[Kihaji]

then explain diabetes, cancers, autisms etc....
(and actually obesity is becoming more of a genetic situation.)
all products of the environment that continues to evolve.
whether its a natural process, or us phuquing everything out of its natural progression.

lifestyles changes lead to genetic changes.
when whatever it was that crawled up out of the water, shed it's gills for lungs and scraped its flippers for feet..........etc.....

Please read up on evolution before you speak idiocy. Environment does not cause evolution. Environment selects.

The fishies didn't grow lungs because they were exposed to a non-water environment. The fishies with lungs were the ones that survived. It is a HUGE difference, and in a way, if you believed what you state, it would mean that man could control evolution, IE Intelligent design.

 

[MikeD]

Also, you should note that evolution is indeed a process. It is the process by which nature induces random mutations, then selects for those that help survival. True, that is not always the case, as a squirrel that has the best genes in the world could get hit by a car before reproducing, but that's why evolution is said to work on populations, not individuals.

Look at the construction of your sentences--they give agency to nature. You say it induces and selects things. This implies a top-down organization and an itent. Nature does not induce or select anything...we characterize what we're seeing (things that survive surviving, things that die dying) as selection and induction, but selection and induction are not there a priori. That's all I'm saying.

It's more of a linguistic and philosophic point than any practical scientific one, but I do think it leads to us psychologically putting the cart before the horse in terms of how we consider our own knowledge and the workings of the world.

 

[ohio]

Please read up on evolution before you speak idiocy.

CRIPPLE FIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHT!!!!!!

 

[MikeD]

oooooh ****.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's a statement that I am uncomfortable with. You may not have meant to but you have implied (to my ears) a purpose. The use of the word nature implies an abstract that has direction - inducing, selecting add to that.

Mutations are random, which mutations survive is down to circumstance, luck and the results of cause and effect.

It is more a chain of events than a process.

I don't see the implied purpose that you and Mike D seem to be picking up. "Nature" in this respect merely represents "natural" processes, like random mutations and selection.

Nature does not induce or select anything...we characterize what we're seeing (things that survive surviving, things that die dying) as selection and induction, but selection and induction are not there a priori.

Not there a priori? Huh? It seems to me that you are saying that nature is pure chaos, but it just so happens that we see this pattern of evolution because we want to impart patterns to things since we are human? My answer to that would be that genetic algorithms work, that finch beaks do change to suit the environment, that animals that are trapped on smaller islands go tend to get smaller, etc.

 

[MikeD]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

There's simply no way to 'discover' anything in nature (in a scientific sense, not a geographical one), because it's all there prior to our consideration and without regard for our interpretation. We just build convenient groupings which help us simplify chaos for our understanding and communication.

The changes you see don't happen with regard to an algorithm or because of evolution. They happened, and we call the results evolution when we look backward, based on evidence we gather.

Edit: Went on a run and thought about this some more. If we were talking about the process of stalagtites and stalagmites forming, I'd have no objection to that...can't exactly figure out why, but I think it's because that's so simple and readily observable...it's not really an abstraction like evolution, and there's no implication of a larger order in the world based on stalagmites forming...it's just the observable phenomenon of mineral deposits collecting over time. Dunno. But I think we're at a standstill anyhow... Either way, yeah, evolution should be taught in schools, so we're arguing a pretty fine point.

 

[JRogers]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

There's simply no way to 'discover' anything in nature (in a scientific sense, not a geographical one), because it's all there prior to our consideration and without regard for our interpretation. We just build convenient groupings which help us simplify chaos for our understanding and communication.

The changes you see don't happen with regard to an algorithm or because of evolution. They happened, and we call the results evolution when we look backward, based on evidence we gather.

I believe that I understand your point, but I'm not seeing how or why it is relevant in any other region besides a ontology or epistemology. Language is inherently rearward looking- it simplifies and distills something already in mind. That's what gives it utility.

I don't see how someone claiming, say, that the water cycle is human invention designed to simplify a chaotic and ultimately pointless system (i.e. not carried out with a conscious end in mind, unless you ascribe some deistic guidance) adds much. I'm still reading your thoughts and coming away with "Yeah...okay.....so what?" What am I missing?

 

[MikeD]

What am I missing?

Absolutely nothing. I was shocked this went on this long...it was more of a side comment than an attempt to divert the thread. It is an entirely epistemological point.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

I just disagree with this. EVERY species undergoes a series of changes over a period of time. That fact is not a human mental construct, it is a natural truth. That we have a name for it doesnt mean we invented anything either. The guiding force is environment and the guiding principle is fitness.

All I can get from your post is something like, "There are no colors, only the reflections of light which we interpret as colors with our human eyes" to which Id reply....what the hell are we supposed to do? The world can only be described as it can be understood by the human mind.

 

[MikeD]

I just disagree with this. EVERY species undergoes a series of changes over a period of time. That fact is not a human mental construct, it is a natural truth.

Yep.

That we have a name for it doesnt mean we invented anything either. The guiding force is environment and the guiding principle is fitness.

Nope. It's not guided by any principle. That's applied after the fact, by us humans. Principles are linguistic constructs.

But this is a useless debate, since we pretty much agree on most everything except a fine, and immaterial (in practice), point.

MD

 

[Secret Squirrel]

FSM 4 life...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

There's simply no way to 'discover' anything in nature (in a scientific sense, not a geographical one), because it's all there prior to our consideration and without regard for our interpretation. We just build convenient groupings which help us simplify chaos for our understanding and communication.

The changes you see don't happen with regard to an algorithm or because of evolution. They happened, and we call the results evolution when we look backward, based on evidence we gather.

Edit: Went on a run and thought about this some more. If we were talking about the process of stalagtites and stalagmites forming, I'd have no objection to that...can't exactly figure out why, but I think it's because that's so simple and readily observable...it's not really an abstraction like evolution, and there's no implication of a larger order in the world based on stalagmites forming...it's just the observable phenomenon of mineral deposits collecting over time. Dunno. But I think we're at a standstill anyhow... Either way, yeah, evolution should be taught in schools, so we're arguing a pretty fine point.

I'm not sure I'm getting the point you are trying to make, except that you think the world chaotic, not ordered?

I object to your characterization of stalagtites and stalagmites being a "process" but evolution not, especially because evolution does not have any implication o "a larger order in the world." Both impart the same amount, which is the physical laws that we observe. And, yes, evolution is a process that follows those physical laws (which went to my point on evolution working on populations, not single critters.)

I think we can discover things. We discovered gravity, didn't we? We didn't know about it until it was "discovered" and then we did. True, it was here all along, but it wasn't known to us, until we uncovered (or discovered) the phenomena. I would also argue that your point about everything being there regardless of our interpretation may very well break down in the quantum regime, where Schrodingers cat is alive and dead simultaneously until we make an observation and the wave functions collapse and we find the cat to be in one state or the other.

OK, no more semantics. Evolution in schools, YES!

 

[MikeD]

Schrodingers cat is alive and dead simultaneously until we make an observation and the wave functions collapse and we find the cat to be in one state or the other.

OK, no more semantics. Evolution in schools, YES!

Wasn't Schroedinger's cat meant to point out what he felt was an absurdity in quantum theory...? Ie, the cat is alive or dead, and we know it's one, but we can't know which until we check? I thought he meant to point out that a cat simply can't be half alive and half dead, and it's not truthful to represent it as such just because we don't know which it is...and that this mix of states was just as wrong in particle physics.

Ed: Sort of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger's_cat

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Wasn't Schroedinger's cat meant to point out what he felt was an absurdity in quantum theory...? Ie, the cat is alive or dead, and we know it's one, but we can't know which until we check? I thought he meant to point out that a cat simply can't be half alive and half dead, and it's not truthful to represent it as such just because we don't know which it is...and that this mix of states was just as wrong in particle physics.

Ed: Sort of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger's_cat

Sort of, sort of not. It's one of the few things Einstein is said to have been wrong about. Although for macro items the observation doesn't hold, it does for quantum objects. This is how quantum cryptography works IIRC.