On the Shoulders of Giants; in the Shadow of Ignorance

[saintluciferisgod]

im not sure ive ever heard of canada were is that again?

[TheKilgoretrout]

From what I have heard and read, your map of the United States of Canada has one major fault--it includes Alberta instead of putting it in jesusland. Otherwise your video was right on. This from an American who grew up near Ontario and has traveled through your great country.

[Pastafarian4Life]

@TheKilgoretrout - Unfortunately you are very much correct, and I can tell you from experience: I live in Alberta. If I had made the map I definitely would have followed your suggestion.

[yobtya]

Well done.

[gerontodon]

There is a dispute about whether Darwinian mechanisms can explain the emergence of novel complex structures. I don't think there's any alternative mechanisms that have been proposed, unless you count self-organisation- if you can understand that, please explain it to me.

If by 'evolution' being a fact, you mean that the appearance of all life-forms will have some kind of completely mechanistic explanation, then I think that's at least as philosophical an idea as ID is (probably more imo).

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "There is a dispute about whether Darwinian mechanisms can explain the emergence of novel complex structures."

Only among non-scientists. Anyone who truly understands the mechanisms of evolution (not just "Darwinian" evolution) do not dispute the the emergence of novel complex structures from evolutionary processes. As a matter of fact this emergence is seen as self-evident. The evidence for evolution can often be quite technical, & requires knowledge of the appropriate science.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Do you consider Stuart Kaufmann (to name just *one* secular humanist biologist that would disagree with you), a 'proper scientist'?

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "Stuart Kaufmann" (<--sp)

That is the beauty of science. When an hypothesis is tested using the scientific method, and a theory is developed, science is open to new information. I have heard Kauffman talk several times, and had dinner with him once. I may not always agree with what he says, but since he uses proper scientific methods to arrive at his conclusions, I respect his views. His views still fit into the tenets of evolution, and he accepts evolution as a legitimate science

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is easy to understand, and either it can result in complex novel organisms, or it can't. Most of the evidence that it *can* begs the question in one way or the other. For example, matching morphological and genetic homologies would be seen *if* random mutation and natural selection had produced the respective organisms, but that doesn't automatically mean that random mutation and selection *did* produce them.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "but that doesn't automatically mean that random mutation and selection *did* produce them."

Except that all of the strongest evidence points to the fact that evolution is real. Random mutation and natural selection are far from the only mechanisms involved in the evolutionary process, including genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer and gene flow. More hypotheses are being discovered and tested all the time.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "If by 'evolution' being a fact, you mean that the appearance of all life-forms..."

All life-forms arise from divergence via mutation operating through evolutionary processes (eg natural selection for one, but not "chance"), but not the origin of life itself. All living things, from fungi to plants to animals arose from a common ancestor in a process occurring over billions of years. It is the time span that most people, including many scientists, fail to comprehend.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

"All life-forms arise from divergence via mutation operating through evolutionary processes (eg natural selection for one, but not "chance")" I didn't say "chance", I understand the proposed mechanism of mutation and natural selection, and I think it's a dirty secret that the evidence that it can have done what many assume it to have done is known to be very weak.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "the evidence that it can have done what many assume it to have done is known to be very weak."

Then you haven't looked at the evidence. ERVs, nested hierarchies, HOX gene evolution, transitional feature evolution, evolution of the genetic code, genetic similarity of phylogenetically close species v. differences in those farther apart, vestigial structures, DNA orthology after a speciation event, etc. I could go on all day. This is hardly weak evidence.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Many secular humanists like Marc Kirschner would love to salvage it, but his book The Plausibility of Life failed to explain how the convenient constraints on mutations, that geared them towards functional novelty just happened to exist. Others like Jerry Fodor and Stuart Newman realise that the game's up.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "the convenient constraints on mutation, that geared them towards functional novelty"

No background in science, huh? What evidence would it take for you to accept the reality of evolution?

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Darwinian evolution is the only mechanism that could account for complex systems arising to meet the challenges of a new environment. How can a genome know to morph appropriately under any other mechanism? Mechanisms can't account for that. There probably are constraints on what can arise, that can explained naturally, it's natural that anything new will build on what's gone before. What constraints can't is the creation of functional features that *haven't* gone before.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Darwinian evolution is the only mechanism that could account for complex systems arising to meet the challenges of a new environment. How can a genome know to morph appropriately under any other mechanism? Mechanisms can't account for that. There probably are constraints on what can arise, that can explained naturally, it's natural that anything new will build on what's gone before. What constraints can't is the creation of functional features that *haven't* gone before.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

To say that constraints can explain functional novelty is to twist words. What can be produced may be constrained by the starting structure, but a wing is very different from a leg. Everything is 'constrained' in that it is what it is and can't be what it isn't. The emergence of a functioning wing from a leg would require new constraints that wouldn't be inherent in the leg- without ascribing foresight.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "Everything is 'constrained' in that it is what it is and can't be what it isn't. "

That's the beauty of evolution. Through changes seen in transitional features, evolutionary biologists can show how those analogous arms and legs arose from the fins of fish. No structures arose from nothing. The fossil record shows this unambiguously. The constraints are inherent in the system, no foresight needed. Man is not the pinnacle of creation, just another animal.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Some of the constraints on the structure a functional wing would be due to the starting structure of a leg, if a wing developed from a leg- the number of fingers in a bat's wing will be five, like the toes in a rat's leg. But since a wing does a different job from a leg, and so is a different shape, the fact that the wing is the right shape for a wing can't be down to constraints imposed by the shape of the leg. If it is imposed by constraints in the DNA, that could only be foresight.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "But since a wing does a different job from a leg, and so is a different shape"

The arm developed from a leg first, then the wing developed from the arm (Do Google search: evolution of wing from arm).

"the number of fingers in a bat's wing will be five"

The fingers in a bat's (& bird's) wing is 5.

"If it is imposed by constraints in the DNA, that could only be foresight."

What reason is it foresight? The gradual changes of the bones only helped the organism to survive.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

I was referring to the hypothesis in The Plausibility of Life that random mutation and selection can't explain how novel structure could arise, so there must be limitations as to the mutations that are allowable, and those constraints gear mutations to functional ones. You misrepresented me, I know the homology of 5 fingers wouldn't have to be explained by foresight, that could be a constraint solely due to what's arisen mechanistically.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "there must be limitations as to the mutations that are allowable, and those constraints gear mutations to functional ones."

The limitations to allowable mutations are restricted to what DNA the organism has. Mutations can only occur in the genes present in the organism. Evolution is blind, we cannot predict beforehand what will be useful, as that is "controlled" by the environment. I have not read "The Plausibility of Life", so I may still be misconstruing your question.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

The authors of that book didn't think it was viable to say that unaided natural selection could explain how one complex structure could emerge from another. But they wanted to keep their view in a secular humanist and darwinian framework, so they suggested that mutations are somehow constrained to functionality. I can see that a thing is constrained by what it's arisen from, but those constraints can't explain what is new in the novel feature, only what is old.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "I can see that a thing is constrained by what it's arisen from, but those constraints can't explain what is new in the novel feature, only what is old."

When the novel structure is beneficial enough to leave more offspring, then the change becomes part of the species. Successive small changes result in different advantages that do add up (eg the flagella from a secretory system). The final function of the structure is arrived at serendipitously; there is no forethought involved.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

There's nothing in the fact that a foot has five digits, or in the shape of a leg that could impose a constraint on an emerging structure that would specify that it would be the right shape for a functioning wing. That's because they are different shapes and serve different purposes. That they both have 5 digits is irrelevant to the overall shape. If there's something in the dna constraining novel features so that they are functional, that doesn't fit into a darwinian framework.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "There's nothing in the fact that a foot has five digits..."

The environmental circumstances, as well as the mutation, determine whether the particular change will lead to the organism producing more offspring than an organism without said mutation. Novel structures usually arise due to multiple mutations over time. The wing wasn't first used for flight, but perhaps for sexual display or fanning, scaring predators, or gliding. Sight beneficial changes over time led to flight.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "Others like Jerry Fodor and Stuart Newman realise that the game's up."

LOL, I'll ask them if that is what they think the next time I see them. I would suspect that that is not their position, but they enjoy (at least Fodor does) a good laugh.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Yes please do. And ask them and Stuart Kaufmann what 'evolution' means, if not darwinian evolution- which would be clearly mechanistic. Why is 'evolution' contrasted with ID as if they both can't be true? Does 'evolution' mean any process that *doesn't* have mind behind it?

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "Why is 'evolution' contrasted with ID as if they both can't be true?"

The only one's who contrast ID with evolution are the creationists, especially those at the Discovery Institute. The biologists that I work with, as is with the vast majority of scientists do not give ID any credibility, as it is nothing but a religious concept (if we are honest about the hypothesis). ID cannot be tested, thus is not scientific.



[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Would you call Francis Crick's 'astonishing hypothesis' that consciousness is reducible to physical process a religious hypothesis? It's certainly a metaphysical one an you seem to think it can be inferred anyway.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "Does 'evolution' mean any process that *doesn't* have mind behind it?"

Of course not, but since there is absolutely no evidence for a "designer", why waste more time trying to find one, especially since those proposing the idea refuse to do so. Until they show some initiative, and lay their cards on the table, they will continue to be ignored.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon -"I think that's at least as philosophical an idea as ID is"

We are not talking philosophy, we are taking nuts-and-bolts science. We are talking about "proof". It is based on the concept of "show me", or "prove it", I cannot just take your word for it. The proponents of ID are not able to show any valid empirical evidence as to why their proposed ideas are factual; they have not even proposed any hypotheses that can be tested to support ID. ID is religious, not scientific.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

With regard to the idea I mentioned, that there *must* be a purely mechanistic explanation, how can you prove that? You could make the alternative view, that there *is* a non-mechanistic level of explanation, superfluous, by identifying an exhaustive mechanism that could be shown to work, as Darwin's was assumed to. As there in fact isn't one, the view that one must exist is philosophical. As to whether there's empirical evidence for ID, that's a philosophical question in itself.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "With regard to the idea I mentioned, that there *must* be a purely mechanistic explanation, how can you prove that?"

I am not saying that there "must" be a purely mechanistic explanation for the various forms of life on the planet, it is just that it is the only plausible theory, from a scientific point of view. There is absolutely no empirical evidence of the supernatural (eg. a designer), so that explanation can be discarded, scientifically.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

There can't be empirical evidence of an intangible, if by empirical evidence you mean evidence of something that can be directly measured. But I think that that to infer the presence or action of an intangible can also count as empirical evidence. We all infer the existence of other consciousnesses than our own, do we not?

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "We all infer the existence of other consciousnesses than our own, do we not?"

Yes, we do infer consciousness of others. Sartre (in "Being and Nothingness) goes into great detail on this, as do other philosophers But consciousness is becoming less intangible all the time. The work of Christof Koch and others are teasing apart the neurobiological correlates of consciousness as we speak. Consciousness most likely arises from an interplay of various brain structures.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

"neurobiological correlates" - indeed. And correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon "And correlation does not necessarily imply causation."

No, almost all scientists are honest. Google Christof Koch, Caltech.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

So it's ok to infer a philosophical conclusion from empirical findings if it's a materialist one, but not otherwise. That's not honest, it's a pose of honesty.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "So it's ok to infer a philosophical conclusion from empirical findings if it's a materialist one, but not otherwise."

No, I know of no empirical evidence of the supernatural. Science cannot test an hypothesis if there is nothing to test. One can pose the question of a designer philosophically, but it is not a scientific question. If the hypothesis of a designer could be tested, science would look at it and test it to either confirm or reject the hypothesis.

[gerontodon]

@CamW30

Yes well thanks, you've confirmed that there's no point discussing the legitimacy of ID because it's like discussing it with a computer. The responses are pre-programed. Those that like your view and share your self-congratulatory stance of hard-headed honesty will see your argument as perfectly reasonable, but I can see the glaring inconsistency.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - " but I can see the glaring inconsistency."

Sorry, facts are facts, I cannot change that. The empirical evidence is much more technical than what I am stating, but you would have to understand the science behind this evidence. Numerous disciplines in science arrive at the same conclusions using many levels of empirical evidence. I really wish that ID "researchers" would come up with something that could be tested, but to date ID has proved to be an invalid hypothesis. Want ≠ real

[CamW30]

@gerontodon "but I can see the glaring inconsistency."

What you would wish to be true is not necessarily so. I wish it were, it would make my job much easier. You have to live with the facts; evolution is true. Having a feeling without being able to justify said feeling is not reality. I really do feel for you, as I have had hypotheses that I really wanted confirmed; they weren't, and I had to change my understanding of the concept.

Cheers, mate.

[CamW30]

@gerontodon - "You could make the alternative view, that there *is* a non-mechanistic level of explanation, superfluous, by identifying an exhaustive mechanism that could be shown to work, as Darwin's was assumed to."

Science has put forward it's best answer (ie. evolution), so if anyone wants to propose a different mechanism, all they have to do is test their hypotheses, and show empirical evidence backing their claim. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that doesn't stand up to refutation.

[YurNotSpecial]

Saskatchewan just shot down proposed changes to the gay marriage laws that would allow government appointed marriage commissioners to discriminate on religious grounds.

Yay for progress!

[grendelcatt]

nice post...