Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[Larniavc]

The organism mutates, beneficially, and there is a magnet like force acting on the organism from the natural environment. If another environment were there, other than the one its adapted to (e.g. a fish were put in a forest) then the 'attraction' or selective mechanism which keeps the fish alive would not be there...

That would not work: who is holding the magnet and how do they know where to put it?

 

[SLP]

And also how it relates to evolution. Is gene duplication new protein, or do they mean whole cloth with no precurssor, does that mean a non coding area becomes a coding area? Which may randomly happen every so often, but be the rarest, and if not that, then it can't refer to anything that happens.

Something they don't seem to get is once we hit lobed finned fish or something simular, 90% of things beyond that is just changes to existing things, some new genes and such, but like monkey to human isn't a series of brand new features and such it's just changes to what exists 99% of.

Exactly.
A guy that posted here briefly a few years ago proclaimed that any new species REQUIRES at least one new protein, and a new proteins REQUIRES at least 300 new base pairs (all beneficial, of course).

I asked him for evidence for either of those assertions, and - I'm sure you can predict one of the more frequent replies we get from such folk - he just ignored my question.

Even when I found him on another forum making the same claims - I asked him there, too, and he called me names and reiterated his declaration, but never produced any evidence.

It is amazing how much they can convince themselves they know to be true even as it is clear to anyone with a relevant background that they are usually 100% in error.

 

[SLP]

That's not what I mean by a "new protein". I know about nylonase. It was created with TWO point mutations. I don't know about the other. How many point mutations is it away from it's starting point?

Suppose the next step in the evolution of an organism needs a new protein that's different from it's closest neighbor by 50 amino acids. Natural selection can't help because there's no benefit to any intermediate chain until it's almost correct and complete. Also, there are probably more already-correct amino acids than ones that need to be changed, so it's far more likely to make a bad change than a good one.

Make a few assumptions and do a little math. See if you can produce the correct protein in less than a trillion years. Seriously.

So I guess you are one of those dudes that makes these little spurts of Dunning-Kruger-style anti-science posts now and then, and when people start debunking your assertions and asking you questions you do not have archived retorts for, you take off for a a couple of years...

Apologetics in action!

 

[SLP]

Its not a supernatural position. Its entirely natural.

Now, do you possess consciousness? Are you aware at present of the writing on the screen?

If you type "yes", how do you explain that causal process?

So no evidence for your position. Followed by an attempt to shift the burden.

Not interested.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... do you possess consciousness? Are you aware at present of the writing on the screen?

If you type "yes", how do you explain that causal process?

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Behavioural? neurological? informational? systems?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What a social systems view of neuro-theology might reveal about prayer for others, loved ones etc. I do wonder.

Wouldn't this stream-of-consciousness stuff be better suited to a blog?

 

[NBB]

Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings?. There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies. But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?

 

[Speedwell]

Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings?. There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies. But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?

It didn't happen de novo when we evolved from our common ancestor with the apes. It was the final stage of three and a half billion years of neural development. Realy, when you look at it we're not all that much farther ahead than our cousins, the other apes.

Reminds me of a joke: Two guys were walking out in the woods when they started being chased by a bear. They started running but the bear was catching up and the one guy says, "We're dead meat. We can't run faster than that bear." And the other guy says, "I don't have to run faster than the bear. I just have to run faster than you."

 

[NBB]

It didn't happen de novo when we evolved from our common ancestor with the apes. It was the final stage of three and a half billion years of neural development. Realy, when you look at it we're not all that much farther ahead than our cousins, the other apes.

Reminds me of a joke: Two guys were walking out in the woods when they started being chased by a bear. They started running but the bear was catching up and the one guy says, "We're dead meat. We can't run faster than that bear." And the other guy says, "I don't have to run faster than the bear. I just have to run faster than you."

I don't know what kind of apes were that, but the difference between man and the smartest ape is abysmal even if those are not the 'ancestors'.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't know what kind of apes were that, but the difference between man and the smartest ape is abysmal even if those are not the 'ancestors'.

Humans are apes.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But that begs the question. Your premise, "A is better then B" contains a value judgement, an implied 'ought'; i.e. "you ought to think that A is better than B

I think we are evolved to find some As better then Bs. It takes a very weird set of conditions for me to like the idea of being [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]inously tortured, for example. Maybe God created this instinctive repulsion. Or, maybe it is part of our evolved responses to certain physical conditions.

Whether you can legitimately get an ought from an is has been debated since Hume, and the consensus is that you can't.

So, ought you believe Hume?

And if we can go from doxastic or epistemic conditions to oughts (I ought to believe in such and such etc. because of such and such) why not moral ones?

That's just a tautology - good health is good, by definition. Nothing to do with evolved traits.

Wait, youre saying evolutionary pressures do not create health to be experienced as a "good" or a "preferable" state of being?

Oughts imply goals and goals imply opinions and value judgements. It's easy to find trivial examples where it all seems to work, but, for example, if we ought to choose health, we ought not to risk ill-health... but what about adventure, exploration, dangerous sports, medical experiments, etc.? These kinds of things make us the species we are, so we ought to do them too, right?

Maybe. Just because the ethical world is complicated, its difficult to do a simple assessment on many issues. But that doesn't mean we're completely in the dark.

They're all goals, which depend on value judgements. You're just saying the goals you want to achieve are good so you ought to pursue them - and why are they good? because they're the goals you want to achieve...

Or, because we find certain things to be better. Do you have, for instance, any sympathies with assisted dying campaigners who suffer intolerable pain? Are they deriving an ought from an is? Are you?

Have you considered that the higher functions may instead be a means for the lizard brain to achieve its goals in more sophisticated and indirect ways, i.e. in complex environments that require flexible responses?

No, good one. There is probably some mutual interplay?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That would not work: who is holding the magnet and how do they know where to put it?

Its just like selection over time, in other terms, causing a life form to veer towards a set of conditions via natural forces acting on it.

Take for instance a fish turning into a amphibian over millions of years. There was "pull" on certain mutant fish towards the shoreline. I'm using "magnetism" and "pull" metaphorically.

Is natural "selection" a literal or metaphorical use of that term?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So no evidence for your position. Followed by an attempt to shift the burden.

Not interested.

Are you a scientific realist? (scientific realism is a position in the philosophy of science, and posits an external reality for which there is no literal evidence. Such realists generally use abductive reasoning to support realism).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Behavioural? neurological? informational? systems?

I'm not putting words into anyones mouth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Wouldn't this stream-of-consciousness stuff be better suited to a blog?

IDK, I'm interested in the topic and have no one to discuss it with.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm wondering if we cant go from "is " to "ought" where do we get those terms from. We talk of dreams because we have dreams. We talk of maths because we experience countable things. So, why do we bother with such terms as "ought" or "preferable"???

If they are void of function, why did we use them in the first place?

Seems like "ought" stemmed from the term 'agan' meaning "own" etymologically...
ought | Origin and meaning of ought by Online Etymology Dictionary

A parallel: If natural selection causes us to select, or single out, specific actions (to be good - I mean... via cultural forces acting on a moral-thinking inclined organism)


and selection is to make ones own (i.e. to choose, single out for self or community as good), and doing what one "ought" is to make an action ones own....

Then....


Morality is a parallel form of selection??


It selects (select | Search Online Etymology Dictionary ) and makes one own for self or community (ought | Origin and meaning of ought by Online Etymology Dictionary ) what is good, valuable, favourable or excellent (good | Origin and meaning of good by Online Etymology Dictionary )

Just as natural selection favours certain organisms "more fit" or "better suited" to their environment.

 

[Larniavc]

Its just like selection over time, in other terms, causing a life form to veer towards a set of conditions via natural forces acting on it.

Take for instance a fish turning into a amphibian over millions of years. There was "pull" on certain mutant fish towards the shoreline. I'm using "magnetism" and "pull" metaphorically.

Is natural "selection" a literal or metaphorical use of that term?

Ah. I thought you meant a measurable force pulling organisms with specific traits to a certain geographical location.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know what kind of apes were that, but the difference between man and the smartest ape is abysmal even if those are not the 'ancestors'.

Can you put "abysmal" into more specific terms?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think we are evolved to find some As better then Bs. It takes a very weird set of conditions for me to like the idea of being [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]inously tortured, for example. Maybe God created this instinctive repulsion. Or, maybe it is part of our evolved responses to certain physical conditions.

Evolution has given us certain behavioural predispositions. These may or may not be appropriate to our current social and cultural milieu, which has caused major changes in our lifestyles in a timescale too short for significant evolutionary adaptation.

Fortunately, evolution has also given us the cognitive flexibility to modify, sublimate, defer, divert, and reinterpret those predispositions and their behavioural implications. Ethics is the study of how we should do this and why. The fact that the subject of ethics exists at all is an indication that there's no simple or consensual way to go from the 'is' of the evolutionary context to the 'ought' of our contemporary cultural context.

So, ought you believe Hume?

I think it's best to read what deep thinkers have said and make up your own mind - or keep an open mind if you feel the arguments are not decisive. Hume was the seminal contributor to this field of thought, so his arguments are worth serious consideration.

... if we can go from doxastic or epistemic conditions to oughts (I ought to believe in such and such etc. because of such and such) why not moral ones?

You tell me - as I understand it, that's how moral positions are usually justified.

... youre saying evolutionary pressures do not create health to be experienced as a "good" or a "preferable" state of being?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "... (good) health being good for the person whose health it is" is tautological.

Good things are good, bad things are bad; and yes, many things we consider good or bad have an evolutionary basis.

Just because the ethical world is complicated, its difficult to do a simple assessment on many issues. But that doesn't mean we're completely in the dark.

Indeed - we have ethics and experience to guide us.

Or, because we find certain things to be better. Do you have, for instance, any sympathies with assisted dying campaigners who suffer intolerable pain? Are they deriving an ought from an is? Are you?

What is 'better' is the question. But sure - we inevitably derive ought from is because we only have our predispositions and a lifetime of experience of what is (or at least what appears to be) from which to derive them.

The question is whether it can be justified without begging the question. I have sympathy for anyone in intolerable pain. My view is that in some circumstances assisted dying is a Good Thing. Some people disagree to the point that they would take a life to stop it... This is where ethics ought to come in

There is probably some mutual interplay?

That's what we like to tell ourselves - but that may just be the way the lizard brain makes us feel we're in control. If we didn't have a conscious sense of agency, we'd feel like helpless passengers...
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice" Isaac Bashevis Singer

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

IDK, I'm interested in the topic and have no one to discuss it with.

In order to have a discussion you need to communicate clearly, make coherent statements or ask coherent questions that people can understand and respond to.

Some of those posts are unintelligible to me - you may know what you mean, but I can't make out what you're trying to say.

Maybe it's just me, but I can usually make sense of what people post here.