How does an Evolutionist keep from being "trivial"?

[Gottservant]

EDIT #1: as is to be expected, further discussion has clarified my thoughts:

Simply put: can you define environmental pressure, in the context of trivial adaptation (that is adaptation which slows or hinders response to future environmental pressures) - if your answer is simply "instinct" that is not enough, unless you can appropriately qualify what you mean by instinct...

OP: There is a marked disconnect between Evolution and morality that I still can't seem to address. But there is always a possibility that Evolution may just head down the wrong track, with nothing stopping it, simply because the creatures in question do not respond to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation. I see that as a problem.

So to put it simply in a basic way: how do you know you are not focussing on something trivial - in Evolution?

(EDIT #1a: decided introducing the concept of interpreting environmental pressure "morally" was premature)

Is another coincidence besides the one that created you... trivial? Is the falling boulder that doesn't kill you... trivial? Is the make-up cream that keeps zits off your face while you are vying for a mate... trivial? What about arguing with genesists...

I guess what I am becoming aware of is that as long as I am not hearing "morality" + "Evolution" in the same sentence... everything... absolutely everything is in danger of being "over - theorized". So you see, it is a problem, even if you simply imagine it to be one (EDIT #1b: theory is self-perpetuating, in the absence of a guiding principle - morality is the only thing that can provide that principle). I'm not sure how you would address that.

EDIT #2: Further to my think about this, I have developed another thought, specifically on the nature of environmental pressure:

You say trivial adaptation is irrelevant, but do you see God as a trivial adaptation? Why not an additional environmental pressure? God is not an additional environmental pressure how?

 

[The Engineer]

There is a marked disconnect between Evolution and morality that I still can't seem to address. But there is always a possibility that Evolution may just head down the wrong track, with nothing stopping it, simply because the creatures in question do not respond to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation. I see that as a problem.

So to put it simply: how do you know you are not focussing on something trivial - in Evolution?

How do you know you are responding to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation?

Is another coincidence besides the one that created you... trivial? Is the falling boulder that doesn't kill you... trivial? Is the make-up cream that keeps zits off your face while you are vying for a mate... trivial? What about arguing with genesists...

I guess what I am becoming aware of is that as long as I am not hearing "morality" + "Evolution" in the same sentence... everything... absolutely everything is in danger of being "over - theorized". So you see, it is a problem, even if you simply imagine it to be one. I'm not sure how you would address that.

(PS. Apologies for not tracking a couple of recent threads, I started to doubt anything "about" Evolution had any kind of survival strength, without "moral definition" in place to sustain it - I am resting at this point on the simple truth that "morality is not limited by subject" and trying to find a way to rekindle my interest)

Evolution theory has nothing to do with morality. It makes no moral statements of any kind, and it doesn't intend to. Evolution and morality are not exclusive.

 

[CabVet]

How does Gottservant keep coming up with non-sense threads?

 

[Ken-1122]

There is a marked disconnect between Evolution and morality that I still can't seem to address. But there is always a possibility that Evolution may just head down the wrong track, with nothing stopping it, simply because the creatures in question do not respond to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation. I see that as a problem.

So to put it simply: how do you know you are not focussing on something trivial - in Evolution?

How do you know you are responding to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation?

Is another coincidence besides the one that created you... trivial? Is the falling boulder that doesn't kill you... trivial? Is the make-up cream that keeps zits off your face while you are vying for a mate... trivial? What about arguing with genesists...

I guess what I am becoming aware of is that as long as I am not hearing "morality" + "Evolution" in the same sentence... everything... absolutely everything is in danger of being "over - theorized". So you see, it is a problem, even if you simply imagine it to be one. I'm not sure how you would address that.

(PS. Apologies for not tracking a couple of recent threads, I started to doubt anything "about" Evolution had any kind of survival strength, without "moral definition" in place to sustain it - I am resting at this point on the simple truth that "morality is not limited by subject" and trying to find a way to rekindle my interest)

What about morality + math? It that trivial or over theriozed? Maybe we shouldn't study math for fear of it going down the wrong path with nothing stopping it.

K

 

[serge546]

It's amazing, right?!

I really got nothing out of this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution theory has nothing to do with morality. It makes no moral statements of any kind, and it doesn't intend to. Evolution and morality are not exclusive.

Just read one more time on what you said.

 

[Trogool]

Just read one more time on what you said.

Yes, it makes sense. Things don't have to be related in any way to not be mutually exclusive.

 

[The Engineer]

Just read one more time on what you said.

The reading comprehension police has called. They say you escaped custody again.

 

[mathclub]

There is a marked disconnect between Evolution and morality that I still can't seem to address. But there is always a possibility that Evolution may just head down the wrong track, with nothing stopping it, simply because the creatures in question do not respond to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation. I see that as a problem.

So to put it simply: how do you know you are not focussing on something trivial - in Evolution?

How do you know you are responding to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation?

Is another coincidence besides the one that created you... trivial? Is the falling boulder that doesn't kill you... trivial? Is the make-up cream that keeps zits off your face while you are vying for a mate... trivial? What about arguing with genesists...

I guess what I am becoming aware of is that as long as I am not hearing "morality" + "Evolution" in the same sentence... everything... absolutely everything is in danger of being "over - theorized". So you see, it is a problem, even if you simply imagine it to be one. I'm not sure how you would address that.

(PS. Apologies for not tracking a couple of recent threads, I started to doubt anything "about" Evolution had any kind of survival strength, without "moral definition" in place to sustain it - I am resting at this point on the simple truth that "morality is not limited by subject" and trying to find a way to rekindle my interest)

I can't understand your "post" because have not been clear about what you are "trying" to "communicate" with us here.

However, I do "love" your extensive use of "quotemarks" here.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How do you know you are responding to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation?

You are implying that <insert organism here>:
a) knows it is different to its predecessors
b) knows what that difference is
c) understands what caused that difference to occur
d) is aware of all other possible adaptations that didn't happen

Once it understands all of that then I'm sure it could come to some conclusion about whether or not it has responded correctly (do you really mean benficially?).

 

[RickG]

There is a marked disconnect between Evolution and morality that I still can't seem to address. But there is always a possibility that Evolution may just head down the wrong track, with nothing stopping it, simply because the creatures in question do not respond to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation. I see that as a problem.

So to put it simply: how do you know you are not focussing on something trivial - in Evolution?

How do you know you are responding to environmental pressures with the correct interpretation?

Is another coincidence besides the one that created you... trivial? Is the falling boulder that doesn't kill you... trivial? Is the make-up cream that keeps zits off your face while you are vying for a mate... trivial? What about arguing with genesists...

I guess what I am becoming aware of is that as long as I am not hearing "morality" + "Evolution" in the same sentence... everything... absolutely everything is in danger of being "over - theorized". So you see, it is a problem, even if you simply imagine it to be one. I'm not sure how you would address that.

(PS. Apologies for not tracking a couple of recent threads, I started to doubt anything "about" Evolution had any kind of survival strength, without "moral definition" in place to sustain it - I am resting at this point on the simple truth that "morality is not limited by subject" and trying to find a way to rekindle my interest)

There are countless papers published in the peer review journals of many scientific disciplines that address the theory of evolution. Could you please just cite "one" that associates "morality" with the theory of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

There are countless papers published in the peer review journals of many scientific disciplines that address the theory of evolution. Could you please just cite "one" that associates "morality" with the theory of evolution.

All principles of evolution are immoral. You name one to me, I can tell you how terribly immoral it is.

 

[Tomk80]

All principles of evolution are immoral. You name one to me, I can tell you how terribly immoral it is.

Gravity is immoral, all those people falling from cliffs.

Nature is how it is, morality doesn't enter into it.

 

[Jamin4422]

There are countless papers published in the peer review journals of many scientific disciplines that address the theory of evolution. Could you please just cite "one" that associates "morality" with the theory of evolution.

That would be covered in the interviews. I can not remember if it was watson or Crick that was the bad boy. But in an interview once he said that getting published on the front cover of a magazine turns you into a really big chick magnet. Lots of college girls want to sleep with you. He did not seem to mind all of the attention at the time. Then of course there is the controversy with Rosalind Franklin and who really did the work that made Crick & Watson so famous. They do tend to deal with scandal in scandal sheets. I am a little confused by your suggestion that they should deal with that in the peer review journals. I thought the place they deal with that is on the editorial page in the next edition.

 

[Jamin4422]

All principles of evolution are immoral. You name one to me, I can tell you how terribly immoral it is.

You think that all of the theory of evolution was developed by infidels? What about people like Carrol "The new science of Evo Devo" or Collins "The Language of God". They are not infidels and they have worked on the development of the theory of Evolution. Collins is not a scoffer or skeptic at all, he is rather aggressive in his faith and his belief in God. Although his science is clearly based in science and is not faith based like you get with Behe and people like that. As Collins and Carrol both will not accept ID or IC.

 

[RickG]

All principles of evolution are immoral. You name one to me, I can tell you how terribly immoral it is.

That is an extremely bigoted comment. Quite frankly, I thank God Almighty for giving me the tools to study the physical sciences and the ability to examine the many principles of evolutionary theory and understand them.

Your comment reminds me of a story I was told in church when I was very young. To this day I have never forgotten it. I'll just summarize it.

A new arrival into heaven was being show around by St. Peter. St. Peter was introducing him to all the different groups of Christian denominations and telling a little bit about each. Those are the "A" denomination, those are the "B" denomination, those are the "C" denomination, and so on. Finally they came upon a group of people way off from everyone else. The new arrival asked who they were. St. Peter exclaimed in a very soft voice, shhhhhhh, don't get their attention. They are the "D" denomination, they think they are the only ones here.

Many Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution, whether they believe in it or not. Get the idea?

 

[florida2]

That would be covered in the interviews. I can not remember if it was watson or Crick that was the bad boy. But in an interview once he said that getting published on the front cover of a magazine turns you into a really big chick magnet. Lots of college girls want to sleep with you. He did not seem to mind all of the attention at the time. Then of course there is the controversy with Rosalind Franklin and who really did the work that made Crick & Watson so famous. They do tend to deal with scandal in scandal sheets. I am a little confused by your suggestion that they should deal with that in the peer review journals. I thought the place they deal with that is on the editorial page in the next edition.

The amount that has to do with the theory of evolution is..wait...let me see...ZERO

 

[Jamin4422]

The amount that has to do with the theory of evolution is..wait...let me see...ZERO

So it is ok for Watson and Crick to take Franklin's work and publish it as their own. Ok, I got ya. Because giving credit where credit is due has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

That is an extremely bigoted comment. Quite frankly, I thank God Almighty for giving me the tools to study the physical sciences and the ability to examine the many principles of evolutionary theory and understand them.

Your comment reminds me of a story I was told in church when I was very young. To this day I have never forgotten it. I'll just summarize it.

A new arrival into heaven was being show around by St. Peter. St. Peter was introducing him to all the different groups of Christian denominations and telling a little bit about each. Those are the "A" denomination, those are the "B" denomination, those are the "C" denomination, and so on. Finally they came upon a group of people way off from everyone else. The new arrival asked who they were. St. Peter exclaimed in a very soft voice, shhhhhhh, don't get their attention. They are the "D" denomination, they think they are the only ones here.

Many Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution, whether they believe in it or not. Get the idea?

Name one principle of evolution, and I will show you that it is immoral !!

 

[juvenissun]

Gravity is immoral, all those people falling from cliffs.

Nature is how it is, morality doesn't enter into it.

If people fell to death in a natural way, it is called an accident. Gravity is a force, not a process.

Go back to learn better on science.