Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[toff]

Exactly it 'didn't eventuate', its telling that he is constructing an imaginary algorithm or equally fancifull memes or his punctuated equalibrium. Since the gradualism model was never reconstructed from fossils in the geological strata from the warm little pond to the transitional forms to the complete emergence of genotypes that are altogether new species, he invented them. I understood what he was saying, I just didn't by it, allthough I do admire the way his imaginative prose superimposed on natural science.

No, you didn't, as you continue to demonstrate.

You tell me, is evolution (NS being its mechanism), the substantive element that runs throughout reality as it pertains to living systems?

For the umpteenth time, NS is ***A*** mechanism of evolution. Not the only one.

 

[toff]

Ok, fair enough. Let's try this, a common complaint among evolutionists is that evolution explains nothing because it explains everything:

No, it's not a common complaint except among those who don't understand it.

You will find both from the working definition I'm using (which BTW no one seems to be interested in) is identical to a literal definition. Now as far as rabbits digging holes, I suppose it could be considered metaphysical if it was ubiquitious to rabbits. It's a philosophical appoach to the 'essense' of a thing (ontology). In other words it is not how things are different but how they are the same. In Darwinian NS is ubiquitious to ALL living systems and is therefore metaphysics.

So a natural behaviour is metaphysics if it applies to ALL living systems? So I suppose by that definition eating is metaphysical, since all organisms do it (in one form or another)?

 

[monkenstick]

In Darwinian NS is ubiquitious to ALL living systems and is therefore metaphysics.

this is refuted by the existence of neutral theory, which describes changes in the genetic content of a population when natural selection isn't acting (genetic drift)

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think you understood the question. Let me try to make this clear. With regards to the emergence of species, is natural selection allways the source?

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you didn't, as you continue to demonstrate.


For the umpteenth time, NS is ***A*** mechanism of evolution. Not the only one.

Two one liners is an epitath, not an argument.

 

[monkenstick]

I don't think you understood the question. Let me try to make this clear. With regards to the emergence of species, is natural selection allways the source?

no, genetic drift can also contribute, and in fact, in establishing reproductive isolation, is probably more important than selection

 

[mark kennedy]

So you are saying that your opinion is that species (genotypes) are created by 'genetic drift' as well as natural selection? The implication is that they are completely different (cannot be confused with one another) to the point of being mutually exclusive. This of course would mean that Darwin was wrong and you can prove that.

 

[monkenstick]

So you are saying that your opinion is that species (genotypes) are created by 'genetic drift' as well as natural selection? The implication is that they are completely different (cannot be confused with one another) to the point of being mutually exclusive. This of course would mean that Darwin was wrong and you can prove that.

no, it doesn't mean that darwin was wrong, it simply means that natural selection isn't always what causes genotypic change.

neutral evolution and natural selection can coincide:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5bNeutraltheory.shtml

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it's not a common complaint except among those who don't understand it.


So a natural behaviour is metaphysics if it applies to ALL living systems? So I suppose by that definition eating is metaphysical, since all organisms do it (in one form or another)?

Didn't you read the quote? Even Darwin said that if gradualism could not be shown from the geological strata it would unravel. The problem in metaphysics is that it has to make the premise so general it includes everything in reality. You are not discerning the diference between substantive and empirical understanding. One is a priori, while the other is a postoria, untill you get a handle on that you will continue making pendantic one liners. Eating would fall under the larger element of metabolism, which would be part of a general definition of the elements required for living systems.

 

[Arikay]

No, the big problem is that darwin is not the end all final say when it comes to evolution. He did get things wrong.

 

[SLP]

So you are saying that your opinion is that species (genotypes) are created by 'genetic drift' as well as natural selection? The implication is that they are completely different (cannot be confused with one another) to the point of being mutually exclusive. This of course would mean that Darwin was wrong and you can prove that.

Darwin was wrong about many things. He, of course, did not live in times when concepts of population genetics were even thought of yet.

Why you keep yammering on about Darwin when it has been explained REPEATEDLY to you that the ToE is a bit different today than in Darwin's time is obvious to everyone.

 

[SLP]

You, sir, clearly do not even know what a mutation is!

No sir, I am attacking a dangerous fallacy in the metaphysics of Darwinian evolution.

What fallacy is that? That internet creationists understand what they so confidently attack? No, you in fact do not know what a mutation is as you have repeatedly demonstrated. That is like someone attacking Christianity having never heard of the bible.

I promised to demonstrate that the hinge of Darwinian 'natural selection' was a belief in mythical monstrosities.

1. When do you plan on keeping this ‘promise’?

2. When are you going to realize that attacking Darwin is irrelevant to the modern ToE?

Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was colorfull prose intended to excite the imagination, it is identical to the poetic fantasy of his grandfather in his poem 'Nature's Temple' cited earlier.

Apparently, you have not actually read it.

"I am well aware that this doctrine of natural selection, exemplified in the above imaginary instances, is open to the same objections which were at first urged against Sir Charles Lyell's noble views on 'the modern changes of the earth, as illustrative of geology;' but we now very seldom hear the action, for instance, of the coast-waves, called a trifling and insignificant cause, when applied to the excavation of gigantic valleys or to the formation of the longest lines of inland cliffs. Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure." (Origin of Species, ch. 3 Natural Selection, Darwin)

Chapter 3 is "Struggle for Existence", and the above passage does not appear in it. Your quote appears in Chapter 4. Of course, in the quote, there is not a hint that NS is ‘metaphysical’. So why you presented it is a mystery.

So this Natural Selection has changed substantivly has it? Consider this more modern version of the imagary:

"The actual animals that have ever lived on Earth are a tiny subset of the theoretical animals that could exist. These real animal are the products of a very small number of evolutionary trajectories through genetic space. The vast majority of theoretical trajectories through animal space give rise to impossible monsters. Real animals are dotted around here and there among the hypothetical monsters, each perched in this unique place in genetic hyperspace. Each real animal is surrounded by a little cluster of neighbours, most of wom have never existed, but a few of whom are its ancestors, it decendants and its cousins." (Ricard Dawkins 1986)

Like I said, monsters, mythical monsters, that exist in the imagination.

Did you actually read the quotes you provided?

Allow me to emphasize something which you apparently blotted out form your comprehension:

"Real animals are dotted around here and there among the hypothetical monsters, each perched in this unique place in genetic hyperspace. Each real animal is surrounded by a little cluster of neighbours, most of whom have never existed, but a few of whom are its ancestors, it decendants and its cousins"

It is the "mythical monsters" that do not exist, as Dawkins clearly stated. They are possibilities, not requirements of ‘natural selection.’

Let me make two points clear so that there will be no confusion. First this 'thesis', as you call it, is an attack on the concept of 'special creation', as Darwin called it. Second, it is based not so much on scientific fact as analogy, which is a fancy word for an imaginative illustration. Darwin said this in no uncertain terms.

" And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species have once existed as varieties, and have thus originated: whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if each species has been independently created." (Origin of Species, Variation under Nature ch. 1, Darwin)

Why am I attacking his thesis, because it is a blantant attack on Christian theism. It is obviously metaphysics, natural selection is a fanciful analogy.

So I guess the pages upon pages of actual observation that Darwin mentions in the very book you seem to be quoting from just were of no interest to you? Why would they be - they are contrary to your belief requirement!

Of course, AGAIN, so what if Darwin was setting this up as an attack of Christian fundamentalism? Unlike YECism or its many guises, there is, after all, actual evidence - both observational and experimental - supportive of the concept. How many ‘metaphysics’ are you aware of that can claim that?

Evolution was not sythesised with genetics until sometime in the 1930s. In fact, the real work of genetics, where laws of inheritance are reduced to matimatical ratios, was done independantly of Darwins natural selection.

I am aware of this, but I see no connection to ‘metaphysics.’

Darwin, like his contempories, ignored genetics. The empirical evidence does not belong to this mythical fantasy and for decades wanted nothing to do with it.

The ‘empirical evidence’ to which you refer - Mendels’ work - was fudged a bit and was, of course, a science in its’ infancy. Your labeling of NS a fantasy only reflects your pitiful grasp of the subject, and illustrates a common and superficial creationist tactic of continual denigration. As if it will somehow become true if you write it frequently enough...

More satire and cliches', in the absense of real substance I suppose this should be expected.

Yes, that is what I have come to expect from you. Your projection is noted.

Why don't you just admitt that you are working from naturalistic assumptions?

I never said I wasn’t! I assume that natural explanations are valid ones, and that there is no need to posit the intervention of a particular deity whenever I can’t figure something out - or even when I can. As I demonstrated in my brief critique of actual ‘creation science’ - which you have dutifully ignored - adopting ‘supernaturalistic assumptions’ - the "vastly superior" creationist metaphysic, produces not legitimate science but fraudulent propaganda. Only a blinder-wearing zealot could actually entertain the notion that such a ‘metaphysic’ is superior to assumptions premised on reality-based observations and assumptions.

What I can't get over is how frequently people are so clearly ignorant of the premise of their own philosophy. This condescending attitude of incredulity toward any kind of theistic reasoning begs the question of proof on its hands and knees. All praise the power of natural selection, the giver of life!

In reality, as I presented (and, again, you dutifully ignored) my ‘incredulity’ toward theistic science is based on the fact that creationists operate in reverse - they start with their unyielding, unchanging conclusions then distort, reject, manipulate data to make it fit. THAT is why the YECist ‘metaphysic’ is garbage.

Natural selection is not metaphysics? Nothing could be further from the truth.

More garbage.

How can an observable phenomenon be metaphysical? Boggles the mind...

And I see that you still do not know what a mutation is....

 

[SLP]

You tell me, is evolution (NS being its mechanism), the substantive element that runs throughout reality as it pertains to living systems?

NS is but one mechanism of evolution.

You should get your head out of the past and stop attacking strawmen.

 

[SLP]

So you are saying that your opinion is that species (genotypes) are created by 'genetic drift' as well as natural selection? The implication is that they are completely different (cannot be confused with one another) to the point of being mutually exclusive. This of course would mean that Darwin was wrong and you can prove that.

Unique genotypes are created all the time by random mutation (and other mutagenic sources) and drift and many different types of selection.

The implication is that unique genotypes do not a new species make, and that one would do well to learn at least the basic terminology and concpets of the fields he is trying to discuss rather than relying on preconceived and largely erroneous notions..

 

[Jet Black]

ITT mark kennedy repeatedly shows his inability to read and understand simple concepts.

 

[toff]

Two one liners is an epitath, not an argument.

It wasn't an argument - it was a correction.

 

[mark kennedy]

What fallacy is that? That internet creationists understand what they so confidently attack? No, you in fact do not know what a mutation is as you have repeatedly demonstrated. That is like someone attacking Christianity having never heard of the bible.

Darwin is clear in his intent, purpose and very aware of the implications of his fantastic claims.

“These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.”

Then in the conclusion of his introduction:

“namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species,”

This identical to his grandfathers poetic description of the emergence of life and if you think he just simply drew his conclusions from the evidence your being gullible.

“Organic life beneath the shorless waves,
Was born and nurs’d in oceans pearly caves…”

This was clearly his intent and he worked to remove all meaning from ontology (science of being) and that is metaphysics as plain as any I’ve ever seen.

“Origin of man now proved--metaphysics must florish- He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke.” (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Universal Acid ch 3, Dennett, 1995)

That’s why the sailors he sailed with on the Beagle called him the ‘kindly old philosopher’, because that is what he was. He was a philosopher.

1. When do you plan on keeping this ‘promise’?

2. When are you going to realize that attacking Darwin is irrelevant to the modern ToE?

Chapter 3 is "Struggle for Existence", and the above passage does not appear in it. Your quote appears in Chapter 4. Of course, in the quote, there is not a hint that NS is ‘metaphysical’. So why you presented it is a mystery.

Did you actually read the quotes you provided?

I have no idea what this is meant to prove. I didn’t do a very good job editing my post because frankly I’m getting a lot of pedantic rants calling me ignorant and a moron. Since someone is actual reading what I go to all the trouble to write I’ll be more careful.

Allow me to emphasize something which you apparently blotted out form your comprehension:

"Real animals are dotted around here and there among the hypothetical monsters, each perched in this unique place in genetic hyperspace. Each real animal is surrounded by a little cluster of neighbours, most of whom have never existed, but a few of whom are its ancestors, it decendants and its cousins"

It is the "mythical monsters" that do not exist, as Dawkins clearly stated. They are possibilities, not requirements of ‘natural selection.’

They don’t exist except in some nebulous ‘genetic hyperspace. ‘Neighbors, most of whom have never existed’ isn’t science, its fantasy.

So I guess the pages upon pages of actual observation that Darwin mentions in the very book you seem to be quoting from just were of no interest to you? Why would they be - they are contrary to your belief requirement!

No, I find the observations to be as interesting as any of the animal shows I watch with my kids. The trouble is that it is laced with bizarre conjecture and naturalistic presumption. Had it not been for his antithesis he would have been known for some acute observations and insights on the role of environment in inherited traits, that’s it.

Of course, AGAIN, so what if Darwin was setting this up as an attack of Christian fundamentalism? Unlike YECism or its many guises, there is, after all, actual evidence - both observational and experimental - supportive of the concept. How many ‘metaphysics’ are you aware of that can claim that?

Well, how about Aristotle’s science, it was the cornerstone of Western Civilization’s philosophy. This was true for both cleric and scientist for 2500 years, can an evolutionist make such a claim? He literally wrote the book on metaphysics and what you have is ontology without meaning. Go ahead, challenge me to support that claim.

The ‘empirical evidence’ to which you refer - Mendels’ work - was fudged a bit and was, of course, a science in its’ infancy. Your labeling of NS a fantasy only reflects your pitiful grasp of the subject, and illustrates a common and superficial creationist tactic of continual denigration. As if it will somehow become true if you write it frequently enough…

I keep repeating it because it was ignored then and it is ignored now. Mendel was an afterthought. I am appalled at the insufferable rudeness of the rest of this rant and I refuse to dignify it with a response.

I never said I wasn’t! I assume that natural explanations are valid ones, and that there is no need to posit the intervention of a particular deity whenever I can’t figure something out - or even when I can. As I demonstrated in my brief critique of actual ‘creation science’ - which you have dutifully ignored - adopting ‘supernaturalistic assumptions’ - the "vastly superior" creationist metaphysic, produces not legitimate science but fraudulent propaganda. Only a blinder-wearing zealot could actually entertain the notion that such a ‘metaphysic’ is superior to assumptions premised on reality-based observations and assumptions.

I kind of like the substance of this statement, if not for the satire I’d concede that you are at least honest about your naturalistic presumptions. I don’t reject a persons careful and thoughtful ideas being expressed in naturalistic terms but the ‘blinder-wearing zealots’ are the evolutionists, this is not only evident, it is blatant.

In reality, as I presented (and, again, you dutifully ignored) my ‘incredulity’ toward theistic science is based on the fact that creationists operate in reverse - they start with their unyielding, unchanging conclusions then distort, reject, manipulate data to make it fit. THAT is why the YECist ‘metaphysic’ is garbage.

More garbage.

How can an observable phenomenon be metaphysical? Boggles the mind…

Another pedantic rant with more insulting satire. I spent some time on another board that had a lot of people banned from this board for rudeness. That’s why I decided to check it out, I thought I would see if Christian’s were treating them unfairly. If anything the moderators are exercising amazing restraint.

And I see that you still do not know what a mutation is.…

I know the difference between a real one, and a fictional one. Do you?

 

[mark kennedy]

ITT mark kennedy repeatedly shows his inability to read and understand simple concepts.

The operative word here being 'simple', care to support that statement with something of substance? If I'm wrong show me and I'll concede your point, otherwise why the pedantic oneliners?

 

[toff]

Darwin is clear in his intent, purpose and very aware of the implications of his fantastic claims.

Come on, Mark. You're obviously an articulate man, so I can't believe you are not understanding what has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this thread. We are not talking about Darwin. We are talking about Natural Selection. Darwin's opinion as to its philosophical implications is completely irrelevant. It's up to you to demonstrate how Natural Selection (an observed natural phenomenon) is metaphysics. No amount of quotes from Darwin will do it.

That’s why the sailors he sailed with on the Beagle called him the ‘kindly old philosopher’, because that is what he was. He was a philosopher.

No, he wasn't, and whether or not he was is completely irrelevant to your assertion.

They don’t exist except in some nebulous ‘genetic hyperspace. ‘Neighbors, most of whom have never existed’ isn’t science, its fantasy.

I don't understand what point youo're trying to make here - I can only conclude that you do not understand the original quote. He is talking, hypothetically, about all the possible animals which COULD, conceivably, exist...but don't. How does this make natural selection metaphysics? If I mention all of the possible planets which COULD have come into being if our galaxy had been a little different, does that make astronomy metaphysics?

I keep repeating it because it was ignored then and it is ignored now. Mendel was an afterthought.

Yes, Mendel was an "afterthough" in that his discoveries were not integrated by Darwin into his theory. So what? Darwin made some rough guesses as to how heredity worked - and was wrong. We have since worked out more accurately how it does work. So what? How does that make NS metaphysics?

I kind of like the substance of this statement, if not for the satire I’d concede that you are at least honest about your naturalistic presumptions. I don’t reject a persons careful and thoughtful ideas being expressed in naturalistic terms but the ‘blinder-wearing zealots’ are the evolutionists, this is not only evident, it is blatant.

There are no "blinder-wearing zealots". Science is naturalistic. That's its job. This doesn't make it metaphysics - quite the opposite. Neither evolutionary theory nor NS says anything about a god - neither that he did something nor that he didn't do something. It is a natural observed phenomenon - describing it without a reference to a god is no more metaphysics than describing what makes it rain is.

I know the difference between a real one, and a fictional one. Do you?

Misleading. Nobody - except you - is talking about fictional ones.

In short, Mark, you have made an assertion - that NS is metaphysics - and have completely failed to support that assertion. To do so, you would have to address the OP (which you haven't) and also answer the simple question - how can an observed natural physical phenomenon be metaphysics?

 

[monkenstick]

I keep repeating it because it was ignored then and it is ignored now. Mendel was an afterthought. I am appalled at the insufferable rudeness of the rest of this rant and I refuse to dignify it with a response.

what is being ignored now?

I know the difference between a real one, and a fictional one. Do you?

what a bizarre statement, perhaps you have some examples of fictional mutations

They don’t exist except in some nebulous ‘genetic hyperspace. ‘Neighbors, most of whom have never existed’ isn’t science, its fantasy

I still don't think you understand his point at all, he isn't suggesting that these neighbors have ever existed, he is simply saying that there were other possible permutations of the algorithm called NDT that didn't eventuate, nothing more - it has no impact at all on any of the empirical data concerning evolution