The assumptions behind evolution?

[Laika]

Yes, it is. The theory of evolution requires a mechanism of heritability. Darwin, not knowing what the precise mechanism was, called it "gemmules", but DNA turned out to be the correct explanation of the mechanism of heritability. However, even before that, heritability was known to work through Mendelian inheritance, which is the origin of the field of genetics and a fundamental basis for the theory of evolution.



Actually, both evolution and DNA/genetics explain why a species get traits which give it advantages. The theory of evolution just explains it more generally and makes more predictions, while genetics explains it on a simpler and more functional level. Genetics is basically a subset of the theory of evolution, or a fact which the theory is based upon, depending on how you want to look at it.



Lysenkoism regarded as pseudoscience worldwide now, since the evidence consistently showed that it didn't work (as you correctly pointed out earlier) and Darwinian evolution did.

However, no testable claim is ever entirely "closed" in science. All one needs is some decent objective and repeatable evidence to reopen any line of investigation. For example, some bacteria have been found to have "brittle" genes that break in some "hostile" environments, producing strains which are resistant to antibiotics and the like which tend to break those genes. Thus some life has evolved a mechanism through evolution which behaves somewhat like how Lysenkoism said all life should act.

Many thanks as this is an excellent reply. I might have to re-read it a few times to make absolutely sure I grasp it, and I will get back to you on that if I'm unsure of anything. This was very helpful.

What about the obvious theory that the DNA system is alike a 3D world of a computergame, a world in it's own right? Then we can explain the development of the organism to adulthood with the representation of the adult organism in the DNA world. The non-coding DNA is then explained in terms of representations of environmental information, or design guiding information etc.. And, due to it's small size, the DNA representation of the adult organism can be chosen from available alternatives.

Why would freedom not be relevant, when organisms look like that they are chosen as a whole?

Evolution theory on it's own predicts that in principle every trait or gene changes in every possible direction, independent from all other traits. That's total chaos. And then natural selection supposedly could channel that total chaos into the efficient wholes that we see. It's not credible.

Theories in which choosing is involved are put aside for ideological reasons, it doesn't have anything to do with scientific merit. And the ideology becomes quite apparent when we look at how evolutionists deal with emotions, that they regard them as fact. The standard in common discourse is to regard emotions as a matter of opinion, on which other matters of opinion are based. Beauty is based on a love of the way something looks. Make love into fact, then you make beauty into fact as well. It does not work, it is total rejection of subjectivity. But the rejection of subjectivity is why evolution theory is so attractive to atheists, because it simply discards the spirit entirely, and discards freedom as well.

Theories in which choosing are involved a put aside because they generally lead to a theories based on co-incidence rather than causality. Science is the study and search for predictable laws and patterns. Applying it to humans does reduce the conceivable scope of human 'choices', but the question is whether such a reduction is a theory being imposed on reality, or is objectively real. I'm with the latter on the basis that knowledge gives us the power to apply these laws in constructive ways. It is not a 'total' rejection of subjectivity- but a reduction of the scope of subjectivity; less is subject to interpretation and more can be reduced to predictable qualities.

How would that work? Evolution is a biological phenomena. It lacks connections to the concept of free will, as well to so-called social darwinism.

Nor does it have moral meaning. Quite on the contrary, it is completely amoral.



Attack, or questioning?



Sure, it may be. But it does not work, and even the common use of the word "evolution" is misleading. Biological evolution is not directed to a long-term result. And, again, it is simply worthless for moral judgements.

I made a mistake of equating probability with choice, which is because I'm a hard determinist. So my apologies.

I used the wrong term, so it would be "questioning" rather than attack, as it is kind of a domino effect and something that logically follows on. If you question the biblical theory of creation of nature, you also bring into question the process of 'creation' of morals- with god as their source.

I think you're last point is again related to hard determinism. Evolutionary theories- when applied to society- are forms of 'historical determinism' (or Historicism) which lead to a deterministic ethic (still freedom of a sort- but not a Christian one). Karl Popper argued that such deterministic philosophies were incompatible with liberalism because they are not based on free will. (What's coming up in the discussion is that free will is not necessarily something you have or don't). The reason we know evolutionary theories are worthless for moral judgements is because we've already seen what happens when Social Darwinism is applied on a large scale. However, it remains relevant as theories of genetics as a source for human differences will continue to have political and moral impacts in determining what social organization, methods of education or levels of equality are possible.

 

[Sapiens]

... The reason we know evolutionary theories are worthless for moral judgements is because we've already seen what happens when Social Darwinism is applied on a large scale. However, it remains relevant as theories of genetics as a source for human differences will continue to have political and moral impacts in determining what social organization, methods of education or levels of equality are possible.

No, what we know is that the misapplication of evolutionary theories as justification for already held moral judgments, as with Social Darwinism, is a mistake. The same could be said for almost and moral theory applied in the this fashion, we must have data first and theory, not theory first and then invention of data.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason we know evolutionary theories are worthless for moral judgements is because we've already seen what happens when Social Darwinism is applied on a large scale.

I would argue that we also know that because of the Theory itself, which is after all biological and not sociological. Far as I know, Darwin never even attempted to extrapolate his theory into the human sciences, ethics or philosophy, and for good reason. Nor did any serious and/or significant researcher, at least in the biology field. The theory simply does not suit such a purpose.

If anything, the Theory of Evolution and most specifically Natural Selection deny or at least hint at the lack of existence of inherent superiority of some people over others, since it so directly states that long-term thriving is a function of survival, reproduction and adaptability to existing circunstances.

However, it remains relevant as theories of genetics as a source for human differences will continue to have political and moral impacts in determining what social organization, methods of education or levels of equality are possible.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. It seems a bit too close to saying that genetics should be considered when society's goals are to be chosen. And that, well, that would be racism, which is definitely not supported by the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Laika]

No, what we know is that the misapplication of evolutionary theories as justification for already held moral judgments, as with Social Darwinism, is a mistake. The same could be said for almost and moral theory applied in the this fashion, we must have data first and theory, not theory first and then invention of data.

Good point. I think the difference between natural science and social science makes this problematic. Natural science can gather observable data and make predictions which can be validated in experiments. Social Science is much, much more open- and the very concept of 'predicting' the development of society is controversial because it conflicts with generally held assumptions of free will.
Applying a deterministic philosophy to society means assuming that human behavior is predictable. Free Will is the older assumption, and we assume the more natural one- so it gets replaced/eroded in Darwinian theories of society. It can still be based on evidence, but in that sense you're right that theory comes before data. There is no way of knowing if a theory works in social science without actually trying it; this why 'scientific' claims such as those made by communists and nazis about the nature of society can be so destructive as they have a massive confirmation bias, which wouldn't be so obvious in natural science.

I would argue that we also know that because of the Theory itself, which is after all biological and not sociological. Far as I know, Darwin never even attempted to extrapolate his theory into the human sciences, ethics or philosophy, and for good reason. Nor did any serious and/or significant researcher, at least in the biology field. The theory simply does not suit such a purpose.

If anything, the Theory of Evolution and most specifically Natural Selection deny or at least hint at the lack of existence of inherent superiority of some people over others, since it so directly states that long-term thriving is a function of survival, reproduction and adaptability to existing circunstances.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. It seems a bit too close to saying that genetics should be considered when society's goals are to be chosen. And that, well, that would be racism, which is definitely not supported by the Theory of Evolution.

Darwin no. But his cousin, Francis Galton, Yes. Galton was a pioneer of Eugenics, according to Wikipedia, because he wanted to apply the principles of 'selection based on domestication' not on animals but on humans. I think he was the one who came up with the concept of "genius" (which contained 'gene' in it).

I would personally agree with you on the idea of evolution not leading to ideas of superiority. It is based on the idea that evolution is progressive, in that the survival of the fittest leads to a selection process in which one generation is more fit than the previous. Hence differences in social development are attributed to biological (as opposed to economic) changes. Evolution therefore became part of the racist justification of imperialism; that Europeans were 'superior' to other 'races' and this was demonstrated by their 'advanced' industrial societies and capacity for warfare and colonization.
If you were to assume that (social) Evolution is an individual process of natural selection rather than a collective one as with race, you'd end up with a justification for lassiez faire capitalism, in which competition between businessmen is seen in the light of an evolutionary struggle for dominance in the market place. This was popular in the 19th century and you can still get some reference to it today, like "dog eat dog".

There were also the 'other end' of the political spectrum, where theories of co-operation in nature, such as social insects as ants, wasps, bees, etc, were used to demonstrate that forms of anarchist communism were 'natural' forms of social organization. This is not true of Marxism (which has a different theory of society all together, though eugenics had some popularity amongst Marxists in the 1920's), but I think the anarchist Peter Kropotkin is one name that is relevant to this.

Theories regarding the relationship between genetics and intelligence have obvious implications; if you favor a genetic explanation, you argue that differences in intelligence are innate and inequalities are innate or even desirable; if you argue that intelligence is a product of environment, then you end up with more egalitarian politics as people can be conditioned to be more 'equal'. I think this is where the concept of IQ/Intelligence quotient comes from- as an attempt to study genetic predispotion to a culturally defined concept of 'intelligence'.

 

[AllanV]

This a link to the source of the claims that were heard.

Mendel's Accountant | Home

John C. Sanford

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Science is the study and search for predictable laws and patterns.

A fact is obtained by evidence copying to a model of what is evidenced. Science is all just copying, making models. And to model something as being forced, while it is free is obviously inaccurate.

And again, all this knowledge about exactly how DNA is chosen is much besides the point. The point is to validate subjectivity. That we can say to a social darwinist, no the existence of love and hate are categorically matters of opinion, they are what makes a decision turn out the way it does. That is the important bit which is crucial for freedom of opinion, religion, a good life, democracy etc. All subjectivity is based on the existence of the agency of a decision being regarded as a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, what we know is that the misapplication of evolutionary theories as justification for already held moral judgments, as with Social Darwinism, is a mistake. The same could be said for almost and moral theory applied in the this fashion, we must have data first and theory, not theory first and then invention of data.

Is ridiculous, you are yourself a social darwinist. All that talk about any god being a fantasyfigure which you associate to evolution theory, is social darwinism. And that you suggest god as a fantasy figure must mean that you make love and hate into fact, because you obviously do not acknowledge any subjective category where good, evil, love, hate, God the holy spirt and the soul belong to.

 

[Laika]

A fact is obtained by evidence copying to a model of what is evidenced. Science is all just copying, making models. And to model something as being forced, while it is free is obviously inaccurate.

And again, all this knowledge about exactly how DNA is chosen is much besides the point. The point is to validate subjectivity. That we can say to a social darwinist, no the existence of love and hate are categorically matters of opinion, they are what makes a decision turn out the way it does. That is the important bit which is crucial for freedom of opinion, religion, a good life, democracy etc. All subjectivity is based on the existence of the agency of a decision being regarded as a matter of opinion.

Why does free will come before determinism? That is the core of your objection. If Science imposes determinism, it would not be true, nor would it be able to achieve so many amazing things by applying scientific laws to make technological change possible. If there is no causality, there is only chaos- no control. Whilst this might be preferable in social science- it won't work in natural science.

Subjectivity only survives as long as it is inconsistent and dualistic. You can only have subjective experience if there is an objective existence to be experienced. Eventually, the pursuit of subjectivity leads to nihilism in which truth and ethics do not have objective sources. When these things are reduced purely to being a matter of opinion- truth and right are measured purely by the power to enforce them.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why does free will come before determinism? That is the core of your objection. If Science imposes determinism, it would not be true, nor would it be able to achieve so many amazing things by applying scientific laws to make technological change possible. If there is no causality, there is only chaos- no control. Whilst this might be preferable in social science- it won't work in natural science.

Subjectivity only survives as long as it is inconsistent and dualistic. You can only have subjective experience if there is an objective existence to be experienced. Eventually, the pursuit of subjectivity leads to nihilism in which truth and ethics do not have objective sources. When these things are reduced purely to being a matter of opinion- truth and right are measured purely by the power to enforce them.

One can simply accept subjectivity as well as objectivity, and accept force as well as freedom. Some things are forced, other things are free. What it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion, the resulting decision is a matter of fact which can be measured.

And your idea that science can only work with imposing laws of nature is obviously wrong. One can also theorize on the basis that objects consist of the laws of nature, in which case mathematics is the theory of everything. As laws unto themselves objects can then exhibit free behaviour.

 

[Laika]

One can simply accept subjectivity as well as objectivity, and accept force as well as freedom. Some things are forced, other things are free. What it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion, the resulting decision is a matter of fact which can be measured.

And your idea that science can only work with imposing laws of nature is obviously wrong. One can also theorize on the basis that objects consist of the laws of nature, in which case mathematics is the theory of everything. As laws unto themselves objects can then exhibit free behaviour.

My objection to free will is that it is unscientific in both social science and natural science. Determinism is not imposed on the world but was always there because the world is governed by material laws. Science just has to find them- and the conception of free will is an obstacle to that. This is however a strongly deterministic view not consistent with the standard definition of science- as I would argue it is possible to make predictions regarding social development, but they are usually wildly inaccurate because our knowledge remains so limited.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My objection to free will is that it is unscientific in both social science and natural science. Determinism is not imposed on the world but was always there because the world is governed by material laws. Science just has to find them- and the conception of free will is an obstacle to that. This is however a strongly deterministic view not consistent with the standard definition of science- as I would argue it is possible to make predictions regarding social development, but they are usually wildly inaccurate because our knowledge remains so limited.

It is very evident tat such a position is just a vacuous prejudice, and that many things in the universe are more accurately described in terms of decisions.

 

[HiEv]

What one individual loves or hates is a fact,

No it isn't. That's exactly what puts you in the group rejecting subjectivity and free will.

(facepalm)

OK, let's say you love ice cream and hate Brussels sprouts. In that case, you loving ice cream is a fact and you hating Brussels sprouts is also a fact. It could be your subjective experience of ice cream and Brussels sprouts that leads you to love one and hate the other, but what you do or do not love or hate is still a fact.

Since you appear to be unaware of this, the word "fact" means:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
"Your fears have no basis in fact."
2. something known to exist or to have happened:
"Space travel is now a fact."
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
"Scientists gather facts about plant growth."
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
"The facts given by the witness are highly questionable."
(source)

Is your loving ice cream and hating Brussels sprouts a truth known by actual experience? Yes. Therefore it is a fact that you love and hate those things.

This is basic definitional stuff here. Denying it just tells me that you don't understand the words you're using.

Furthermore, I don't deny subjectivity at all. Quit lying and putting words in my mouth. It's completely dishonest and unworthy of rational discourse.

What you do is mortal kombat or something, not open reasoned argument.

We've already established that you wouldn't know an open and reasoned argument if one came up and bit you. So, rather than constantly insulting everyone around you on this topic, how about you drop it and actually try to bring some evidence into the argument for once?

Ofcourse I have already considered argumentation same as yours, and rejected it. People will say love is fact, but then the experience of love is subjective. But it doesn't work like that in common discourse. It is much simpler than that.

More bald assertions without a drop of evidence. You can't just insist that "it doesn't work like that in common discourse", you have to actually explain why it doesn't work. You utterly fail to do so below, you just pile on more assertions.

The fact is, you can't prove it wrong, since I just showed you it's true based on the definition of the word "fact".

With choosing you obviously have the elements 1 alternative futures, 2 the act of making one of the futures the present (the actual decision), 3 the result of the decision, and then you have 4 what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Putting aside the fact that most of that is overcomplicated by odd word choices, once you have made a decision, it is a fact that you have made that choice. That choice is now a fact that describes you. That's what I meant when I said, "What one individual loves or hates is a fact".

On a side note, with things such as food preferences, you generally don't "choose" to like or dislike them, that choice is made for you by your subjective experience of the food. One does not consider the "alternative futures" of liking and disliking Brussels sprouts for even a moment if they taste so bad you have to spit them out.

And people have coined words to deal with things that are in this category 4. And that is where love, hate, God, the soul come in.

Not really. Love and hate isn't what makes a decision turn out the way it does, they're the result of the subjective experiences one has with the object of that love or hate. Generally speaking, one does not "choose" to love or hate things, loving or hating them is the result of their subjective experiences with those things.

Do you think traditional religion just conjured up some idea different from the idea of choosing in common discourse?

What are you blathering about? I never suggested any such thing because you have yet to clarify exactly what you mean by "choosing" here.

Furthermore, not all religions believe in free will. I recommend you look into theological determinism, which is the idea that all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a monotheistic deity, or that they are destined to occur given its omniscience.

If you think that there aren't people within your own religion who believe or have believed that there was no free will, you'd be sadly mistaken.

The traditional concept of free will has the spirit or soul choosing, and the existence of said spirit or soul is a matter of opinion.

If you're discussing a statement about objective reality, then it is a matter of fact, not opinion. You may have an opinion about whether you think something is real or not, but its actual reality is either true or false, and one of those is a fact.

As of yet, there is no objective evidence of spirits or souls that doesn't have a more plausible explanation, therefore it is most likely that they are not real.

And in common discourse it is no different, I can say somebody makes a decision out of love, but it would be my opinion, the existence of the love is a matter of opinion.

Yes, it's your opinion when you say that somebody makes a decision out of love, however the existence of love in general is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. We can both feel love subjectively, thus determine that it is a fact ourself, and we can also observe acts which are consistent with the definition of love, thus determining its existence objectively.

It is very simple, if you make it into a fact what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, then the decision can only turn out in accordance with what this agency in fact consists of.

You've utterly misunderstood my point.

If a decision is made, the decision does turn out one way or another. The particular way that the decision turned out is a fact. That is the fact which I was referring to.

I wasn't talking about what makes the decision turn out that way.

When you say love is fact, then you are saying the person is forced by love to do as he does, and he cannot do any other.

Incorrect. That wasn't what I was saying at all.

I was saying that if a person loves something, then their loving that thing is a statement of fact about whether or not they love that thing. I was saying nothing more or less than that.

If you disagree with my actual point, then you don't understand the meaning of the word "fact".

Now, it would be nice if you responded most of my post for once. Of course, I'm betting you'll do what you did last time, take half a sentence out of context, thus totally misunderstand it, argue against a straw man, and ignore the rest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We've already established that you wouldn't know an open and reasoned argument if one came up and bit you.

Nobody doing open reasoned argument would ever say such a childish thing. You are in your own little Darwinian world where you just fight tooth and nail for your position, regardless of the truth.

Your diatribe notwithstanding, one can simpy look at how common discourse functions, and it functions as I say it does. What it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does is generally regarded as a matter of opinion.

One can also put different concepts of choosing side by side, and see which one works best to describe things accurately. And obviously when you do that, then the concept which has the agency of the decision as a matter of opinion is the one that works best, because it is the only concept of free will which actually accomodates alternative courses of action. The freedom in reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is preserves the freedom in the concept of choosing. Facts are obtained forced by evidence. One obviously cannot introduce a principle of being forced in the center of the concept of free will, and have the concept still function.

Anybody who reasons, and puts things side by side, to see what works, can only come to this conclusion.

 

[HiEv]

We've already established that you wouldn't know an open and reasoned argument if one came up and bit you.

Nobody doing open reasoned argument would ever say such a childish thing.

Really? Because that's exactly the kind of thing you're saying in every post where you accuse others of being unable to make an open and reasoned argument. There really is no difference.

Anyways, thanks for helping me win my bet that you'd repeat your habit of ignoring most of what I say.

By doing so you more than amply prove my above point for me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Really? Because that's exactly the kind of thing you're saying in every post where you accuse others of being unable to make an open and reasoned argument. There really is no difference.

Anyways, thanks for helping me win my bet that you'd repeat your habit of ignoring most of what I say.

By doing so you more than amply prove my above point for me.

You have staked some position about how choosing works, without any discussion about what works best. Your concept of choosing....simply does not function, which is why.....you have no theory whatsoever about how anything in the universe is chosen.

You just staked some position in order to do away with all knowledge about how things are chosen, and in a week you will not even remember what your own position is, and you sink back to total ignorance about how the universe actually operates in freedom.

 

[Laika]

It is very evident tat such a position is just a vacuous prejudice, and that many things in the universe are more accurately described in terms of decisions.

Prejudice, quite possibly. But it's philosophically very plausible. Science tends to reduce all phenomena to material and physical processes. The existence of free will relies on philosophical dualism in which mind and body are separate; in this sense the mind or will is "free" to act independently of the body and its physical requirements.
If Science can reduce mental processes to physical ones, there will be a really serious philosophical conflict over whether the concept of the mind (and by implication the soul/spirit) and the physical organ of the Brain are identical. If consciousness is a property of matter and cannot exist independently of matter- this would 'kill' the concept of free will stone dead, along with the very existence of god, the soul, the afterlife, etc. because each of these implies that consciousness can exist independently of the body.
If there can be no consciousness without matter; there can be no creator that precedes the existence of matter or the universe. Free Will would have been shown to be an illusion, and a new morality would have to develop to respond to it. This is a philosophical problem which will never be settled exclusively on the weight of Scientific evidence alone, so there would be a subjective conviction involved in making such a leap and accepting this conclusion.

 

[Sapiens]

Is ridiculous, you are yourself a social darwinist.

Clearly incorrect and furthermore insulting.

All that talk about any god being a fantasyfigure which you associate to evolution theory, is social darwinism.

Here we go with ludicrous unsupported claims (as per usual).

And that you suggest god as a fantasy figure must mean that you make love and hate into fact, because you obviously do not acknowledge any subjective category where good, evil, love, hate, God the holy spirt and the soul belong to.

and, bringing up the rear ... a rash of unsupported claims and insults.

 

[Shad]

You have staked some position about how choosing works, without any discussion about what works best. Your concept of choosing....simply does not function, which is why.....you have no theory whatsoever about how anything in the universe is chosen.

An issue is you are assigning freedom and free-will to inanimate objects with no self-awareness. Free-will is tied to sentient beings not non-sentient. A choice is a decision which many of the objects you talk about do not have. Freedom and free-will were seen as self-evident in sentient beings which is now in conflict as people try to reduce everything to a physical level. Flight or fight responses are instinctual not choices. The response has already been primed unconsciously within the body; heart rate for example. It is a response of the system which we are not conscious of hence is not a choice. The choice is doing other than which the flight or fight response has primed. To have the drive to run but deciding otherwise. Which means you are making a choice to a response you already had including whatever emotions and physical changes.

Likewise DNA is not sentient so makes no choice. It makes no choice as the division of chromosomes in reproduction are completed at the the level of sperm and eggs via meiosis. There is no choice to make between positive and negative genetic traits are present. Chromosomes are duplicated, unpaired and divided. So genetic negatives such as diabetes is within one of the result gametes due to diploid cells becoming haploid in sexual reproduction. So there is always a pecentage of sex cells containing a negative trait. The only way to absolutely stop a negative trait from passing on is to stop everyone with it from breeding, eugenics. How this trait is expressed is not decided by DNA as a choice, individual sex cells as a choice nor a consensus between female and male sex cells. Rather it is by the combination of alleles by both parents. Hence one sibling can be blond and another a brunette. Hence why offspring inherit genetic diseases from their parents. Further more since choice is associated by a soul or spirit by you one needs to include this in your argument about DNA's choice. Thus DNA would also need a soul and be sentient. Which has further implication outside your argument. Every cell in our body is comprised of DNA so is sentient. The number of cells in the human body range from 10/13-14 power. There are also organisms with are not human cells such as bacteria which is also comprised of DNA which too is sentient. So humans are comprised of numerous sentient cells with a soul/spirit which are capable of choice while humans are also sentient as a whole.

So do all cells go to heaven?

 

[Sapiens]

This a link to the source of the claims that were heard.

Mendel's Accountant | Home

John C. Sanford

That is not a reference, that is a computer program. If you want to use its results as a reference we need to know the details of the program, its' assumptions and the values of the input variables, as well as the precise results.

 

[AllanV]

That is not a reference, that is a computer program. If you want to use its results as a reference we need to know the details of the program, its' assumptions and the values of the input variables, as well as the precise results.

Make contact with John C. Sanford by email if you are unable to find any information.