Most scientists agree that over 90% of the universe is undetectable by our five senses.
And they theorize that dark energy and dark matter is the majority of unknown matter. They can only infer their existence by their effects on visible matter. In other words scientists know next to nothing about 90% of the known universe by their own admission.
Life emerging into consciousness is tricky. We have to first define consciousness...which is a scary nut to crack. Though if we can look at our consciousness as a locus of observation within our minds that sees what we do, and what we think (consciously), then we have a basic idea.
I think it's time to start crawling the web some more. Thanks for piquing my interest in the old 'locus' idea set again :P.
Seriously though...Cosmic and Bio Evo are separate and distinct.
Separate theories in the same field must be compatible for them both to be true. The problem is that the two fields involved are working with different subsets of matter/energy.
I truly appreciate the thought you've given this, as you've shown yourself to be quite a sober thinker. The problem is that the two scientific fields we're discussing deal with different realms of matter and are not cross-applicable.
Science gives us the how, and it usually gives us the why as well.
I would rather not put my money on any one of the particular theories of Abio, as it is entirely possible that more than one of them could have happened concurently.
It is the idea that these things are able to be explained naturally that is the crux of the matter, and as such it was my entire point.
Life is quite hard to put into such a concrete box, though the emergence of chemical recipes for the self-replicating systems present in life is definitely a good looker for the first emergence.
I don't deny that naturalistic descriptions of the processes that gave rise to life are possible, but I don't like to say "explanation" is possible. A scientific theory doesn't seem to tell us the "why" implied by the notion of explanation. It just describes how the process takes place so that we can understand it as perfectly natural and not dependent upon some outside supernatural being or influence. Science can never explain away mystery, to mind mind. On the contrary, it seems to deepen it.
Sometimes there is no "why", there just is an "is". The pressure to compete drives evolution into many blind alleys, but sometimes it finds a hidden door and voila, eyes, or ears or a big old simian brain. But don't look for the hand of the Gods in any detectable way. To think that our Universe with only 3 dimensions and a distinct possibility of being holographic interests things like Gods is beyond the pale. Don't get me started on them paying attention to mankind or its jewel of a planet
Energy turning into matter is already explicable.
Stars, planets etc being created are already explicable.
Life arising is already explicable through the applicated theory of Abiogenesis.
Evolution only takes hold ONCE LIFE IS ALREADY PRESENT.
The biggest conundrum facing science at the moment is the beginning. Since physics breaks down at an indivisible unit of time after the big bang, we are left without a complete understanding of it's very beginning and precursor states.
Matter is energy, and energy is a function of gravitational folds in spacetime, yes?
There are still many competing theories for how life arose. I agree that it is in principle explicable, but the explanation has not yet been agreed upon even within biology itself. My favorite theory is Kauffman's autocatalytic set idea. What about you?
Evolution...in a strictly defined scientific sense relating to biological development and diversity is nothing more or less than the full breadth of organisms developing from precursor organisms through genetic replication.
Natural selection applies, no matter what process of 'replication' the species happens to use. Depending on it's survivability in the environment, it may have a greater or lesser chance to survive and procreate more.
Evolution has nothing to say about Astronomy/Cosmology.
I would argue that natural selection of randomly mutating genetic sequences is not sufficient to explain evolution. I reject ID and creationism as gap fillers, though. I think we need to apply complexity theory/systems theory and emergence before evolution will begin to make sense, both on a biological and a cosmic scale.
If biology does not make sense in light of cosmology (that is, if the two perspective do not align), then one or the other is useless.
survival of the fittest isn't the only metaphor. "natural selection" is another. Environment's are of course not selectors. Darwin's whole system of thought is a metaphor based on domestic selection.
Darwin's theory of natural selection is powerful precisely because of its metaphorical nature. It allows for it to be applied to a variety of concrete processes,
A metaphor is not a comparison, it is an identification of one thing with another. You are thinking of a simile.
If biological evolution is not square with cosmological evolution, and vice versa, one of them must be wrong. They do not have to operate the same way, but they have to be compatible.
Biological Evolution in relation to the diversity of life once it has already appeared has nothing to do with the concept of Cosmic Evolution.
The 'CONCEPT' of Cosmic Evolution uses a different meaning of the word 'Evolution' to describe a concrete series of steps going from Big Bang (+1 planck unit of time) to present.
I will say it again in case it was lost. The Theory and Fact of Biological Evolution only deal with the diversity of life once it has already appeared.
Right, but to have a scientific account of the cosmos in its entirety, the cosmic evolution of energy/matter must be compatible with the biological evolution of species. In other words, there must be something inherent to matter that allows it to emerge into life, and then for life to emerge into consciousness. I'm looking for the big picture here.
I like how you brought up this subject in a thoughtful and critical way.
I have a bone to pick with evolutionary theory as it's generally taught or understood.
I'm not some crazy religious nut who thinks the Bible should be taught in science classes, but I DO think that truly scientific criticisms should be raised and that students should be exposed to substantive dialogue on such questions.
One scientific objection I've heard, and that has never been explained to me, is the evolution of complex structures, for example the wing of a bird evolving from the limb of a reptile. There are hundreds if not thousands of mutations that would be needed in this process. Each individual mutation, on its own, would have to confer a selective advantage (or at least be neutral) to be preserved. Obviously the end point of the wing is advantageous, but what about intermediate states?
Moreover, evolutionary theory proposes (or at least is widely interpreted as saying) that survival of the fittest is an explanation of our origin and our purpose. It is no coincidence that this idea arose in mid-19th-century England during the rise of industrial capitalism. It is suspiciously convenient how well this concept favors the economic and political interests of the emerging bourgeois, as it removes the moral stigma from oppressing inferior classes at home and inferior races abroad.
"There are hundreds if not thousands of mutations that would be needed in this process."
Its an asuming that it would take many many mutations...
It would likely be a few mutations...
Many genes we have, other animals have too..
It are the genes that make the proteins fit together that would likely have to mutate and let an arm develop in a wing...it might have took a few mutations
Michael Behe's nonsense has been refuted many times. Irreducible complexity is a creationist argument that seems valid to someone who is ignorant of the subject (like you and me).
Cooperation IS a trait. therefore a group of wolves better suited to cooperate would be much more fit. Genetics effects the brain which effects behavior so you basically don't seem to have a full understanding of survival of the fittest.
Great video. I am glad to see you again. From your description, "purpose of this evolutionary journey are unknown". At this point in time I don't think there is any evidence for us to speculate whether if evolution of life or evolution of cosmos has some purpose or not. I think it's purely conjectural and hypothetical if you are looking for some teleological reasoning of life and existence of matter.
don't teach gravity...it doesn't explain everything of how we got here.
gravity is JUST a theory also. anyone who hasn't studied philosophy of science thinks that a brute fact is what theories strive to become. NO, in science, a theory is more reliable than a fact.
and the philo~sophical assumption that mankind is on a higher dimension than Nature is also, i personally believe, the entrenchment of the alienation and superioroty 'we' feel FROM Nature and animals, and others deemed 'not-philosophical' and is contibutory to their abuse!
the terms "survival of the fittest" came from Herbert Spencer "Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson:
cont) "In these years, when Darwin's Origin of Species, popularized by Herbert Spencer as "the survival of the fittest, " and applied to races as well as species in a vulgarized form, Social Darwinism, the coming Christian triumph was presented as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one.
Social Darwinism is by no means dead, for vestiges of it can be found in the present."
You mention "random mutations", this is also known in some circles as the "randomness problem". Basically, you have to make randomness causal before your theory will hold up to scrutiny, and smarter people than us have not been able to do that, yet. Until you can explain "randomness", you may as well call your theory "magic".
after thinking about "randomness" for over 300 years, ever since probability theory started taking shape in XVIIIth century, i think we have good handle on what random is. you just have to look.
the simplest way one can define it in the case of genetic evolution is an event that is not caused directly by the process that it influences in the end.
I'm not a person who, because I prefer a certain version of history, a certain context for reality, will not accept the truth. Whatever the evidence points to is what I believe. I don't rule out a certain brand of creationism, if you want to call it that. Biological evolution is just that. It doesn't address origins at all. I think Darwin didn't have any information on that, so he didn't bother. As he should have..
Yes! I tell people this same thing. It's not compromising to "combine" intelligent design and evolution. We can find a middle ground that makes PERFECT SENSE, and ends these pointless evolution vs intelligent design debates. If people can look past the spirituality included in religions "only" we can all move on and accept bigger and better things are at work/in work here. Peace my friend.
crap! theory of evolution has nothing to do with things it isn't designed to explain. don't fall for the logical trap: it's not the fittest survives but what survives is the fittest, and that's all, sheesh! creationism certainly is totally out of touch with reality. and RP falls flat here; pandering to the crowd (but taking into account his other important stance he might actually believe in the ID) proves himself empty populist.
"empty populist" in the best case scenario... but i suspect it's worse. and anyway if anyone is critiquing what science has the best to offer , at the least not in a constructive manner, one is not fit to hold public office.
I have a distaste for creationism for the same reason I have a distaste for the kind of evolutionism that posits only a blind mechanism at the core of nature. I think they both over literalize our origins. To my mind, whenever we discuss origins, we must speak in mythological language. Myths are necessary for human beings to contextualize their lives, but they only work when their metaphors are alive. The literalisms of ID and materialist evolution seem dead to me.
i'm sorry... as kin as i'm to engage in philosophical "what ifing" and verbalising consequences of our discoveries in their interdisciplinary aspect, literature, if i may name it so, has little final say in it. if at all current myths are created by science. not aknowledging science breaks the rule we've talked of before. it renders divide between ideas created because of our real lack of knowledge and myths simply out of ignorance. a dangerous divide...
as far as evolution and emergence of life i can give you one "myth" i just stumbled upon. principle of maximum entropy production might suggest that emergence of life is inevitable. normal, linear, dead processes seem unable to dissipate energy from it's useful state into unusable, dissipated into entropy state as fast as complex, life systems. banal... as banal as darwin's proposition...
of course those explonations are not constructive so as to show exactly what mechanisms realise it. but we are slowly getting there examining "life cases" in more and more detail way either by microscope or simulation because these are processes and not merely static edefices.
In the second part, you are right about there being fog and there are shapes in the fog that may even contradict certain commonly held theories. The problem is that you seem to think some things actually contradict evolution rather than changing our understanding of it. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that.
Kucinich? He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at winning, but that's the direction I'd rather go in. He's not that great, but he's the best currently running who actually has some recognition. My plan is libertarian socialism, just as a very general blueprint, and thus whatever brings us closer to it. Kucinich is the most left-libertarian candidate and ironically the most mainstream, according to popular opinion polls. Scary how people don't realize that.
Let's distinguish a few different definitions of "evolution." Sometimes we use the word as shorthand for a specific theory, for Darwin's theory of gene mutation and environmental selection. I don't know that other aspects of the mechanism behind evolution (this time I am using the word in a more general sense, as the changes of organisms through time) contradict Darwin's so much as they fill in gaps that he didn't know about.
And I think we ought to assume there are more gaps, and that really we aren't quite sure what "evolution" will ultimately even amount to. Darwin's theory may explain a lot of the biological kingdom, but there remains much it cannot (both within and outside biology). So I get a bit frustrated when people dismiss off hand the idea that nature may have a kind of intelligence behind it. It takes a hubris of cosmic proportions to think human brains are the only fruits of nature with intelligence.
I get frustrated when people assume there is or could be an intelligence behind nature based on no valid evidence. Are you defending ID in the last sentence?
We disagree on some really fundamental issues which I'd love to discuss, but this format seems inappropriate.
I don't understand what you're getting at in the first part. Are you saying that co-operation and symbiosis are evidence of evolution not being a sufficient explanation? Eek. I hope not.
Im saying these things are evidence of the "survival of the fittest" theory not being the whole story. I wasn't talking about evolution itself being flawed. The general theory that we all originated from a common ancestor at some point seems irrefutable. What I was questioning is whether Darwin's theory accounts for it all.
Well, evolution might not be the only answer, but I don't see how co-operation and symbiosis point you towards thinking that. They are obviously evolutionary adaptations.
They are examples which I think show how the notion that evolution is only about individual organisms competing against one another is false. Not that competition plays no role... but cooperation is just as important.
if you like, but the level of selection has shifted from individual organisms to groups of organisms. The individuals alone are not more fit, their fitness is a product of their social organization (not their genes, or at least not only their genes).
take an organism out of the social niche it has evolved into and what was formerly genetic fitness turns into a potential liability.
genes are important but don't forget they are nothing without the intracellular fluid surrounding them (same goes for individual organisms and their social and ecological surroundings; both levels interact to drive evolution).
Can't disagree for the most part- but the usage of the word 'purpose' in the description just jumped out at me- why- because that one word seems to sum up what may be 'assumed' are your underlying feelings- & who doesn't like warm & fuzzy on Christmas eve.
I don't think "purpose" is just a human construct. If we can ask the cosmos "what" and "how" it is and expect to receive an answer, we can certainly also ask "why" it is with just as much seriousness.
Good thoughts, Matt. I do agree that there are problems in the theory of evolution. For one, the cosmic aspect you mentioned. The science explains evolution as it pertains to the Earth more than how matter evolved in space. It makes me wonder if the cosmic aspect of evolution might be where the missing link of evolution lies.
Most scientists agree that over 90% of the universe is undetectable by our five senses.
And they theorize that dark energy and dark matter is the majority of unknown matter. They can only infer their existence by their effects on visible matter. In other words scientists know next to nothing about 90% of the known universe by their own admission.
666babyoscar 1 year ago
ur hot =)
HotSexcGyal 3 years ago
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live. XD
icemanlynn182890 3 years ago
Life emerging into consciousness is tricky. We have to first define consciousness...which is a scary nut to crack. Though if we can look at our consciousness as a locus of observation within our minds that sees what we do, and what we think (consciously), then we have a basic idea.
I think it's time to start crawling the web some more. Thanks for piquing my interest in the old 'locus' idea set again :P.
Seriously though...Cosmic and Bio Evo are separate and distinct.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
separate theories that must be compatible! that is my only point.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Separate theories in the same field must be compatible for them both to be true. The problem is that the two fields involved are working with different subsets of matter/energy.
I truly appreciate the thought you've given this, as you've shown yourself to be quite a sober thinker. The problem is that the two scientific fields we're discussing deal with different realms of matter and are not cross-applicable.
Science gives us the how, and it usually gives us the why as well.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
I would rather not put my money on any one of the particular theories of Abio, as it is entirely possible that more than one of them could have happened concurently.
It is the idea that these things are able to be explained naturally that is the crux of the matter, and as such it was my entire point.
Life is quite hard to put into such a concrete box, though the emergence of chemical recipes for the self-replicating systems present in life is definitely a good looker for the first emergence.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
I don't deny that naturalistic descriptions of the processes that gave rise to life are possible, but I don't like to say "explanation" is possible. A scientific theory doesn't seem to tell us the "why" implied by the notion of explanation. It just describes how the process takes place so that we can understand it as perfectly natural and not dependent upon some outside supernatural being or influence. Science can never explain away mystery, to mind mind. On the contrary, it seems to deepen it.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Sometimes there is no "why", there just is an "is". The pressure to compete drives evolution into many blind alleys, but sometimes it finds a hidden door and voila, eyes, or ears or a big old simian brain. But don't look for the hand of the Gods in any detectable way. To think that our Universe with only 3 dimensions and a distinct possibility of being holographic interests things like Gods is beyond the pale. Don't get me started on them paying attention to mankind or its jewel of a planet
Plutonwolf 3 years ago
Energy turning into matter is already explicable.
Stars, planets etc being created are already explicable.
Life arising is already explicable through the applicated theory of Abiogenesis.
Evolution only takes hold ONCE LIFE IS ALREADY PRESENT.
The biggest conundrum facing science at the moment is the beginning. Since physics breaks down at an indivisible unit of time after the big bang, we are left without a complete understanding of it's very beginning and precursor states.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
Matter is energy, and energy is a function of gravitational folds in spacetime, yes?
There are still many competing theories for how life arose. I agree that it is in principle explicable, but the explanation has not yet been agreed upon even within biology itself. My favorite theory is Kauffman's autocatalytic set idea. What about you?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Evolution...in a strictly defined scientific sense relating to biological development and diversity is nothing more or less than the full breadth of organisms developing from precursor organisms through genetic replication.
Natural selection applies, no matter what process of 'replication' the species happens to use. Depending on it's survivability in the environment, it may have a greater or lesser chance to survive and procreate more.
Evolution has nothing to say about Astronomy/Cosmology.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
I would argue that natural selection of randomly mutating genetic sequences is not sufficient to explain evolution. I reject ID and creationism as gap fillers, though. I think we need to apply complexity theory/systems theory and emergence before evolution will begin to make sense, both on a biological and a cosmic scale.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
You seem intelligent, but I have a couple problems with the video description.
"Darwin's theory accounts for a very small portion of what we observe in nature today, especially considering nature on a cosmic scale."
It has nothing to do with the cosmos. Only biology.
"the "survival of the fittest" metaphor"
It's not a metaphor.
"Natural selection alone does not account for the diversity of life on earth."
An argument from personal incredulity is not evidence.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
If biology does not make sense in light of cosmology (that is, if the two perspective do not align), then one or the other is useless.
survival of the fittest isn't the only metaphor. "natural selection" is another. Environment's are of course not selectors. Darwin's whole system of thought is a metaphor based on domestic selection.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
"If biology does not make sense in light of cosmology, then one or the other is useless."
They are different fields of science. Biological evolution cannot be applied to everything.
"survival of the fittest isn't the only metaphor."
It's not a metaphor. A metaphor is a comparison. It's a literary device.
""natural selection" is another."
Natural selection is a process, not a metaphor. Semantics, really, but I'm picky like that.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
Darwin's theory of natural selection is powerful precisely because of its metaphorical nature. It allows for it to be applied to a variety of concrete processes,
A metaphor is not a comparison, it is an identification of one thing with another. You are thinking of a simile.
If biological evolution is not square with cosmological evolution, and vice versa, one of them must be wrong. They do not have to operate the same way, but they have to be compatible.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Instead of spamming your comments, I will send you a message.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
Biological Evolution in relation to the diversity of life once it has already appeared has nothing to do with the concept of Cosmic Evolution.
The 'CONCEPT' of Cosmic Evolution uses a different meaning of the word 'Evolution' to describe a concrete series of steps going from Big Bang (+1 planck unit of time) to present.
I will say it again in case it was lost. The Theory and Fact of Biological Evolution only deal with the diversity of life once it has already appeared.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
Right, but to have a scientific account of the cosmos in its entirety, the cosmic evolution of energy/matter must be compatible with the biological evolution of species. In other words, there must be something inherent to matter that allows it to emerge into life, and then for life to emerge into consciousness. I'm looking for the big picture here.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I like how you brought up this subject in a thoughtful and critical way.
I have a bone to pick with evolutionary theory as it's generally taught or understood.
I'm not some crazy religious nut who thinks the Bible should be taught in science classes, but I DO think that truly scientific criticisms should be raised and that students should be exposed to substantive dialogue on such questions.
livinginlux 4 years ago
One scientific objection I've heard, and that has never been explained to me, is the evolution of complex structures, for example the wing of a bird evolving from the limb of a reptile. There are hundreds if not thousands of mutations that would be needed in this process. Each individual mutation, on its own, would have to confer a selective advantage (or at least be neutral) to be preserved. Obviously the end point of the wing is advantageous, but what about intermediate states?
livinginlux 4 years ago
Moreover, evolutionary theory proposes (or at least is widely interpreted as saying) that survival of the fittest is an explanation of our origin and our purpose. It is no coincidence that this idea arose in mid-19th-century England during the rise of industrial capitalism. It is suspiciously convenient how well this concept favors the economic and political interests of the emerging bourgeois, as it removes the moral stigma from oppressing inferior classes at home and inferior races abroad.
livinginlux 4 years ago
"There are hundreds if not thousands of mutations that would be needed in this process."
Its an asuming that it would take many many mutations...
It would likely be a few mutations...
Many genes we have, other animals have too..
It are the genes that make the proteins fit together that would likely have to mutate and let an arm develop in a wing...it might have took a few mutations
Terrencje 3 years ago
"Obviously the end point of the wing is advantageous, but what about intermediate states?"
Many animals have "half a wing". It is good for mating perhaps or gliding ^^
"as it removes the moral stigma from oppressing inferior classes at home and inferior races abroad."
rasism or oppression are not to be confused with survival of the fittest. Rather with someones beliefs
Terrencje 3 years ago
"the evolution of complex structures"
Michael Behe's nonsense has been refuted many times. Irreducible complexity is a creationist argument that seems valid to someone who is ignorant of the subject (like you and me).
soulhunger1 3 years ago
"I DO think that truly scientific criticisms should be raised and that students should be exposed to substantive dialogue on such questions."
If you mean high school students, then they would probably fail to understand the criticism itself, let alone the scientific rebuttal.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
Cooperation IS a trait. therefore a group of wolves better suited to cooperate would be much more fit. Genetics effects the brain which effects behavior so you basically don't seem to have a full understanding of survival of the fittest.
TheReasonGuy 4 years ago
Great video. I am glad to see you again. From your description, "purpose of this evolutionary journey are unknown". At this point in time I don't think there is any evidence for us to speculate whether if evolution of life or evolution of cosmos has some purpose or not. I think it's purely conjectural and hypothetical if you are looking for some teleological reasoning of life and existence of matter.
ContraWagner 4 years ago
don't teach gravity...it doesn't explain everything of how we got here.
gravity is JUST a theory also. anyone who hasn't studied philosophy of science thinks that a brute fact is what theories strive to become. NO, in science, a theory is more reliable than a fact.
Herrunus 4 years ago
and the philo~sophical assumption that mankind is on a higher dimension than Nature is also, i personally believe, the entrenchment of the alienation and superioroty 'we' feel FROM Nature and animals, and others deemed 'not-philosophical' and is contibutory to their abuse!
zezt 4 years ago
the terms "survival of the fittest" came from Herbert Spencer "Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson:
zezt 4 years ago
cont) "In these years, when Darwin's Origin of Species, popularized by Herbert Spencer as "the survival of the fittest, " and applied to races as well as species in a vulgarized form, Social Darwinism, the coming Christian triumph was presented as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one.
Social Darwinism is by no means dead, for vestiges of it can be found in the present."
zezt 4 years ago
You mention "random mutations", this is also known in some circles as the "randomness problem". Basically, you have to make randomness causal before your theory will hold up to scrutiny, and smarter people than us have not been able to do that, yet. Until you can explain "randomness", you may as well call your theory "magic".
torrbana 4 years ago
after thinking about "randomness" for over 300 years, ever since probability theory started taking shape in XVIIIth century, i think we have good handle on what random is. you just have to look.
the simplest way one can define it in the case of genetic evolution is an event that is not caused directly by the process that it influences in the end.
jogayot 4 years ago
I'm not a person who, because I prefer a certain version of history, a certain context for reality, will not accept the truth. Whatever the evidence points to is what I believe. I don't rule out a certain brand of creationism, if you want to call it that. Biological evolution is just that. It doesn't address origins at all. I think Darwin didn't have any information on that, so he didn't bother. As he should have..
mistaspot1 4 years ago
Yes! I tell people this same thing. It's not compromising to "combine" intelligent design and evolution. We can find a middle ground that makes PERFECT SENSE, and ends these pointless evolution vs intelligent design debates. If people can look past the spirituality included in religions "only" we can all move on and accept bigger and better things are at work/in work here. Peace my friend.
AOEGuy 4 years ago
"Survival of the fittest" isn't a part of evolutionary theory.
Desertphile 4 years ago
crap! theory of evolution has nothing to do with things it isn't designed to explain. don't fall for the logical trap: it's not the fittest survives but what survives is the fittest, and that's all, sheesh! creationism certainly is totally out of touch with reality. and RP falls flat here; pandering to the crowd (but taking into account his other important stance he might actually believe in the ID) proves himself empty populist.
jogayot 4 years ago
"empty populist" in the best case scenario... but i suspect it's worse. and anyway if anyone is critiquing what science has the best to offer , at the least not in a constructive manner, one is not fit to hold public office.
jogayot 4 years ago
What survives is the fittest, right. Thanks for that correction.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
I have a distaste for creationism for the same reason I have a distaste for the kind of evolutionism that posits only a blind mechanism at the core of nature. I think they both over literalize our origins. To my mind, whenever we discuss origins, we must speak in mythological language. Myths are necessary for human beings to contextualize their lives, but they only work when their metaphors are alive. The literalisms of ID and materialist evolution seem dead to me.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
"That shoreline where the island of knowing meets the unfathomable sea of our own being is the landscape of myth."
"A myth is never known; it is a relationship between the known and the unknowable"
"At the edge of consciousness, there are no explanations; there are only invocations of myth."
-(William Irwin Thompson, "The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light")
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
i'm sorry... as kin as i'm to engage in philosophical "what ifing" and verbalising consequences of our discoveries in their interdisciplinary aspect, literature, if i may name it so, has little final say in it. if at all current myths are created by science. not aknowledging science breaks the rule we've talked of before. it renders divide between ideas created because of our real lack of knowledge and myths simply out of ignorance. a dangerous divide...
jogayot 4 years ago
as far as evolution and emergence of life i can give you one "myth" i just stumbled upon. principle of maximum entropy production might suggest that emergence of life is inevitable. normal, linear, dead processes seem unable to dissipate energy from it's useful state into unusable, dissipated into entropy state as fast as complex, life systems. banal... as banal as darwin's proposition...
jogayot 4 years ago
of course those explonations are not constructive so as to show exactly what mechanisms realise it. but we are slowly getting there examining "life cases" in more and more detail way either by microscope or simulation because these are processes and not merely static edefices.
jogayot 4 years ago
In the second part, you are right about there being fog and there are shapes in the fog that may even contradict certain commonly held theories. The problem is that you seem to think some things actually contradict evolution rather than changing our understanding of it. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that.
Ron Paul is a menace to society.
jtr3030 4 years ago
I sure hope he is. I'm sick and tired of society.
riverran67 4 years ago
Me too, but he's a menace to the possibility of a decent society in the future. His recent comment on evolution helps back that up.
jtr3030 4 years ago 2
well, what's your plan. I've been hooked.
riverran67 4 years ago
Kucinich? He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at winning, but that's the direction I'd rather go in. He's not that great, but he's the best currently running who actually has some recognition. My plan is libertarian socialism, just as a very general blueprint, and thus whatever brings us closer to it. Kucinich is the most left-libertarian candidate and ironically the most mainstream, according to popular opinion polls. Scary how people don't realize that.
jtr3030 4 years ago
Let's distinguish a few different definitions of "evolution." Sometimes we use the word as shorthand for a specific theory, for Darwin's theory of gene mutation and environmental selection. I don't know that other aspects of the mechanism behind evolution (this time I am using the word in a more general sense, as the changes of organisms through time) contradict Darwin's so much as they fill in gaps that he didn't know about.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
And I think we ought to assume there are more gaps, and that really we aren't quite sure what "evolution" will ultimately even amount to. Darwin's theory may explain a lot of the biological kingdom, but there remains much it cannot (both within and outside biology). So I get a bit frustrated when people dismiss off hand the idea that nature may have a kind of intelligence behind it. It takes a hubris of cosmic proportions to think human brains are the only fruits of nature with intelligence.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
I get frustrated when people assume there is or could be an intelligence behind nature based on no valid evidence. Are you defending ID in the last sentence?
We disagree on some really fundamental issues which I'd love to discuss, but this format seems inappropriate.
jtr3030 4 years ago
I don't understand what you're getting at in the first part. Are you saying that co-operation and symbiosis are evidence of evolution not being a sufficient explanation? Eek. I hope not.
jtr3030 4 years ago
Im saying these things are evidence of the "survival of the fittest" theory not being the whole story. I wasn't talking about evolution itself being flawed. The general theory that we all originated from a common ancestor at some point seems irrefutable. What I was questioning is whether Darwin's theory accounts for it all.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
Well, evolution might not be the only answer, but I don't see how co-operation and symbiosis point you towards thinking that. They are obviously evolutionary adaptations.
jtr3030 4 years ago
They are examples which I think show how the notion that evolution is only about individual organisms competing against one another is false. Not that competition plays no role... but cooperation is just as important.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
being able to cooperate IS a trait that is part of survival of the fittest.
TheReasonGuy 4 years ago
if you like, but the level of selection has shifted from individual organisms to groups of organisms. The individuals alone are not more fit, their fitness is a product of their social organization (not their genes, or at least not only their genes).
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
take an organism out of the social niche it has evolved into and what was formerly genetic fitness turns into a potential liability.
genes are important but don't forget they are nothing without the intracellular fluid surrounding them (same goes for individual organisms and their social and ecological surroundings; both levels interact to drive evolution).
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
Can't disagree for the most part- but the usage of the word 'purpose' in the description just jumped out at me- why- because that one word seems to sum up what may be 'assumed' are your underlying feelings- & who doesn't like warm & fuzzy on Christmas eve.
docrufus 4 years ago
I don't think "purpose" is just a human construct. If we can ask the cosmos "what" and "how" it is and expect to receive an answer, we can certainly also ask "why" it is with just as much seriousness.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
agreed
sdrs85 4 years ago
Good thoughts, Matt. I do agree that there are problems in the theory of evolution. For one, the cosmic aspect you mentioned. The science explains evolution as it pertains to the Earth more than how matter evolved in space. It makes me wonder if the cosmic aspect of evolution might be where the missing link of evolution lies.
Happy holidays. :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago