Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Steve Petersen]

Ave, Assyrian! On a slightly different tack, how about this: evolution is sometimes the "survival of the fittest." Yet we show and receive love and affection, display justice and other things that have no place in a survival of the fittest. Yet we have and use these things. What is the math on that?

I heard a theory on PBS a few years ago that explains altruism in evolutionary terms.

Altruism contributes to the survival of your group, hence to your survival as well. I guess in the strictest sense that is not really altruism, but it explains why these things developed.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I see what you mean. As a strategy applies an intelligence or consciousness to an organism that doesn’t have a brain. At some point you have to ask where the strategy is coming from. The changes are occurring too quickly to be explained as simply random.The will take a lot more proof for me to believe in the existence of the meme. The changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. This then brings consciousness to bear on the way life changes.

You also raise an interesting point.

I was watching a program in which Bob Ballard and some other scientists were exploring undersea volcanic vents. They found a new form of 'chemical' life that survived heat so intense that it melted the scientists metal temperature probes.

Later one of the scientist said something I will alway remember: 'It seems like life wants to happen.'

In some sense this is a mystery. Where does this drive toward life come from?

 

[gluadys]

I heard a theory on PBS a few years ago that explains altruism in evolutionary terms.

Altruism contributes to the survival of your group, hence to your survival as well. I guess in the strictest sense that is not really altruism, but it explains why these things developed.

Yes, altruism in organisms contributes to the preservation of selfish genes, as Dawkins would say. A gene doesn't care whether it is passed on through you or your sister or your cousin as long as it is passed to the next generation.

 

[Chesterton]

A gene doesn't care whether it is passed on through you or your sister or your cousin as long as it is passed to the next generation.

A gene cares. Now down, or up, to some mythology. I double-checked the word care in the dictionary. I heard once of a primitive people who believed a nearby volcano was a god. Apparently they believed matter and energy, physics and chemistry possessed a mind. Is this the same? If not could you explain the difference?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A gene cares. Now down, or up, to some mythology. I double-checked the word care in the dictionary. I heard once of a primitive people who believed a nearby volcano was a god. Apparently they believed matter and energy, physics and chemistry possessed a mind. Is this the same? If not could you explain the difference?

Depends on what you mean by 'mind'. As far as we know, the 'mind' that humans and other animals possess is the consciousness that results from our neurology. So a mind is a particular arrangement of matter and energy. Could a volcano have a mind? Possibly, albeit highly improbably: it is just rock and magma.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You hit on something that has always fascinated me. Virtually every origins story has life first starting in the sea. As does the evolutionary theory. It's ALMOST as if we have some sort of genetic memory of this stuff.

I'm not sure I would agree. Of all the Creation myths and other accounts of the origins of life and biodiversity, I'm only aware of the Ancient Greeks and modern science claiming that life arose from the sea. Genesis, for example, posits that life was poofed as is onto the Earth (land animals on the land, sea creatures in the sea, etc). There are other accounts of the universe coming from an egg, or the Earth from a severed ball, but I haven't heard of one where life came from the sea. Could you give examples? I'm quite intrigued .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You also raise an interesting point.

I was watching a program in which Bob Ballard and some other scientists were exploring undersea volcanic vents. They found a new form of 'chemical' life that survived heat so intense that it melted the scientists metal temperature probes.

Later one of the scientist said something I will alway remember: 'It seems like life wants to happen.'

In some sense this is a mystery. Where does this drive toward life come from?

That's one of the beauties of evolutionary theory. Life works by trial-and-error, and only those that just so happen to 'succeed' are the ones that succeed. There isn't a metaphysical drive that causes life to happen, it's a fascinating by-product of the statistics involved.

 

[Chesterton]

Depends on what you mean by 'mind'. As far as we know, the 'mind' that humans and other animals possess is the consciousness that results from our neurology. So a mind is a particular arrangement of matter and energy. Could a volcano have a mind? Possibly, albeit highly improbably: it is just rock and magma.

The word "mind" isn't strictly necessary, perhaps "will" or something else, anything to describe something with a capactiy to "care" about anything, such as whether it lived or died, passed itself on or the like.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I'm not sure I would agree. Of all the Creation myths and other accounts of the origins of life and biodiversity, I'm only aware of the Ancient Greeks and modern science claiming that life arose from the sea. Genesis, for example, posits that life was poofed as is onto the Earth (land animals on the land, sea creatures in the sea, etc). There are other accounts of the universe coming from an egg, or the Earth from a severed ball, but I haven't heard of one where life came from the sea. Could you give examples? I'm quite intrigued .

I was thinking of near-Eastern mythology regarding life arising from Chaos (which is the primordial sea.) My memory is aged, but didn't the first of the gods come from the sea?

How about various legends of land rising from the ocean on the back of a turtle?

The first living creatures mentioned in Genesis are sea life.

I think there are similar type stories in Native American and Meso-American cultures.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That's one of the beauties of evolutionary theory. Life works by trial-and-error, and only those that just so happen to 'succeed' are the ones that succeed. There isn't a metaphysical drive that causes life to happen, it's a fascinating by-product of the statistics involved.

I can see that, but statistics and probability must be some sort of natural law in themselves? Nu? Do laws just happen?

 

[Dr. Unk]

As Gould says: “A Quahog is a Quahog,”

A common argument made by creationists is something along the lines of "dogs always produce dogs", whereas evolution predicts exactly that. They think that evolution demands that animals produce different "kinds". (although the word "kind" as a biological class never been sufficiently defined).

Using the example earlier, there are many species of mouse, but evolution predicts that over a vast amount of time, many new ones will be created and they will become different to one another - so different that they are virtually unrecognisable. However, in the end, they will still be mice. To say something like "this isn't evolution - they're still mice" is like saying "monkeys and humans didn't evolve - they're still mammals!"

Creationists think that because new "kinds" aren't created, evolution doesn't happen, but this is just plain false, and sadly why many people don't accept evolution.

 

[no1nose]

A common argument made by creationists is something along the lines of "dogs always produce dogs", whereas evolution predicts exactly that. They think that evolution demands that animals produce different "kinds". (although the word "kind" as a biological class never been sufficiently defined).

Using the example earlier, there are many species of mouse, but evolution predicts that over a vast amount of time, many new ones will be created and they will become different to one another - so different that they are virtually unrecognisable. However, in the end, they will still be mice. To say something like "this isn't evolution - they're still mice" is like saying "monkeys and humans didn't evolve - they're still mammals!"

Creationists think that because new "kinds" aren't created, evolution doesn't happen, but this is just plain false, and sadly why many people don't accept evolution.

The point is based on observations (I know, I know -the irony of it) on how quickly and specifically life adapts. This does not seem random to me and if not random then what? Quantum provides a connection between consciousness and atomic changes - so why is there such a connection in the first place if it is not used?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The point is based on observations (I know, I know -the irony of it) on how quickly and specifically life adapts. This does not seem random to me and if not random then what?

Evolution by natural selection is not a random process. Indeed, as Creationists are quick to point out, it seems almost unnatural in its ability to create highly-ordered organisms.

Quantum provides a connection between consciousness and atomic changes

Source? This sounds an awful lot like the New Agey 'Quantum Mysticism' going about. Are you referring to the observer effect? If so, you've rather spectacularly misunderstood it.

so why is there such a connection in the first place if it is not used?

Eh? It is used in scenarios where it is appropriate. Quantum mechanics isn't used to describe evolution, and would have negligible effects on mutations. Though some organisms have evolved traits that use quantum queerness to their advantage, these are mere curios.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)"

This just further shows how wrong you are: speciation occurs with or without human supervision. This occurs all over the Earth, be it over millions of years, or a single month in a lab.

 

[gluadys]

A gene cares. Now down, or up, to some mythology. I double-checked the word care in the dictionary. I heard once of a primitive people who believed a nearby volcano was a god. Apparently they believed matter and energy, physics and chemistry possessed a mind. Is this the same? If not could you explain the difference?

Of course, the gene doesn't have the sentience to care. Just an analogy. "selfish" gene is the same sort of analogy. A gene is not really selfish as it doesn't have the mental capacity for the attitude.

 

[Chesterton]

Of course, the gene doesn't have the sentience to care. Just an analogy. "selfish" gene is the same sort of analogy. A gene is not really selfish as it doesn't have the mental capacity for the attitude.

To what is "care" analagous?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To what is "care" analagous?

A conscious mind capable of being selfish. Perhaps the word 'metaphor' might be a more appropriate description of the phrase "the selfish gene".

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry to use Wiki, but what's there is typical of assessments from most sources (and it's quick ).

"In describing genes as being "selfish", the author [Dawkins] does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will – merely that their effects can be accurately described as if they do. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated)...For example, Andrew Brown has written: '"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language...'"
​

Yes I think metaphor is better. Nonetheless I wish we could come up with an English word or a phrase, or an entire book even, to define this "selfishness" or "caring" or the "implicit interests" which are served by the gene's consequences. It seems as if there must be some words to describe it accurately. Maybe we could find out how those primitives described their volcano's "interests", and borrow from them.

 

[gluadys]

[/INDENT]Yes I think metaphor is better.

Yes, "metaphor" is better than "analogy". I suppose the most accurate term would be "anthropomorphism"--ascribing human characteristics to a string of base nucleotides.

Nonetheless I wish we could come up with an English word or a phrase, or an entire book even, to define this "selfishness" or "caring" or the "implicit interests" which are served by the gene's consequences. It seems as if there must be some words to describe it accurately. Maybe we could find out how those primitives described their volcano's "interests", and borrow from them.

Indeed. It is actually quite difficult to describe some evolutionary developments such as adaptation without sounding teleological, as if a gene or a species purposed its own evolution in a particular direction.

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed. It is actually quite difficult to describe some evolutionary developments such as adaptation without sounding teleological, as if a gene or a species purposed its own evolution in a particular direction.

I agree. Although, if the best and brightest propents of the last 150 years, and men such as Dawkins today, have such difficulty, it might not be that it's difficult, but impossible. People who know languages tell us that the English language is the richest language. If an idea conceived in the mind cannot be expressed in English, rather than attribute this to a shortcoming in the language, I would think there is more likely a shortcoming in the mental conception.

But maybe not. Actually the conception is fine as far as it goes. If we think about it we find that Mr. Brown is wrong. There is a good word for the idea. The word is pantheism. From Webster's dictionary - "pantheism, a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe". If you wish to tweak Webster by substituting "mind" or "will" or any equivalent for "God", that's fine, since a mind or will controlling or influencing the universe is a definition of God, according to both monotheism and pantheism. So we see that atheistic evolutionists are in fact theists - pantheists. They are adherents to one of the world's oldest known religions, the one which is the "default" religion, the natural bent of the human mind which doesn't try very hard, or which doesn't wish to deal with such a disagreeable thing as a living God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree. Although, if the best and brightest propents of the last 150 years, and men such as Dawkins today, have such difficulty, it might not be that it's difficult, but impossible. People who know languages tell us that the English language is the richest language. If an idea conceived in the mind cannot be expressed in English, rather than attribute this to a shortcoming in the language, I would think there is more likely a shortcoming in the mental conception.

I disagree. English is very idiomatic, and there are very few 'true' English words (if my historian friend is correct, 'pig' is the only word native to Britain).
More to the point, there are many words and phrases in other languages that describe legitimate concepts and ideas, but have no English counterpart. Well known examples are déjà vu and faux pas from French, doppelgänger from German, anime and haiku from Japanese, etc. English is not the best language with which to describe something, especially given its idiomatic and often ambiguous nature.

But maybe not. Actually the conception is fine as far as it goes. If we think about it we find that Mr. Brown is wrong. There is a good word for the idea. The word is pantheism. From Webster's dictionary - "pantheism, a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe". If you wish to tweak Webster by substituting "mind" or "will" or any equivalent for "God", that's fine, since a mind or will controlling or influencing the universe is a definition of God, according to both monotheism and pantheism. So we see that atheistic evolutionists are in fact theists - pantheists. They are adherents to one of the world's oldest known religions, the one which is the "default" religion, the natural bent of the human mind which doesn't try very hard, or which doesn't wish to deal with such a disagreeable thing as a living God.

Only if you warp the definition of 'god' to one not used by any theist or atheist I am aware of. Indeed, even if you use your above definition, there is still no 'mind' or 'will' influencing the universe under strong atheism, nor under evolutionary theory: there are simply forces and physical laws.