You think because a natural phenomenon occurs in all organisms, it's somehow metaphysics?mark kennedy said:
This has NOTHING to do with natural selection.mark kennedy said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You think because a natural phenomenon occurs in all organisms, it's somehow metaphysics?mark kennedy said:No in fact it demonstrated that NS as a mechanism is transendant in nature. It applies to all reproduction whether it is yeast or monkeys.
This has NOTHING to do with natural selection.mark kennedy said:I know what he was talking about and he was reasoning from the supposition that the absense of evidence could be explained away. I have seen the supposed transitional forms and they are not only rare and these bizzare creatures are the very monstrocities that Darwin imagined were legion. Metaphysics transends evidence in this way, not empirical science.
Philosoft said:This whole thread is surreal. Ordinarily, we're defending evolution from criticism that, by positing development in a physically deterministic fashion, it precludes any teleological intervention by supernatural forces. Now we've got Kennedy here objecting to evolution on the grounds that it's something more than an interaction of matter and force.
For all its absurdity, that's a unique line-of-attack, I'll give you that.
Hopefully then you'll be able to actually stick with the topic.mark kennedy said:I will be laughing about this one for days. The fact that you misunderstood waht my emphasis was makes it all the more hilarious. I am saying that metaphysics should be far more then mechanistic interaction of matter and force. Darwin is the poster child for naturalistic presumption, his ontology simply removes teleological and caustic reasoning. This transends all evolutionary thought about living systems, thats metaphysics.
With that I'll say goodnight and I'll see you all tommorow.
toff said:You think because a natural phenomenon occurs in all organisms, it's somehow metaphysics?
If that's what he's getting at (and I'm not sure that it is), then I still don't think it's metaphysics. It's simply an assumption which may be unwarranted (we assume consistency across the universe without having seen that consistency throughout the whole universe). I don't see how it makes it metaphysics.Pete Harcoff said:Actually, I think I sort of understand what mark is getting at here (I alluded to it as much earlier in the thread, but mark tends to obfuscate his point so well that it can be pretty difficult some times).
In science we can only ever look at a subset of the total physical objects and how they interact with phenomenon in the universe. Then, we make inferences of how we think other objects would be affected by said phenomenon.
In the case of biological evolution, we can only directly observe a subset of the total life on Earth, both past and present. Therefore, any conclusions we draw from observing this subset, we apply broadly the whole.
But this is basic philosophical underpinning of science. We assume that everything we observe in the here and now will apply to other instances under similar conditions. Essentially, we assume that all the laws of nature are the same both everywhere and everywhen in the universe (within the scope of said laws, of course, and also unless we have reason to think otherwise).
So in that sense, then yes, natural selection, evolution, and everything else in science, is bounded by metaphysics. So mark's beef is really with science in general, not just biological evolution.
you haven't the faintest idea about modern evolutionary theory, that much is becoming evidentMicrobiology and macroevolution are two very different things but it is interesting that you link the two. Natural Selection would seem to apply to both meiosis and mitosis, if thats not transendance I don't know what is.
likewise one could say that gravity applies to all objects with mass, hence transcendance. Unfortunately it doesn't make it any more coherentIt is a reference to the OP I keep getting reminded of. The, Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment, its interesting that NS applies ubiqutiously and transendantly to all reproduction. Maybe not in every instance but to all forms of reproduction, thats transendance, Locke would have loved it.
it applies to all reproduction, but it does not apply to all traits which are passed on via reproduction, so it isn't really transcendant at all - not that your "applies to all reproduction = transcendance" argument makes any sense
No in fact it demonstrated that NS as a mechanism is transendant in nature. It applies to all reproduction whether it is yeast or monkeys.
it might then interest you to know then that evolution doesn't transcend evidence at allI have seen the supposed transitional forms and they are not only rare and these bizzare creatures are the very monstrocities that Darwin imagined were legion. Metaphysics transends evidence in this way, not empirical science.
You ought to consider trying out for the mental gymnastics team. You'd be tough to beat in uneven reasoning.mark kennedy said:I will be laughing about this one for days. The fact that you misunderstood waht my emphasis was makes it all the more hilarious. I am saying that metaphysics should be far more then mechanistic interaction of matter and force. Darwin is the poster child for naturalistic presumption, his ontology simply removes teleological and caustic reasoning. This transends all evolutionary thought about living systems, thats metaphysics.
toff said:If that's what he's getting at (and I'm not sure that it is), then I still don't think it's metaphysics. It's simply an assumption which may be unwarranted (we assume consistency across the universe without having seen that consistency throughout the whole universe). I don't see how it makes it metaphysics.
USincognito said:I'm thinking about starting a thread on the absolute necessity of the natrualistic presupposition in science. I think many of you here will know where I'm going with it. Can anyone tell me if that topic's been done before?
Actually, just biology.mark kennedy said:Darwin claimed that the mechanism of evolution was Natural Selection (NR), and he laid claim to a number of proofs for this. This has become the cornerstone of modern science (especially biology)
So, when Newton did not include God in his laws of motion, was that metaphysics?mark kennedy said:My position is this, and only this, he is determined to remove God from the equation and reason in a naturalistic frame of reference as if God did not have anything to do with it. This was, and is, in all its many forms and variations, metaphysics.
I dunno about here. I have seen it somewhere before though, however that might have been in a book.USincognito said:I'm thinking about starting a thread on the absolute necessity of the natrualistic presupposition in science. I think many of you here will know where I'm going with it. Can anyone tell me if that topic's been done before?
The best I can gather from Mark's assertion-filled, circular, vacuous posts is:Jet Black said:I am still wating for these monstrosities, which darwin didn't actually advocate, and nor did dawkins, and I am still waiting to know if mark has actually read the blind watchmaker, at least well enough to know what dawkins was actually talking about?
The Evolved Strain Outcompetes the Parental Strain when they are Grown Together in Continuous Culture
Previous observations showed that the evolved strain had reverted to the GAL1 phenotype; 2815L4 and CP1AB are therefore readily distinguished by colony size on 0.8% galactose minimal agar. A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected.
The Evolved Strain Transports Glucose Two to Eight Times Faster than the Parental Strain
In fact, the faster growing population does have an advantage towards resource acquisition. Natural selection has been observed. If something has been observed and tested to be true, then it is no longer metaphysical. If you continue to contend that natural selection is metaphysical, you must first deal with this evidence that plainly shows that natural selection is operational and testable.Given our observation that the two strains differ in s by an order of magnitude, the simplest explanation for their difference in competitive ability is that selection has favored the evolution of an improved mechanism for transporting limiting substrate. Figure 3 shows the results of glucose transport assays comparing uptake velocity at several glucose concentrations for cells grown in chemostat monoculture on 0.08% glucose at a dilution rate of 0.2/h. The evolved strain consistently demonstrates greater substrate uptake velocity than the parental strain.
These ficional 'monstrosites' are another word for mutation.
These supposed anomilies are the key to the mechanism and the metaphysical construct.
I've read your posts and considered your definition, I am wondering if you fully appreciate what mutations are by implication and the lack of real substance as to their essense. Modern evolutionists simply ignore the fact that the fulcrum of their reasoning is imaginary, cloaking it with empirical data does not disquise it.
Nor shall I here discuss the various definitions which have been given of the term species. No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation. The term 'variety' is almost equally difficult to define; but here community of descent is almost universally implied, though it can rarely be proved. We have also what are called monstrosities; but they graduate into varieties." (Darwin, Origin of Species)
Monstrosities are the transitional forms in Darwinian evolution and thats how transendance is established
By a monstrosity I presume is meant some considerable deviation of structure in one part, either injurious to or not useful to the species, and not generally propagated. Some authors use the term variation in a technical sense, as implying a modification directly due to the physical conditions of life; and variations in this sense are supposed not to be inherited: but who can say that the dwarfed condition of shells in the brackish waters of the Baltic, or dwarfed plants on Alpine summits, or the thicker fur of an animal from far northwards, would not in some cases be inherited for at least some few generations? and in this case I presume that the form would be called a variety.
</SPAN>
Nathan David said:Actually, just biology.
So, when Newton did not include God in his laws of motion, was that metaphysics?
Which is exactly like the science of biology. So what's your criticism, exactly?mark kennedy said:Newton's philosophy did not exclude God he simply made the assertion that what he demonstrated was subject exclusivly to the laws of demonstration and anyone wanting to criticise his work could only do so in that way. His experimentum crucis and mathmatical postulates were the only standards he would accept if natural science and yet God was never far from his thoughts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?