionists need to think about and work through. I have only ever seen one article addressing it, and the author concluded that the theology of the logoi is incompatible with evolution. we can't just assume that some theory is compatible with our theology - it has to actually be demonstrated. but instead we're just continually told to stop being fundamentalists because there's obviously no problem with Orthodoxy and evolution! but the Saints and elders of the 19th and 20th centuries remain unconvinced.

 

[jckstraw72]

I think there is hostility from a very tiny minority, mostly Westerners, and mostly converts, who are creating an issue where there isn't any.

that's interesting. when i spoke with Met. Jonah he told me the exact opposite. he said in the old countries its far easier for people to accept a young-earth, literal reading, but it's here in America where we are still trying to grasp the Orthodox ethos that we have a hard time accepting it. in the reading that I have done on this over many years, and in my work on my M. Div. thesis on this topic with Dr. Christopher Veniamin, Met Jonah's words have been seen to be accurate. As far as I have found, Fr. Seraphim is the only notable voice within Orthodoxy on this topic who is from the west. The rest are Saints raised in Orthodox countries.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm with most of you guys. We accept an imperative that we MUST believe the conclusions of scientists and have faith in their assumptions and proclamations, and we shouldn't give them too much credence, particularly where they cannot observe and can only guess.

Just the other day they were hollering about discovering absolute proof of our "evolving" from fins and flippers to feet. They've been excitedly "discovering" this stuff for a hundred years now.

I certainly accept small scale adaptations that CAN be observed. But I totally agree with Gurney about the fallacy of extending the assumption to what no one has or can observe.

I'm not going to get into a hot-and-bothered argument over the topic, but I don't mind expressing my hostility to a philosophy that overtly or by implication denies special creation, especially of man, by God. I no longer accept "theistic evolution" and see its philosophical vacuum, though I accept that some aspects of creation could have taken a long time. I'm no six-day (24-hr) literalist, but I don't want to hear any more about how God didn't really create us, but we just "adapted" and "evolved". I believe that God created His creatures in general to reproduce after their own kinds, and not that we "developed" from "we don't know what" and are continuing to "evolve" into "we know not what".

 

[GregConstantine]

"but I don't mind expressing my hostility to a philosophy that overtly or by implication denies special creation, especially of man, by God."

Agreed, and to the philosophy, not the actual theory of evolution itself, is where our hostility should be directed. Unfortunately, many think the theory and the philosophy is one and the same.

 

[rusmeister]

"but I don't mind expressing my hostility to a philosophy that overtly or by implication denies special creation, especially of man, by God."

Agreed, and to the philosophy, not the actual theory of evolution itself, is where our hostility should be directed. Unfortunately, many think the theory and the philosophy is one and the same.

Actually, I don't think ANYONE thinks about the philosophy at all. And if you do, then you can see how the theory is formed and shaped by the philosophy, and the extent to which the philosophy is wrong is the extent to which the theory will be wrong.

 

[jckstraw72]

Actually, I don't think ANYONE thinks about the philosophy at all. And if you do, then you can see how the theory is formed and shaped by the philosophy, and the extent to which the philosophy is wrong is the extent to which the theory will be wrong.

ding ding ding! we have a winner!

 

[GregConstantine]

"Actually, I don't think ANYONE thinks about the philosophy at all."

True, however, we can choose to look at the theory of evolution as just that, and, if we are a scientist for example, and if it is required to be used in one's research (and most of the time it is not, I have many friends who are scientists and on a day to day basis, they are not using the theory of evolution in any major way in their research) then use it as a tool.
We can choose to reject the philosophy as Orthodox Christians, however, most of us don't do that. Please see what I originally posted above in this tread, but I'll quote it anyways:

"The main problem I see here, isn't evolution per se, but rather, how we choose to respond to it. We do not cultivate and encourage our children (both secular and the faithful are guilty of this) to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for the information they receive. We encourage them to be passive, rather than active responders to what we are learning and to what is being taught to us.
For the secular person, they might just blindly accept whatever the media tells them, and for some of the faithful, to resort to a rather protestant way of approaching the Scriptures and the faith and create a strawman in regards to evolution. "

 

[Cappadocious]

thank you, you are correct - i did not word my statement very carefully. but my statement could simply be applied to the logoi of kinds. St. Maximus speaks about natures never changing because logoi never change (since they are Uncreated).

If the logoi are Uncreated and "contained" in the Mind of God, the Logos of God, I see no reason that we would have to read evolution as requiring the generation of new logoi. We have seen the emergence of "new" things like the airplane that instantiate what it is to be an airplane, for example. It could simply be that the Logos contains all logoi that are ever instantiated, as he created a world in which they would all end up being instantiated.

Furthermore, when I die, and my soulish body decomposes, my body's nature is not exceeding its bounds when it ceases to be "my body" and is instead "decomposed matter", or the more crass "wormfood". Rather, we see a transition from the one to the other. So it is from one distinct kind of organism to another in evolution.

at the very least this is something that Orthodox evolutionists need to think about and work through. I have only ever seen one article addressing it, and the author concluded that the theology of the logoi is incompatible with evolution.

It wasn't in the context of evolution, but in +Zizoulas' work he could be read to imply that the limitation of a being to the bounds of its nature, such that it cannot accquire predicates and remain in its kind, may not be a hard-line limitation in Judeo-Christian thought. But I'll have to investigate that further.