Directed Evolution

[2PhiloVoid]

When it comes to a scientific discussion the scientists are going to fare best. If one wants a philosophical discussion one goes to philosophers. How life evolved is well understood and scientists keep learning more and more every day.

Do you have a particular objection to evolution aside from the terminology that is used?

No. I'm an Evolutionist. Why would I object to it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then, I'll elucidate: I think that any scientist who meddles inordinately with genetics is trying to do something Un-Natural. There is NO selection in nature and to attempt selection is to do so artificially and to be stepping into God's domain. It's one thing to observe the genome of whichever organism; but it's another thing altogether to screw around with it.

Is that clearer?

But there is selection in nature, as my last post showed. You just do not like the terminology.

And we have been screwing around with genomes for thousands of years. Artificial selection also affects the genomes of animals. Now you might have a point when it comes to hairless cats or dogs. That appears to be messing with genetics for no good purpose at all. But that was done with artificial selection. Do you have a problem with GMO's?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I'm an Evolutionist. Why would I object to it?

Because you keep claiming that there is no selection in nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.

So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:

Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II

That is taking forever to load. A personal objection against terminology is a rather futile argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't call that 'selection,' and I think Darwin's attempt to analogize as he did, after borrowing concepts from animal husbandry and the like, wasn't quite 'meet' for was actually defaults among competing organisms in nature. The survival of an organism--or a population as is usually the case--isn't hand picked by nature. It's a default to survival among those populations that are most well suited to their environment.

Nature doesn't select.

'Natural selection' derives from the metaphorical anthropomorphism of 'Mother Nature' (the classical goddess), so it seems quite appropriate to me.

You could call it 'natural filtering' if you like, but once the meaning of a word has been established in a particular context, whether or not you agree with it, it's best to use it if you want to communicate successfully. Personally, I don't see the problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Also, @FrumiousBandersnatch and @Subduction Zone, if you think I'm wrong on something, rather than simply and flatly telling me I'm wrong and silently sitting back and watching what you think will be a tail-spin out of control on my part, plunging down in error ...

...why don't you guys do the virtuous thing and provide me with pin-pointed sources wherein you think I'll find the 'correct' view and/or info. Besides, I'd love to add whatever sources you guys refer to my existing academic bibs.

Seriously, pretty much every introductory text on biological evolution will mention it.

 

[J_B_]

See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.

So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:

Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II

I am always amazed at the depth of thought the founders of science put into the smallest details. They obviously thought it important, and given we stand on their shoulders, I don't think it's appropriate to be flippant about it. I often feel like dismissing those small details means one has missed some of the deeper truths.

I've told the story too often, but when I learned d'Alembert's principle in college my reaction was: How is this different from Newton ... and Lagrange, and Hamilton, and Green, and ... ?

Many years later I had the, "Ah. Now I feel stupid." moment.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am always amazed at the depth of thought the founders of science put into the smallest details. They obviously thought it important, and given we stand on their shoulders, I don't think it's appropriate to be flippant about it. I often feel like dismissing those small details means one has missed some of the deeper truths.

I've told the story too often, but when I learned d'Alembert's principle in college my reaction was: How is this different from Newton ... and Lagrange, and Hamilton, and Green, and ... ?

Many years later I had the, "Ah. Now I feel stupid." moment.

I didn't think I was being flippant. I merely posted an article back to @Subduction Zone ... and I get in return what I count as 'non-responsive responses.'

It sounds to me that unless I throw away whatever crazy ideas I have in my head and get in line, then I'll just get set to the side.

okay.

Let me burn my diplomas too while I'm at it. I'm pretty sure they're worthless at this point. Rubbish maybe, even. Not that that notion isn't maybe a good thing in the end, I suppose ...

 

[J_B_]

I didn't think I was being flippant. I merely posted an article back to @Subduction Zone ... and I get in return what I count as 'non-responsive responses.'

It sounds to me that unless I throw away whatever crazy ideas I have in my head and get in line, then I'll just get set to the side.

okay.

Let me burn my diplomas too while I'm at it. I'm pretty sure they're worthless at this point. Rubbish maybe, even. Not that that notion isn't maybe a good thing in the end, I suppose ...

I didn't mean you were flippant ... at least not about terminology. It was more a summary of my anecdotal observations of lay people and working science/tech people over the years.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't mean you were flippant ... at least not about terminology. It was more a summary of my anecdotal observations of lay people and working science/tech people over the years.

And this applies to me how?

My point in even being here on this thread is to try to open up the OP topic a little---from any and all angles possible, as time permits. But call me skiddish, and if folks sense some kind of hesitant respect for science on my part, that may be because when it comes to "progress" in science, I tend to be more on the Bill Joy (and others like him) side of things than on the Ray Kurzweil side of things. Catch my drift?

 

[Bradskii]

See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.

So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:

Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II

Did you post those links to show that some people have difficulty in relating the terminology used in evolution? I have only seen people deride 'survival of the fittest' when they don't understand the context in which it was used and think that fitness is associated with health and strength. Otherwise, it's an arcane discussion of teminology that is more an interest to etymologists.

Likewise 'natural selection'. We know what it means. If someone misunderstands the terminology then explain it to them.

 

[J_B_]

And this applies to me how?

I was noting I've seen some of the problems you mention. From a purist perspective, you're right.

But after 30 years of raging against the machine, my purist tendencies have been beaten from me. I've drunk the Kool-Aid and I understand the perspective of, "Meh. That would be hard."

My point in even being here on this thread is to try to open up the OP topic a little---from any and all angles possible, as time permits. But call me skiddish, and if folks sense some kind of hesitant respect for science on my part, that may be because when it comes to "progress" in science, I tend to be more on the Bill Joy (and others like him) side of things than on the Ray Kurzweil side of things. Catch my drift?

Some aspects of the world are very disconcerting. I just saw something yesterday about how a world systems model from the 1970s predicted America will collapse in 2040. An update to that model just released in 2021 confirms we're right on track. The point is, maybe society will fall apart before transhumans take over. Or zombies. Or the icecaps will melt. So ... that's something to look forward to.

There's not much I can do about it one way or the other, so I just keep leaning on Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you post those links to show that some people have difficulty in relating the terminology used in evolution? I have only seen people deride 'survival of the fittest' when they don't understand the context in which it was used and think that fitness is associated with health and strength. Otherwise, it's an arcane discussion of teminology that is more an interest to etymologists.

Likewise 'natural selection'. We know what it means. If someone misunderstands the terminology then explain it to them.

Yes, I posted those links to show where the problem started and from whence it has carried. That's it.

But as a person who is more attuned to the social sciences and philosophy, I'm going to come at the act of evaluating definitions and theoretical concepts in science a little differently than the typical atheists do who show up here on CF, regardless of the fact that I'm also an evolutionist.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to reading Barbara J. King's book, "Evolving God."

Thanks!

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I posted those links to show where the problem started and from whence it has carried. That's it.

But as a person who is more attuned to the social sciences and philosophy, I'm going to come at the act of evaluating definitions and theoretical concepts in science a little differently than the typical atheists do who show up here on CF, regardless of the fact that I'm also an evolutionist.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to reading Barbara J. King's book, "Evolving God."

Thanks!

The only problem with the terminology is with those who don't understand evolution and misinterpret those terms. It's not a problem for evolution. And in passing, I might note that using the word 'evolutionist' to describe oneself rings all sorts of alarm bells. It's like saying 'gravitationalist'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only problem with the terminology is with those who don't understand evolution and misinterpret those terms. It's not a problem for evolution. And in passing, I might note that using the word 'evolutionist' to describe oneself rings all sorts of alarm bells. It's like saying 'gravitationalist'.

Oh, pffwww!

Ok. Would it make you happier if I place myself on the taxonomic grid of 'creationist' types and say that I'm a theistic evolutionist? Or how about if I were to label myself as an Evolutionary Theist? Would that be better and turn the alarm bells off.

Or better yet. How about if I just say that Existentially speaking, and being the existentialist that I am, I'm also an Evolutionist?

Does any of this help? Or do you want me to lay claim to some particular type of credance in the Theory of Evolution? Do I have to identify myself with Stephen J. Gould or Niles Eldredge with their Punctuated Equilibrium, or do I need to say that I'm instead with the Richard Dawkins and Jerry A. Coyne side of things for the alarm bells to subside. Notice, too, that in this, I didn't mention Michael Behe or Dembski.

 

[Bradskii]

Notice, too, that in this, I didn't mention Michael Behe or Dembski.

A theistic evolutionist? Like a theistic astronomer? Or a theistic chemist? If you're a Christian, the descriptor 'theistic' is redundant. Just as redundant as it would be if I said I'm an 'atheistic evolutionist'. The process doesn't require a belief in, or a rejection of, God. So you've included it for a reason.

I see it as code for 'there are some aspects of the process that could not have and did not happen naturally'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A theistic evolutionist? Like a theistic astronomer? Or a theistic chemist? If you're a Christian, the descriptor 'theistic' is redundant. Just as redundant as it would be if I said I'm an 'atheistic evolutionist'. The process doesn't require a belief in, or a rejection of, God. So you've included it for a reason.

No, I simply included these terms because that is how others have made categories for supposed positions among Creationists. I did not say I was a Theistic Evolutionist, and I did not say that I was an Evolutionary Theist, which is why I couched these categories as questions.

As I ended in my previous post, I stated that I am an existentialist who also is an evolutionist; and one doesn't necessarily entail the other.

I see it as code for 'there are some aspects of the process that could not have and did not happen naturally'.

I can't help if you surmise there's some 'secret' rhetorical flourish that I've covertly added here that somehow belies that the current Theory of Evolution is other or less than what the later proponents of the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinists would tell us.

No, I'm just a theoretical sadist (which all philosophers are, really)----I love to torture little helpless theories, of all kinds. I'm positively mad ... !

... I hate to cut and run, but my son just got off of work and wants to watch the new Hawkeye episode. Gotta cheer some of my heroes on ... !

Catch ya later!

 

[Bradskii]

I love to torture little helpless theories, of all kinds.

I've never heard evolution being called a 'little helpless theory' before. Perhaps you should have chosen an easier target. Creationism perhaps. Hours of innocent fun to be had there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never heard evolution being called a 'little helpless theory' before. Perhaps you should have chosen an easier target. Creationism perhaps. Hours of innocent fun to be had there.

Like I said before ... all kinds.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never heard evolution being called a 'little helpless theory' before. Perhaps you should have chosen an easier target. Creationism perhaps. Hours of innocent fun to be had there.

It's also fun to see what kinds of social and political philosophies (or just seemingly everyday decisions) that Darwinism (old or new) inspires people to push ...