...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] I'm referring to this post, in which you seem to limit evolution to purely chemical and material processes. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Personally it sounds more like splitting hairs versus "divine intervention". All mutations and change in life is [b]based on natural processes[/b]. Chemistry and all that lies within the universe is a [b]natural process[/b]. Rules and laws that govern the universe and natural processes within it [b]are understandable [/b] and can be [b]shown to be consistent[/b]. Cellular biology and division is [b]shown to be based on genetic mutation[/b]. Genetic mutations are based on environmental feedback. [b]That is the basis of all evolutionary change in living organisms[/b]. [/QUOTE]In the end it doesn't matter that much to me though. I was just trying to make sure you got the point I was trying to make. But if you see no inconsistency between the highlighted parts above and with mysticism, then more power to you. [/qb][/QUOTE]OK I get your question. Natural in this sense means as opposed to "divine intervention". Again, this is the problem when you have so many camps taking so many slants within various concepts that words become overloaded with alternate meanings based on how one camp defines its cosmology. If it didn't come from some magical, god like intervention that is outside what we know about nature then it is natural (or even without mans influence). That is the standard definition. Going by that there is no contradiction. This is why these folks are splitting hairs and confusing things by appropriating terms and overloading them beyond the original intended meaning. That is the point I was making. Most of these camps are saying what I said for the most part but only differ in the details. Same as with the "general meaning of evolution" versus all the various sub-groups and ideologies within "evolutionary thinking" or "evolutionary philosophy". Hence what you pointed out is getting at this: [QUOTE] The philosophical or metaphysical architecture of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is analyzed and discussed. [b]It is argued that natural selection was for Darwin a paradigmatic case of a natural law of change[/b] -- an exemplar of what Ghiselin (1969) has called selective retention laws. These selective retention laws lie at the basis of Darwin's revolutionary world view. In this essay special attention is paid to the consequences for Darwin's concept of species of his selective retention laws. Although Darwin himself explicity supported a variety of nominalism, implicit in the theory of natural selection is a solution to the dispute between nominalism and realism. It is argued that, although implicit, this view plays a very important role in Darwin's theory of natural selection as the means for the origin of species. It is in the context of these selective retention laws and their philosophical implications that Darwin's method is appraised in the light of recent criticisms, and the conclusion drawn that he successfully treated some philosophical problems by approaching them through natural history. Following this an outline of natural selection theory is presented in which all these philosophical issues are highlighted.[/QUOTE] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/107689 But the point I am making is that ALL evolutionary theories are talking about the process of change within biology. The difference is in the HOW. I personally hold that natural means "arising from within nature" and as such is not an argument AGAINST evolution. To me trying to even use such a word as a archetype for an argument against evolution is silly, which creates more confusion not less. [QUOTE] Evolution and philosophy have a relationship as old as the idea of evolution itself. This is partly due to the fact that science and philosophy only separated about the time evolutionary theories were being first proposed, but also because - especially in the Darwinian context - evolution was opposed to many cherished philosophical doctrines. The first main criticisms of evolution lay in the idea that species were eternal types, and so by definition species could not change. More recently, criticisms have rested on the notion of science itself, that evolution fails to meet the standards of true science, views that also were expressed at the time of Darwin and earlier. If we are to understand these criticisms, we must understand the philosophy of science in some detail. Many other topics of philosophical debate have been raised, and they are briefly reviewed: reductionism, progress and directionalism, teleology, naturalism, and evolutionary ethics. Not all of them are related to creationism, but all apply to antievolutionary arguments by those working from a humanities slant. Finally, the view has been put, even by philosophers like Popper who admire and accept evolutionary theory, that it is a tautology and metaphysical rather than science. My conclusion is that evolution, especially the modern theories, is science at its best, and when it and the nature of science are considered realistically, evolution is not lacking from a philosophical perspective. This essay will deal with these philosophical questions and misunderstandings about evolution: Is the principle of natural selection a tautology? [The 'tautology' of fitness] Is evolutionary science real science? [The nature of science] Can evolutionary theory make predictions? [Predictions and explanations] Are species fixed types? [The 'species problem'] Should biology be reduced to physics? [Reductionism and biology] Is evolution progressive or directional? [The ladder of progress versus the bush of evolution] Is there a goal to evolution? [Teleology in biology] Does science have to be 'naturalistic'? [Ruling out supernatural explanations] Does the theory of evolution impose a 'might is right' morality? [Social Darwinism] Is evolution a metaphysical system akin to a religion? [Worldviews and science] [/QUOTE] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html Suffice to say most of the support for Darwin's evolutionary theories are coming from genetics. [QUOTE] A substantial part of biodiversity is thought to have arisen from adaptive radiations in which one lineage rapidly diversified into multiple lineages specialized to many different niches. However, selection and drift reduce genetic variation during adaptation to new niches and may thus prevent or slow down further niche shifts. We tested whether rapid adaptation is still possible from a highly derived ecotype in the adaptive radiation of threespine stickleback on the Haida Gwaii archipelago, Western Canada. In a 19-year selection experiment, we let giant sticklebacks from a large blackwater lake evolve in a small clearwater pond without vertebrate predators. A total of 56 whole genomes from the experiment and 26 natural populations revealed that adaptive genomic change was rapid in many small genomic regions and encompassed 75% of the change between 12,000-year-old ecotypes. Genomic change was as fast as phenotypic change in defence and trophic morphology, and both were largely parallel between the short-term selection experiment and long-term natural adaptive radiation. Our results show that functionally relevant standing genetic variation can persist in derived radiation members, allowing adaptive radiations to unfold very rapidly.[/QUOTE] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0581-8 [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3