Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[Pete Harcoff]

I've seen it raised a few times on this forum that natural selection is metaphysics. I challenge that claim with the following:

First of all, I snagged a definition of metaphysics from Dictionary.com:

met·a·phys·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fzks)
n.
1. Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning. (modified for readibility)

Of these, definitions two and three are where natural selection might fall under relating to biological evolution. But definition 2 is vague, whereas definition 3 is precise: A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Second, I snagged a definition of natural selection, also from Dictionary.com

n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Now, if this process is "a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment", therefore it should not be possible to test (scientifically) natural selection.

However, I have an example in which the outcome of the process of natural selection was predicted and verified via a laboratory experiment:

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

Excerpts:

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; 28–15L4 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

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.

The full paper goes into much more detail, but I highlighted the parts I need to make my point. We have an empirical demonstration of natural selection in action, with a particular strain of yeast out-competing another in response to its environment.

Is natural selection metaphysics? Based on the above experiment, I would say no. So to the creationists that have made this assertion, can you defend it? If this experiment doesn't demonstrate natural selection, then what are we seeing here?

 

[Sirunai]

(i'll just refer to natural selection as "NS")

Well, it can be said that NS is evolution or survival of the fittest is metaphysics, but one can look at it this way. One can look that natural selection is even in the bible. In fact, the bible states that each animal can change (slightly, change according to its surroundings). It's called the fixity of kinds. I strongly believe in NS, but I feel that it does nothing substantial to prove evolution. I'll give you this example:

Two dogs living in the arctic have medium hair length. Let's say a medium hair contains a long hair (or L) and a short hair (or S) in their genetic coding. So medium fur dogs have LSLS hair. Those two dogs give birth to six puppies. the first two have LL hair and the next two have LS and the last two have SSSS. The SS will die because of the cold and the LSLS will have a harder time and will die easier as well. It is obvious that the dogs with LLLL fur will survive better.

However this proves nothing for evolution, sure the dogs have longer hair, but there is a LOSS not a gain of genetic information. When speaking of biological evolution, one looks for developement into a more complex organism, but LLLL is certainly less complex than LSLS. The best suited would be dogs with LLLS dogs, because their fur would be long enough to survive but when a much hotter year comes (which would be inevitable), their puppies would be able to have LSLS fur. So, would tiny changes, like this one prove evolution? It doesn't appear so, because even after minor change, the dog would still be a dog and long fur and sorter teeth and smaller ears (just some extra changes that may occur) is a less complex entity than the first one from which it emerged (because the dogs from which they came had the ability to go either way on those changes). So, I franly don't see NS proving evolution, jus proving the bible.

It's just a little thought which came to my mind, please educate me on my fallcies, which I know you would be able to find (every paragraph of every person there is a logical fallacy, one just needs to find them)

Please, for the search of knowledge and truth, tear it apart.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Two dogs living in the arctic have medium hair length. Let's say a medium hair contains a long hair (or L) and a short hair (or S) in their genetic coding.

The problem is that genetics does not operate via "blended characteristics". IOW, it is more likely that medium length hair is a different allele (let's call it "M") rather than a blending of alleles for long hair and short hair.

So, you have L, S, and M.

The second issue is where do those alleles come from? Well, they come from variations in the genetic code that occur during reproduction. It is these variations on which natural selection operates.

If you had only natural selection, then yes, the gene pool would be gradually refined until there was no variation at all. But variation is being constantly introduced into the gene pool (as an example, based on mutation estimates in humans and the size of the human genome, there is enough total variation in the human population to rewrite the human genome a couple hundred times over).

 

[Jet Black]

mutations could also make a variant V for very long hair or T for transparent hair which would be selected for. The total dog gene pool would then contain T,L,S. an increase in the number of available alleles, an increase in information.

Complexity is a bit of a non starter really, since what is complexity? One has to consider embryology now, and it is very difficult to change the bauplan of an organism with very derived characteristics, though this is still quite possible, for example neoteny (retention of juvenile characteristics in the adult stages) as can be seen in humans, which are basically neotenic apes in their form.
Note that dogs will only ever produce something with derived canine characteristics, but this is perfectly expected. The thing is that this is no symmetrical - Just because dogs produce variants of dogs, does not mean that the things that produced dogs were themselves dogs, simply that dogs are a variant of the thing that produced them.

 

[monkenstick]

Two dogs living in the arctic have medium hair length. Let's say a medium hair contains a long hair (or L) and a short hair (or S) in their genetic coding. So medium fur dogs have LSLS hair. Those two dogs give birth to six puppies. the first two have LL hair and the next two have LS and the last two have SSSS. The SS will die because of the cold and the LSLS will have a harder time and will die easier as well. It is obvious that the dogs with LLLL fur will survive better.

how come your various dogs seem to have different chromosome numbers?

 

[Data]

how come your various dogs seem to have different chromosome numbers?
[/size][/color][/font]

He's talking about alleles. When he says 'LS', he really means LSLS.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have read the posts offered thus far and I would offer a couple of points I think are commonly neglected in these discussions.

First of all, lets start with the object of metaphysics. Metaphyisics is "the substantative element that runs throughout reality". It is a branch of philosophy that goes beyond what we actually know (episimology) to include everything that 'is', it is even more far reaching then ontology (the science of essense). What Darwin was doing was reducing all of life to principles that can be summed up as mechanistic preumptions. Now, by presumption I do not mean that you make up your mind before you see the evidence. I mean that it is a belief (not mere opinon) that it is self-evident and obvious to the point of being undeniable, except to the most idiodic.

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) and he specificatly points out in 'Origin of Species' that it is opposed to two things:

1: The immuntability of species (Aristotlean biology)
2: Special creation

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 am sick and tired of trying to defend creationism against what is obviously a philosophical premise. Empirical science was being developed at the same time by Mendel who developed the laws of inheritance, which are the cornerstone of genetics. This was largely ignored at the time Darwin wrote his book and yet NR recieves more attention, and amazingly, is more important. I think I know why, science is boring but mythology excites the imagaination. Darwin created the myth that has become an imposter of science. No better, no worse, no DIFFERENT, then the dogma that held that the earth was the center of the universe.

Galileo used astrology to diagnose sickness, Newton used alchemy to understand physics, and the modern scientist uses mythical creatures to explain our origins. Nothing has changed since the dark ages except that the priests vestiments have been replaced with lab coats.

Natural selection is metaphysics in every sense of the word. It reduces absolutly every living system to a gradual progression of mechanistic principles within the material world. It cannot be anything else because it appeals to nothing beyond naturalistic phenomenom.

What I cannot get over is how a person who has substituted religious conviction for naturalistic presumption would even bother to deny it. Hey! it should be a boast.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Natural selection is metaphysics in every sense of the word. It reduces absolutly every living system to a gradual progression of mechanistic principles within the material world. It cannot be anything else because it appeals to nothing beyond naturalistic phenomenom.

I notice you didn't address the experiment cited in the OP. If that is not an empirical example of natural selection, then what is it?

 

[mark kennedy]

Darwin never offered any experiment that I could do and its not empirical. You are not compareing apples to apples here.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Darwin never offered any experiment that I could do and its not empirical. You are not compareing apples to apples here.

Oh. Right. Not comparing apples to apples. Silly me, I should have realized that.

But, you're still avoiding the question. If the experiment in the OP is not an empirical example of natural selection in action, then what is it? Do you have an answer or are silly word games the best you can do?

 

[toff]

I have read the posts offered thus far and I would offer a couple of points I think are commonly neglected in these discussions.

First of all, lets start with the object of metaphysics. Metaphyisics is "the substantative element that runs throughout reality". It is a branch of philosophy that goes beyond what we actually know (episimology) to include everything that 'is', it is even more far reaching then ontology (the science of essense). What Darwin was doing was reducing all of life to principles that can be summed up as mechanistic preumptions. Now, by presumption I do not mean that you make up your mind before you see the evidence. I mean that it is a belief (not mere opinon) that it is self-evident and obvious to the point of being undeniable, except to the most idiodic.

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) and he specificatly points out in 'Origin of Species' that it is opposed to two things:

1: The immuntability of species (Aristotlean biology)
2: Special creation

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 am sick and tired of trying to defend creationism against what is obviously a philosophical premise. Empirical science was being developed at the same time by Mendel who developed the laws of inheritance, which are the cornerstone of genetics. This was largely ignored at the time Darwin wrote his book and yet NR recieves more attention, and amazingly, is more important. I think I know why, science is boring but mythology excites the imagaination. Darwin created the myth that has become an imposter of science. No better, no worse, no DIFFERENT, then the dogma that held that the earth was the center of the universe.

Galileo used astrology to diagnose sickness, Newton used alchemy to understand physics, and the modern scientist uses mythical creatures to explain our origins. Nothing has changed since the dark ages except that the priests vestiments have been replaced with lab coats.

Natural selection is metaphysics in every sense of the word. It reduces absolutly every living system to a gradual progression of mechanistic principles within the material world. It cannot be anything else because it appeals to nothing beyond naturalistic phenomenom.

What I cannot get over is how a person who has substituted religious conviction for naturalistic presumption would even bother to deny it. Hey! it should be a boast.

A bigger collection of lies and half-truths I have yet to see. To begin with, natural selection is ONE of the mechanisms of evolution; it is certainly not the only one. Nor does Origin even attempt to "remove God from the equation". Origin is simply an attempt to explain the observed in naturalistic terms. Is finding out what makes it rain removing God from the equation, because we find out rain isn't his tears?

Please, give this nonsense a rest. Perhaps you could spend your time actually finding some evidence for creationism (since there isn't any so far) instead of attempting to drag evolution down to creationism's level.

 

[bevets]

I cant hold back any longer...


Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. ~ Richard Lewontin

 

[Pete Harcoff]

*removes bevets from ignore list*

*notices he has contributed nothing of value*

*puts bevets back on ignore and vows he will stay there this time*

C'mon people, address the OP. I posted an experiment which, to my eyes (and the eyes of the researchers) is an example of natural selection in action. No one has so far even attempted to address that. If you can't address it, go to some other thread and waste people's time there.

 

[toff]

I cant hold back any longer...


Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. ~ Richard Lewontin

You should have. We're sick of your stupid quote-mining, especially completely false ones.

 

[Philosoft]

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.

Rubbish. The only thing Darwininan evolution defeats is a particular interpretation of Biblical Creation. You backhandedly insult the majority of theists who eschew ridiculous doctrines like Biblical literalism.

I am sick and tired of trying to defend creationism against what is obviously a philosophical premise. Empirical science was being developed at the same time by Mendel who developed the laws of inheritance, which are the cornerstone of genetics. This was largely ignored at the time Darwin wrote his book and yet NR recieves more attention, and amazingly, is more important. I think I know why, science is boring but mythology excites the imagaination.

Actually, Darwin's theory was of only mild interest until Mendel's work was rediscovered around 1900. Darwin himself noted the lack of a mechanism of heritability in the earlier versions of Origin.

Darwin created the myth that has become an imposter of science. No better, no worse, no DIFFERENT, then the dogma that held that the earth was the center of the universe.

Whoever told you to become a philosopher of science was obviously kidding.

Natural selection is metaphysics in every sense of the word. It reduces absolutly every living system to a gradual progression of mechanistic principles within the material world. It cannot be anything else because it appeals to nothing beyond naturalistic phenomenom.

What a complete joke. By this reasoning, computer scientists ought to be worshipping at the Church of Quantum Physics every Sunday.

What I cannot get over is how a person who has substituted religious conviction for naturalistic presumption would even bother to deny it. Hey! it should be a boast.

When in doubt, accuse the other guy (meritlessly, natch) of the very same fallacious behavior you are guilty of.

 

[monkenstick]

Empirical science was being developed at the same time by Mendel who developed the laws of inheritance, which are the cornerstone of genetics.

i'm not sure you can call them the cornerstone of genetics , because each of mendel's laws is violated in reality

 

[USincognito]

To paraphrase something I said the other night:

The fact that so much effort is expended on the part of creationists with semantic games (like calling evolution a religion or a myth) exemplifies exactly how bankrupt the creationist position is.

If their position were really as tenable as they claim it to be, they wouldn't waste so much political and intellectual capital on semantics and would actually present evidence destroying the foundations of evolutionary biology.

 

[mark kennedy]

I offer you the promise of natural selection as an all encompassing theory of reality and you give me satire,. This is just too good for me to wrap my mind around. I'll promise you one thing, and I will not fail to produce this while I have life in my fingers.
I will show you from Darwins own hand how his philosophy is metaphysics based on naturalistic assumptions. If I'm right, then you allready recognize it as a natural fact.

In fact I would dare to suggest the source of his pedantic prose, it was not science, it was the poetry of his grandfather:

"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
was born and nurs'd in oceans pearly caves
first forms minute unseen by spheric glass
move on the mud or pierce the watery mass
There as successive generations bloom
Newpowers aquire and larger limbs assume
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring
and breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
(Eramus Darwin 1731-1802)

Natural selection is not science, its poetry! What a beautifull peice of fiction. The Greeks did the same thing with Zeus, its the same old lie. Its absolutly flawless how perfectly the masses dance in tune with the myth maker.

Listen!

Now dance!

 

[Ben is Dead]

hmm u fail to answer the many experiments over the past some 150 years proving natural selection.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ben is Dead:

You fail to understand that the principle is apriori. Experiments? Where were the 150 years of null hypothesis offered while natural selection was being proven?