Community Messageboard: Not very much, but interesting none the less by Bramhodoulos

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Not very much, but interesting none the less Bramhodoulos Send a noteboard - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM

Link below.

(It also thoroughly debunks creationism in other FAQs.)

Thanks for the link. I'm aware of TalkOrigins in general, though don't use it all that often.

Just by way of repeating myself: I'm not arguing against evolution and in fact I was hoping to defend NS, but I find it harder and harder. I need NS for the version of creationism I prefer in fact, or I'll have to give that up or change it as well.

There was a small paragraph that offers a few arguments I have not encountered above just yet (though the book I'm reading discusses them all over several pages).

However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper [1976: sect. 37]. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

That would indeed be my point (or one of them at least), so at least they don't misrepresent my point (that doesn't happen very often with TalkOrigin, but hey

)

This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos [1996] [note 1]). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

Three things they mention that Darwinian theory rules out.
Note: this is about Darwinism all of a sudden, while I was talking about NS! Why are the two similar to a degree that whenever one talks about NS one talks about Darwinism???
It is true the other way around: whenever one talks about Darwinism one talks about NS, but what's going on here?

Anyway they mention three things, let's see.
1) it rules out the existence of ineffective organisms. No it doesn't. It rules out the persistent existence of ineffective organisms (when more efficient organisms are about). And if they continue to exist over a long period of time we conclude that they must have at least some hidden benefit somewhere we don't know about!
2) and 3) have nothing, I repeat nothing to do with NS. Seriously.

All of these hypotheses are more or less testable, and conform to the standards of science. The answer to this version of the argument is the same as to the simplistic version - adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation (which is why mimicry in butterflies was such a focal debate in the teens and twenties). Adaptation is a functional notion, not a logical or semantic a priori definition, despite what Popper thought.

Note the highlighted part.
Honestly, there is no limit to the amount of casual stories a biologist can invent. Really! I tried to come up with a 'casual story' for the life-stages of a butterfly and I couldn't invent one. Yet more intelligent biologists did eventually come up with one. I could not invent a casual story for lungs, legs, eyes, a liver, hair, wings. Yet biologists did eventually found casual stories for all of them.
In fact, I don't think I can imagine any hypothetical trait, no matter how absurd, that biologists won't be able to give me a 'casual story' for to explain its trait by natural selection. There are simply no limits.

I think this is why I generally don't like TalkOrigin. They have a position and they defend it. Fine. But they argue so bad.
In fact it's sites like TalkOrigin that helped me become a creationist even more than creationists themselves.

But I was discussing NS, not creation/evolution. The NS I need just as much as 'you' do, but keeps slipping through my fingers

Reply to message

Natural selection Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM 979 Views

selection for suitability LadyLorraine - 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM 631 Views

Thanks for your responce

Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM 746 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: Joel - 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM 676 Views

Just a question Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM 679 Views

Yes it can ßelals Girl - 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM 555 Views

But how? Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM 749 Views

Okay, I think I see what you're saying ßelals Girl - 08/08/2011 05:30:43 PM 565 Views

Close Bramhodoulos - 08/08/2011 05:41:46 PM 757 Views

Re: Just a question Joel - 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM 768 Views

I'm not sure I understand you Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM 655 Views

All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies. Joel - 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM 681 Views

Then it is still a tautology Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM 692 Views

You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations. Joel - 06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM 788 Views

Maybe... Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM 639 Views

I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions. Joel - 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM 728 Views

we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM 791 Views

As I understand it Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM 621 Views

Better... Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM 606 Views

Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 10:13:51 PM 689 Views

Re: Actually Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 10:37:33 PM 833 Views

Re: Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 11:38:52 PM 754 Views

Oeh Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:54:19 PM 611 Views

Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"? Joel - 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM 742 Views

yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM* LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM 292 Views

No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway. Joel - 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM 671 Views

Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM 690 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:08:25 PM 702 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 07/08/2011 12:46:23 AM 695 Views

The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify... jh - 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM 728 Views

The questions go deeper Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM 724 Views

Re: The questions go deeper jh - 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM 699 Views

I think I know why you don't understand my question. Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM 731 Views

How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?

*NM* Isaac - 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM 302 Views

100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool

*NM* Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM 323 Views

TalkOrigins addresses this at length. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2011 11:14:52 PM 777 Views

Not very much, but interesting none the less Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM 774 Views

Re: Natural selection Night Walker - 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM 698 Views

Thanks a lot Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM 839 Views

2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM 618 Views

Re: 2 things Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM 827 Views

Re: 2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM 643 Views

My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM 676 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM 615 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM 763 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 07:02:27 PM 611 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 09:09:57 PM 730 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="219757">
<quote id="219756">Link below.

(It also thoroughly debunks creationism in other FAQs.)</quote>

Thanks for the link. I'm aware of TalkOrigins in general, though don't use it all that often.

Just by way of repeating myself: I'm not arguing against evolution and in fact I was hoping to defend NS, but I find it harder and harder. I need NS for the version of creationism I prefer in fact, or I'll have to give that up or change it as well.

There was a small paragraph that offers a few arguments I have not encountered above just yet (though the book I'm reading discusses them all over several pages).

<quote id="219756">However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper [1976: sect. 37]. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.</quote>
That would indeed be my point (or one of them at least), so at least they don't misrepresent my point (that doesn't happen very often with TalkOrigin, but hey :P )

<quote id="219756">This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos [1996] [note 1]). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.</quote>
Three things they mention that Darwinian theory rules out.
Note: this is about Darwinism all of a sudden, while I was talking about NS! Why are the two similar to a degree that whenever one talks about NS one talks about Darwinism???
It is true the other way around: whenever one talks about Darwinism one talks about NS, but what's going on here?

Anyway they mention three things, let's see.
1) it rules out the existence of ineffective organisms. No it doesn't. It rules out the <i>persistent</i> existence of ineffective organisms (when more efficient organisms are about). And if they continue to exist over a long period of time we conclude that they must have at least some hidden benefit somewhere we don't know about!
2) and 3) have nothing, I repeat nothing to do with NS. Seriously.

<quote id="219756">All of these hypotheses are more or less testable, and conform to the standards of science. The answer to this version of the argument is the same as to the simplistic version - adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. <b>There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation</b> (which is why mimicry in butterflies was such a focal debate in the teens and twenties). Adaptation is a functional notion, not a logical or semantic a priori definition, despite what Popper thought.</quote>

I think this is why I generally don't like TalkOrigin. They have a position and they defend it. Fine. But they argue so bad.
In fact it's sites like TalkOrigin that helped me become a creationist even more than creationists themselves.

But I was discussing NS, not creation/evolution. The NS I need just as much as 'you' do, but keeps slipping through my fingers :(
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password