Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[mark kennedy]

what is being ignored now?

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

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
[/size][/color][/font]

An algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.

 

[toff]

An algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.

It wasn't Darwin. It was Dawkins. And they form no part of any proof. Again you demonstrate that you don't understand the quote you're attempting to discuss.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

Darwin was the first to suggest NS as a (not the, as has been pointed out) mechanism for the origin of species. He makes no bones about the fact that he developed his philosophy as an antithesis for 'special creation', as he calls it. His philosophy is far from irrelevant, its the whole point of his work and its the cornerstone of modern biology and geology. I am amazed that I am not being pressed for a definition of NS or at least confronted with Darwins, or yours for that matter.

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

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?

Thats the nature of metaphysics, you fill in the blanks with presumption, premises and analogies. Astronomy is not metaphysics in and of itself unless the principles are applied uniformly to all of physical science in both thought and practical application. Speculation about what COULD be is the work of the philosopher, not the natural scientist.

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?

Mendel reduced inherited characteristics to mathmatical ratios. I could be reproduced and demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't count in natural science. It is wrong for the evolutionist to use the real world credibility of his work to make evolution more credible. NS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory, this is metaphysics, since it includes all living systems and it links them to physics. The only way to do this is to claim a substantive element, and thus, metaphysics based on premise.

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.

Take a look at the satire I was responding to and consider the context I made the quote in. If you want to describe how it rains then there is no need to refute that it rains due to 'special providence'. So why does NS get developed as a response to 'special creation' as an alternative explanation for our origins? Because that is exactly the point, thats why.

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?

I appeciate your civil tone and your thoughtfull response. I have offered considerable support for my assertion and if you feel I have failed to make my burden of proof, I can accept that. To say that I have not supported it at all begs the question and puts the discussion in a tail spin. Thanks for your response I allways enjoy a good debate.

Let me make one thing clear and I'll get off the soap box. If there is a way of including theistic thought I'd be willing to reconsider some of its tenants. Apart from that we will just go round and round, I'm a patient man, I can do round and round if that's the only option.

 

[mark kennedy]

It wasn't Darwin. It was Dawkins. And they form no part of any proof. Again you demonstrate that you don't understand the quote you're attempting to discuss.

Thats funny, I stand corrected. It changes nothing but thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Philosoft]

Thats the nature of metaphysics, you fill in the blanks with presumption, premises and analogies. Astronomy is not metaphysics in and of itself unless the principles are applied uniformly to all of physical science in both thought and practical application. Speculation about what COULD be is the work of the philosopher, not the natural scientist.

Philosophy is not speculation. Natural science is not about deductive certainty. All scientific theories are essentially empirical constructions of what "could be," regardless of their likelihood.

Mendel reduced inherited characteristics to mathmatical ratios.

Mendel got lucky. Many, if not most heritiable traits are not monogenetic.

I could be reproduced and demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't count in natural science. It is wrong for the evolutionist to use the real world credibility of his work to make evolution more credible. NS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory, this is metaphysics, since it includes all living systems and it links them to physics. The only way to do this is to claim a substantive element, and thus, metaphysics based on premise.

You could potentially write a more incoherent paragraph, but it would probably take substantially more work.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

NS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory

Say what?

I think you are confusing common descent and natural selection. Common descent links organisms via common ancestry and is derived from genetic relationships, physical homologies, etc, between different species.

Natural selection, OTOH, is a mechanism that eliminates genotypes from the gene pool, based on their reproductive success relative to their environments (I refer you to the definition in the OP).

Maybe this is why we haven't gotten anywhere in this thread. You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of what natural selection actually is.

 

[Jet Black]

Thats funny, I stand corrected. It changes nothing but thanks for pointing that out.

what was dawkins talking about then?

 

[monkenstick]

An algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.

no THEY AREN'T

Fictional animals are not given the weight of substantive proof, because they ARE recognised as FICTIONAL by dawkins. You've taken dawkin's musing on what might have been possible and tried to insinuate that he and evolutionists think that these possibilities are real and that they've used to justify evolution - which is patently absurd and untrue

Darwin was the first to suggest NS as a (not the, as has been pointed out) mechanism for the origin of species. He makes no bones about the fact that he developed his philosophy as an antithesis for 'special creation', as he calls it. His philosophy is far from irrelevant, its the whole point of his work and its the cornerstone of modern biology and geology. I am amazed that I am not being pressed for a definition of NS or at least confronted with Darwins, or yours for that matter.

NS is only part of the mechanism

here's a definition that is quite good:
"Natural selection can be expressed as the following general law (taken from the conclusion of The Origin of Species):

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
3. IF there is variability of traits, and
4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive"

the statements with empirical support are numbered; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Thats the nature of metaphysics, you fill in the blanks with presumption, premises and analogies.

he's not FILLING IN any blanks, the hypothetical animals never existed, and dawkins isn't proposing that they did, or that they needed to for evolution to occur

Speculation about what COULD be is the work of the philosopher, not the natural scientist.

sure, and this particular speculation has NO BEARING at all on evolutionary theory, and isn't used at all in the science of evolution

Mendel reduced inherited characteristics to mathmatical ratios. I could be reproduced and demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't count in natural science. It is wrong for the evolutionist to use the real world credibility of his work to make evolution more credible.

yes, he did, and he fudged his data, because it cannot be reproduced today. This is due to the simple fact that his laws of inheritance are violated in reality

NS is metaphysics because it makes all living systems desendant from common ancestory, this is metaphysics, since it includes all living systems and it links them to physics.

it isn't metaphysics, because empirical data is used to test this hypothesis all the time

The only way to do this is to claim a substantive element, and thus, metaphysics based on premise.

it isn't metaphysics, because the claim is tested constantly against data

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

because of my fundy background, I can understand why it is so difficult for creationists to seperate Athiesm philosophy from Evo.
I was taught from day one the Evo is athiesm and/or Social darwinism
The indoctrination is very strong and constant.
In my private school education no seperation was ever made between Evo, athieism,social darwinism.
I always thought they were all the same thing

Theistic Evo is a oxymoron to the creationist,
no different than christianathiest.

I think it stems from the inability to recognize that
Evo is not a philosphy.

Even now, I still think of Athiesm when I see the word "Evolution"...but truth is Evo doesnt prove any philosphy true thiestic or athiest nor does Evo make any philosophical claims..

I feel like I was lied too by my teachers, pizzes me off

 

[Jet Black]

yes, he did, and he fudged his data, because it cannot be reproduced today. This is due to the simple fact that his laws of inheritance are violated in reality

did he actually fudge his data then? how much by? He must have had at least a reasonably good data set to be able to extract what are essentially the right answers. Having never actually seen his work though I can't really comment.

 

[monkenstick]

a statistician named fisher analysed his data and found a p-value of .00004, which seems quite suspicious

he may also have "fudged" things by selecting his traits carefully (traits on different chromosomes for instance) because we know now that many traits are inherited together, or "linked" and do not sort independently

 

[monkenstick]

actually its a bit inconclusive, there have been challenges to fisher's assertion

and even fisher claimed that it was probably one of mendel's assistants who gathered the data, rather than mendel himself

anyway, the important point is that mendel's laws don't hold in reality

 

[Jet Black]

anyway, the important point is that mendel's laws don't hold in reality

not in the strict phenotypical sense no, but I suppose you could always argue that, mutations aside, the set of all phenotypical effects which are uniquely possible in the presence of that particular allele will be inherited in a mendelian fashion. (this is just a contrived way of saying the genes themselves are inherited in a mendelian fashion)

 

[monkenstick]

not in the strict phenotypical sense no, but I suppose you could always argue that, mutations aside, the set of all phenotypical effects which are uniquely possible in the presence of that particular allele will be inherited in a mendelian fashion. (this is just a contrived way of saying the genes themselves are inherited in a mendelian fashion)

not all genes are inherited in mendelian fashion though:

1)extrachromosomal elements like mtDNA violate mendelian genetics because in the case of mtDNA inheritance is predominantly matrilineal with no input from the paternal line

2)genes are not always inherited independently of each other, if they are very close to each other, they are more likely to be co-inherited

on the whole though, mendelian genetics is quite useful in the majority of situations (i.e. for genetic diseases we're usually only concerned with one gene, so the independent sorting is irrelevant, and most genetic diseases are autosomal)

 

[SLP]

More later, but...

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

What does that have to do - at all - with Natural selection being a 'metaphyscial' construct???

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

Yes, I do. The fictional ones are these "monstrosities" you keep referring to and a real mutation is what I pasted a definition to several posts ago that you ignored.

So, like I have asked several times - do you even know what a mutation is?

 

[SLP]

An algorithim requires something in the way of empirical data to be usefull. Darwin says himself that these neighnors are in contrast to 'real animals'. What is bizzare is that fact that fictional animals are given the weight of substantive proof and you take the hook without flinching.

This guy is incredible...

Didn't someone say that he was articulate???

This is quite literally like talking to a brick wall.

 

[mark kennedy]

"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. I think it worth mentioning I never named the thread but the myth in my mind are the transitional forms. It would be nice if there was a balance between immuntabiliy and ubiquitious monstrosities but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I keep bringing up this point because I see every time I read anything about evolution, case in point:

The standard foundation of Darwinian just-so stories does not apply to humans. That foundation is the implication: if adaptive, then genetic-for the inference of adaption is usually the only basis of a gentic story, and Darwinism is the theory of genetic change and variation in population (Gould, 1980)

'Inference of adaptation' would seem to be foundational and monstocities the key to this transition. Maybe I am being a little hardheaded, I don't know, but attributing the origin of all species in the ultimate sense is a metaphysical construct. I honestly believe that, and I feel I have good reason. You think I'm being ignorant then I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. I'll see you all later.

 

[mark kennedy]

More later, but...What does that have to do - at all - with Natural selection being a 'metaphyscial' construct???Yes, I do. The fictional ones are these "monstrosities" you keep referring to and a real mutation is what I pasted a definition to several posts ago that you ignored.

So, like I have asked several times - do you even know what a mutation is?

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.

 

[Jet Black]

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 a mutations is by implication and the lack of real substance in its essense.

what are you on about? can you give an example of one of these fictional monstrosities which are required, and can you tell us what dawkins was talking about?

 

[mark kennedy]

what are you on about? can you give an example of one of these fictional monstrosities which are required, and can you tell us what dawkins was talking about?

If you want a tangible example Darwin offers a number of them. Dawkins is supposeing a large number of transitional forms that he cannot find. He insists that they must have, in fact existed, this is presumption. Dawkins is speculating based on his premise, he is talking about non-existant transitional forms