Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[Loudmouth]

Mr Kennedy,

If an experiment shows that a certain genotype increases in number while another genotype decreases in number, and this increase/decrease is due to environmental conditions, would you agree that natural selection, as described here, is not metaphysical. As stated before, something is metaphysical IF IT CAN'T BE TESTED. If natural selection can be tested, it seems that it is not metaphysical. Am I missing anything here?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Mr Kennedy,

If an experiment shows that a certain genotype increases in number while another genotype decreases in number, and this increase/decrease is due to environmental conditions, would you agree that natural selection, as described here, is not metaphysical. As stated before, something is metaphysical IF IT CAN'T BE TESTED. If natural selection can be tested, it seems that it is not metaphysical. Am I missing anything here?

What is missing is the fact that mark kennedy appears to be operating under a different definition of "natural selection" (as is evidenced by his comments throughout the thread) than the rest of us. He appears to be defining NS as biological evolution itself, including common descent, hence he probably doesn't see the experiment in the OP as being evidence of natural selection.

If he would read the OP in the first place, where I provide a definition for NS (even if just a dictionary definition), then the last 100+ posts on all these peripheral topics could have been avoided.

To summarize the OP:

• Natural selection is mechanism that removes less "fit" organisms from the gene pool in a specific environment where there is competition for resources.
• The experiment in the OP demonstrates this (in fact, the outcome was predicted, then verified).
• Therefore, natural selection is not metaphysics.

So far, no one has contested this.

 

[Jet Black]

If you want a tangible example Darwin offers a number of them.

give me one. That paragraph you mentioned there, he is not actually proposing monstrosities himself.

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

false, that's not what he is talking about. have you actually even read The Blind Watchmaker?

 

[Jet Black]

What is missing is the fact that mark kennedy appears to be operating under a different definition of "natural selection" (as is evidenced by his comments throughout the thread) than the rest of it.

He seems to be operating under a different definition for everything he reads.

 

[toff]

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, his philosophy is completely irrelevant. What thought processes led Darwin to evolution is completely beside the point. We are discussing natural selection, an observed physical phenomenon, not Darwin's philosophy.

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.

NS does nothing of the kind. NS is an observed physical phenomenon, a mechanism which is part of evolution. NS by itself says NOTHING whatsoever about "making all living systems descendant from common ancestry".

I've no idea what "substantive element" means in the above paragraph.

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.

NS wasn't developed as a response to special creation. It was discovered and it was realised to be a part of evolutionary theory. Again, whatever reasons led to Darwin coming up with it are completely irrelevant. We are discussing NS, not evolution as a whole.

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.

I DO say you have not supported it all. As has been repeatedly pointed out, your main points seem to be Darwin's philosophical leanings (which are completely irrelevant) and a strawman of what NS is. Forget Darwin, forget theism, and concentrate on NS - a natural, observed physical phenomenon. THAT's what you purport to be metaphysical, but you haven't given any reasons why.

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.

I don't understand this. A way of including theist thought in what? Do you mean a way of including theistic thought in NS? If so, do you find that there is a way of including theistic thought in scientific explanations of why/how it rains? If not, what's the difference?

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.

Once again, you seem to be attempting to change your contention. NS does not attribute the origin af all species. It says nothing about that at all. It is merely a physical mechanism which forms PART of evolutionary theory. Are you arguing that NS is metaphysical, or that evolutionary theory is metaphysical?

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

No, Dawkins is doing nothing of the kind. Have you actually read the passage? He is neither speculating nor insisting that these mythical creatures ever existed. All that he is doing is pointing out that of all possible creatures (including 'monstrosities'), evolution has led to a vanishingly small subset of these creatures actually existing on the earth. He likens it to something he calls "design space", which contains every possible creature...and further likens evolution's path on earth to a winding path through this design space, making 'real' SOME members of that design space - the actual creatures that have existed on the earth. His entire point is that of the possible creatures, virtually all have NEVER existed. I honestly think you've completely missed the point of Dawkins' passage.

 

[mark kennedy]

What is missing is the fact that mark kennedy appears to be operating under a different definition of "natural selection" (as is evidenced by his comments throughout the thread) than the rest of us. He appears to be defining NS as biological evolution itself, including common descent, hence he probably doesn't see the experiment in the OP as being evidence of natural selection.

You must be aware that Darwin as well as OP defined NS. There was allso a rather poor dictionary definition of metaphysics but I had allready formed my own definition. Now had I readily accepted these definitions as both authoritve and adequete the discussion would have ended there, but what fun would that be.

If he would read the OP in the first place, where I provide a definition for NS (even if just a dictionary definition), then the last 100+ posts on all these peripheral topics could have been avoided.

The pedantic rehash of the OP is supposedly a flag planting victory dance rite. I have contested it openly and continually and even when so far as to quote the pontifix of NS, Darwin himself. Please allow me to reintroduce my retort, natural selection = mutations = monstrosities = apriori presumption = metaphysics. So you see it is somewhat contested.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The pedantic rehash of the OP is supposedly a flag planting victory dance rite. I have contested it openly and continually and even when so far as to quote the pontifix of NS, Darwin himself. Please allow me to reintroduce my retort, natural selection = mutations = monstrosities = apriori presumption = metaphysics. So you see it is somewhat contested.

Natural selection != mutations. Natural selection is a process that removes variations from the gene pool, but it doesn't create those variations.

Therefore, your whole line of reasoning is flawed.

edited to add: Just so there's no confusion, the "!=" symbol means "does not equal". It's a programmer thing, so I just wanted to clarify in case some are not familiar with it.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, his philosophy is completely irrelevant. What thought processes led Darwin to evolution is completely beside the point. We are discussing natural selection, an observed physical phenomenon, not Darwin's philosophy.

No toff, we are discussing whether or not natural selection is the Darwinian apriori, self-evident premise of naturalistic metaphysics. You can keep saying that his philosophy is irrelevant but that won't make any more true.

NS does nothing of the kind. NS is an observed physical phenomenon, a mechanism which is part of evolution. NS by itself says NOTHING whatsoever about "making all living systems descendant from common ancestry".

What can I say to that except Darwinian gradualism does exactly that. Check any Biology textbook and that is how it is presented every single time.

I've no idea what "substantive element" means in the above paragraph.

Substantive reasoning is the realm of theory while empircal is the realm experiential knowledge. I could elaborate on how this relates to Subjective/Objective scientific dualism if you like. Locke used the terms a priori (without previous) and a postori to distinquish between self-evident and demonstratable knowledge.

NS wasn't developed as a response to special creation. It was discovered and it was realised to be a part of evolutionary theory. Again, whatever reasons led to Darwin coming up with it are completely irrelevant. We are discussing NS, not evolution as a whole.

Natural Selection is the Philosphers stone and the experimentum crucis of evolution. It is impossible to divorce NS from the larger context of macroevolution.

I DO say you have not supported it all. As has been repeatedly pointed out, your main points seem to be Darwin's philosophical leanings (which are completely irrelevant) and a strawman of what NS is. Forget Darwin, forget theism, and concentrate on NS - a natural, observed physical phenomenon. THAT's what you purport to be metaphysical, but you haven't given any reasons why.

If you think that metaphysics is limited to isolated instances you don't fully appeaciate the power of this form of reasoning. It transends all reality and if I'm to support my assertion that NS represents a major premise in evolutionary ontology I can't forget Darwin or the implications for theistic thought, evolutionists never do.

I don't understand this. A way of including theist thought in what? Do you mean a way of including theistic thought in NS? If so, do you find that there is a way of including theistic thought in scientific explanations of why/how it rains? If not, what's the difference?

It goes to the primary first cause principle and what all living systems have in common as their source and essense. Dawkins once claimed that he had noticed that theistic thought was not effected or effective in scientific reasoning. He noted that theists, atheists, christians and pagans all used and taught science the same. I'm not a complete idiot (although opinions vary) I appeciate the power of naturalistic reasoning. I just don't believe that naturalistic and theistic reasoning are mutually exclusive. My concern that the metaphysics of NS is transendendant in nature and therefore subject to theistic reasoning.

Once again, you seem to be attempting to change your contention. NS does not attribute the origin af all species. It says nothing about that at all. It is merely a physical mechanism which forms PART of evolutionary theory. Are you arguing that NS is metaphysical, or that evolutionary theory is metaphysical?[=QUOTE]

I'm arguing that NS is the premise of the metaphysics of evolution. This is a mechanistic presumption and self-evident, hope that clarifys my position a little

No, Dawkins is doing nothing of the kind. Have you actually read the passage? He is neither speculating nor insisting that these mythical creatures ever existed. All that he is doing is pointing out that of all possible creatures (including 'monstrosities'), evolution has led to a vanishingly small subset of these creatures actually existing on the earth. He likens it to something he calls "design space", which contains every possible creature...and further likens evolution's path on earth to a winding path through this design space, making 'real' SOME members of that design space - the actual creatures that have existed on the earth. His entire point is that of the possible creatures, virtually all have NEVER existed. I honestly think you've completely missed the point of Dawkins' passage.

Your exposition of the text is terrific, thats the best writting I've seen you do. Honestly I'm aware of the point you are makeing here. However I was making a comparison of Darwin's monstrosities and Dawkin's, my only point was that in both cases these monstrosities were not real creatures, they were analogies. It procedes, as I have repeated clearly and often from presumption. In other words these transitional forms do not exist except in the minds of evolutionists.

 

[toff]

You must be aware that Darwin as well as OP defined NS. There was allso a rather poor dictionary definition of metaphysics but I had allready formed my own definition. Now had I readily accepted these definitions as both authoritve and adequete the discussion would have ended there, but what fun would that be.



The pedantic rehash of the OP is supposedly a flag planting victory dance rite. I have contested it openly and continually and even when so far as to quote the pontifix of NS, Darwin himself. Please allow me to reintroduce my retort, natural selection = mutations = monstrosities = apriori presumption = metaphysics. So you see it is somewhat contested.

There lies part of your problem. Natural selection does NOT equate to mutations. Mutations do NOT equate to monstrosities. Monstrositites do NOT mean an apriori presumption.

I'm amazed that it's taken us this long to find that you have a completely wrong idea of what natural selection is, what it does, and what it requires. Who knows, perhaps the twisted idea you have of what natural selection is IS metaphysical; natural selection (the REAL natural selection, not your strawman) is not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What can I say to that except Darwinian gradualism does exactly that. Check any Biology textbook and that is how it is presented every single time.

*sigh*

Darwinian gradualism != natural selection

Until you stop equating natural selection with everything under the Sun, you're not going to get anywhere in this thread.

Natural is a simple, observable process. When you have competing organisms in an environment with limited resources, those organisms that are "less fit" are out competed by their "more fit" competitors and thus eliminated from the gene pool (not because they are killed necessarily, but rather because they don't go on to reproduce).

This is natural selection and (for the umteenth time) is exactly what is demonstrated in the experiment in the OP.

You can keep going on and on about metaphysics and equating natural selection to this, that and the other thing, but in the end, you're wrong.

 

[toff]

No toff, we are discussing whether or not natural selection is the Darwinian apriori, self-evident premise of naturalistic metaphysics. You can keep saying that his philosophy is irrelevant but that won't make any more true.
What can I say to that except Darwinian gradualism does exactly that. Check any Biology textbook and that is how it is presented every single time.

No, Mark, we are discussing your contention that natural selection is metaphysics. Forget Darwin and any philosophy he may or may not have had. We are discussing natural selection, which is an observed natural phenomenon. Don't bother to talk about what role natural selection plays in evolution - it's irrelevant. Don't bother to talk about what Darwin thought the consequences or motives of evolution are - that's irrelevant too. ALL we are talking about is natural selection, which is NOT evolution. It is a PART of evolution, that's all. In discussing whether natural selection is X, you do not need - nor is it even relevant - to discuss Darwin or evolution at all.

In the second paragraph above you mention "Darwinian gradualism" - forget it. It's irrelevant. ALL we are discussing is natural selection. If you want to claim that evolution is metaphysical, then fine, do that - but not in this thread. This thread is about natural selection being metaphysics, and NOTHING ELSE.

 

[Philosoft]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

*sigh*

Darwinian gradualism != natural selection

Until you stop equating natural selection with everything under the Sun, you're not going to get anywhere in this thread.

Natural is a simple, observable process. When you have competing organisms in an environment with limited resources, those organisms that are "less fit" are out competed by their "more fit" competitors and thus eliminated from the gene pool (not because they are killed necessarily, but rather because they don't go on to reproduce).

This is natural selection and (for the umteenth time) is exactly what is demonstrated in the experiment in the OP..

Microbiology 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.

You can keep going on and on about metaphysics and equating natural selection to this, that and the other thing, but in the end, you're wrong

And you can keep oversimplifying my position that natural selection represents a premise.

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory." (Darwin, Origin of Species)

Darwin inextricably linked gradation to mutation to the origin of life. Thats metaphysics. Make no mistake, he like you, means all life. Forget the semantics look at the substance.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Microbiology 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.

*blink blink* Quite frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about, and am not too confident that you do either.

And you can keep oversimplifying my position that natural selection represents a premise.

And you can keep dodging the issue that natural selection is an observable phenomenon by trying to redefine it into God only knows what.

<snip irrelevant Darwin quote>

Darwin inextricably linked gradation to mutation to the origin of life. Thats metaphysics. Make no mistake, he like you, means all life. Forget the semantics look at the substance.

You are the one play semantic games here. At this point, I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose just to yank our chains or are genuinelly not understanding what other people are saying. Natural selection != gradualism. Natural is an observable phenomenon that I have defined repeatedly in this thread. I'll give it another shot, this time with a definition from What Evolution Is (Mayr, 2001):

Natural Selection: The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population.

You can keep pretending it's something else, but that's just an invention of your own misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and/or confusion of terms relating to said theory.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, Mark, we are discussing your contention that natural selection is metaphysics. Forget Darwin and any philosophy he may or may not have had. We are discussing natural selection, which is an observed natural phenomenon. Don't bother to talk about what role natural selection plays in evolution - it's irrelevant. Don't bother to talk about what Darwin thought the consequences or motives of evolution are - that's irrelevant too. ALL we are talking about is natural selection, which is NOT evolution. It is a PART of evolution, that's all. In discussing whether natural selection is X, you do not need - nor is it even relevant - to discuss Darwin or evolution at all.

In the second paragraph above you mention "Darwinian gradualism" - forget it. It's irrelevant. ALL we are discussing is natural selection. If you want to claim that evolution is metaphysical, then fine, do that - but not in this thread. This thread is about natural selection being metaphysics, and NOTHING ELSE.

No it is my contention that it is all based on pure presumption in the absense of real evidence:

"I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect." (Darwin, Origin of Species)

Irrelevant? Horsefeathers! This supposition has not changed substantivly in over a hundred years. Heck, you should be flattered that I think it a ubiquitious substantive element, most evolutionists do.

"

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No it is my contention that it is all based on pure presumption in the absense of real evidence:

This thread is meant to discuss the mechanism known as natural selection. If your contention is related to the mechanism of natural selection, then the OP has already proved your contention wrong.

"I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect." (Darwin, Origin of Species)

Irrelevant? Horsefeathers! This supposition has not changed substantivly in over a hundred years. Heck, you should be flattered that I think it a ubiquitious substantive element, most evolutionists do.

Do you even know what Darwin was talking about? He was referring to the imperfection of the geological record to explain an absense of transitional forms. Regardless, many transitional forms *have* been found. (See this page for some examples)

But that's a subject for another thread, because natural selection, oddly enough, was the intended subject of this thread.

 

[mark kennedy]

*blink blink* Quite frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about, and am not too confident that you do either.

It 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.

 

[mark kennedy]

This thread is meant to discuss the mechanism known as natural selection. If your contention is related to the mechanism of natural selection, then the OP has already proved your contention wrong.

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.

Do you even know what Darwin was talking about? He was referring to the imperfection of the geological record to explain an absense of transitional forms. Regardless, many transitional forms *have* been found. (See this page for some examples)

But that's a subject for another thread, because natural selection, oddly enough, was the intended subject of this thread.

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.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It 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.

Natural selection applies to reproducing organisms. The method of reproduction doesn't matter (sexual reproduction would merely introduce different selection criteria, such as mate selection).

Maybe you can explain why different modes of reproduction would cause natural selection as a mechanism to cease happening (keep in mind the definitions of natural selection already provided; I don't want us to go off on another tangent here).

 

[toff]

No it is my contention that it is all based on pure presumption in the absense of real evidence:

"I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect." (Darwin, Origin of Species)

Irrelevant? Horsefeathers! This supposition has not changed substantivly in over a hundred years. Heck, you should be flattered that I think it a ubiquitious substantive element, most evolutionists do.
"

I have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate above. In any case, NO quote from Darwin will support your case, since what Darwin thought or said is completely irrelevant.