Natural Selection is not metaphysics

[toff]

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.

You think because a natural phenomenon occurs in all organisms, it's somehow metaphysics?

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.

This has NOTHING to do with natural selection.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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]

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.

Hopefully then you'll be able to actually stick with the topic.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You think because a natural phenomenon occurs in all organisms, it's somehow metaphysics?

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.

 

[toff]

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.

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.

 

[monkenstick]

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 haven't the faintest idea about modern evolutionary theory, that much is becoming evident

i've already demonstrated that natural selection isn't used to explain all change because of a phenomenon called genetic drift

and yes of course NS applies to mitosis and meiosis, because they're both simply different forms of reproduction - and differential reproduction and variation is all that is required for NS, it doesn't matter how the reproduction occurs

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.

likewise one could say that gravity applies to all objects with mass, hence transcendance. Unfortunately it doesn't make it any more coherent

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 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

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.

it might then interest you to know then that evolution doesn't transcend evidence at all

and that there are other forms of evidence (phylogenetics)

 

[USincognito]

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?

 

[Philosoft]

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.

You ought to consider trying out for the mental gymnastics team. You'd be tough to beat in uneven reasoning.

Do us all a favor - educate yourself on the topic of methodological naturalism before resuming course on your sinking philosophical ship.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

It's metaphysics because it's an assumption about the physical laws of the universe themselves (i.e. a property of those very laws) and applies to the very nature of our universe. It's part of the philosophical basis for all of science.

But it doesn't make natural selection metaphysics in and of itself, since it's not "a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment" (again, see experiment in OP).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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?

I know it's been brought up before in various threads, but I don't know if it's been discussed in a thread by itself. I agree that it would be a good thing to bring up, however.

 

[Nathan David]

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)

Actually, just biology.

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.

So, when Newton did not include God in his laws of motion, was that metaphysics?

 

[Jet Black]

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?

I dunno about here. I have seen it somewhere before though, however that might have been in a book.

 

[Jet Black]

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?

 

[ryfso]

16 Pages and i'm not entirely sure what definition of natural selection MK is using. Enlighten us, Mark?

 

[SLP]

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 best I can gather from Mark's assertion-filled, circular, vacuous posts is:

monstrosities=mutations.

Apparently, he did not like the actual definition I posted some time ago.

Also, he apparently did not like the outcome of the application of the creationism metaphysic to science. He ignored it, as have almost all creationists that I have presented it to...But what do I know - I am just so rude...

 

[Loudmouth]

Mr Kennedy,

If natural selection is metaphysical, then we should no be able to test it's assumptions. However, it has been plainly shown that natural selection can be tested. Let us go back to the opening post, shall we:

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.

Here we have two different populations. One population takes over the other. According to the assumptions of natural selection, the population outreproducing the other population should have an advantage towards resource acquisition.

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.

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.

 

[SLP]

These ficional 'monstrosites' are another word for mutation.

No, they are not:




http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=mutation



defined:



A permanent structural alteration in DNA. In most cases, DNA changes either have no effect or cause harm, but occasionally a mutation can improve an organism's chance of surviving and passing the beneficial change on to its descendants.




From a non-scientific source:



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=mutation



3 a : a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b : an individual strain or trait resulting from mutation

These supposed anomilies are the key to the mechanism and the metaphysical construct.

And yet you do not seem to have grasped what the very quotes you presented mean on this issue. Indeed – both Darwin and Dawkins wrote that these do NOT exist or do not propogate, therefore, they are irrelevant, as is your argument.

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.

As one can see form the readily available and relevant definitions I provided, I think it quite clear which of us understands what mutations are.





Of interest –



Above you quote:

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)

and commented:

Monstrosities are the transitional forms in Darwinian evolution and thats how transendance is established

had you decided to read for comprehension and no t’damning quotes’, you migyht have avoided being so clearly and obviously refuted by the very source of your quote.




The very next paragraph:

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>

It seems, sadly, that even Darwin’s definition of “monstrosity” Is not quite what you keep insisting.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, just biology.


So, when Newton did not include God in his laws of motion, was that metaphysics?

I have been reviewing the thread as best I can in the hopes of bringing out what I consider to be the important points I was trying to make. Some of you seem to have realized that my objections are due more to a distaste for naturalistic science then any real interest in NS per se. That I think is a fair appraisal but I'd like to let you all know what I was trying to do before I take this to the philosophy forum. I'm trying to work my way down to the Christian's only forum and offer what I think is a reconciliation between Christain and secular thought. If I might be allowed to explain in my own way perhaps I can at least be clear.

I take my definition of metaphysics from the "Exposition of the Works of Aristotle" by R.W. Ross. He described Aristotle's 'Metaphysics' as an attempt to find the 'substantive element of all realitiy', I won't bore you with the semantics but this, and not the definition in the OP, was my own working definition. The opening round started with a statement that there was no null hypothesis for evolution followed by something that was meant to demonstrate that there was not one but many such hypothesis tested daily in labs with conclusive results. This is meant to demonstrate that evolution in general and NS in particular is not only testable but reliable. I saw far more here and dispite the continued criticism of my insistance that NS was a premise within evolutionary thought I still see a metaphysical construct warranted due to its ubiquitious role in naturalistic reasoning. Frankly I stand convinced that it is both, if your not convinced by now, then I dare say we have met an insurmountable inpass in the discussion.

I went on to try to bring this out using the discussion of NS in Darwin's book in order to demonstrate that he had went beyond inductive method and was deducing from general principles. While I may of failed to be convincing or even comprehensive I found arguments to the contray to be appealing to something self-evident that most evolutionist agree is a mystery to natural science, our origins.

I've have enjoyed the exchange and neglected the formal debate I was most interested in starting. Anyone interested in a further discussion or debate with me on this should find a thread in the near future in the philosophy section after I finish up in the formal debate forum. I obviously overlooked a number of posts following the one I made last night as so if you feel slighted by this feel free to PM me and I'll address them either by PM or I'll return here if you prefer.

Finally, there is a reason I quoted the above post. 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.

Thank you all for a fomidable gauntlet to run my ideas through and I hope to see you all again on the other boards I mentioned.

 

[Nathan David]

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.

Which is exactly like the science of biology. So what's your criticism, exactly?

 

[CypressLB]

Why is it that Biology is based on evolution? Why does Creationism lack any proof? Why don't people go spend time looking for their pretend proof instead of bsing and spewing a bunch of fake jargon about evolution?

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Creationism is neither.