Natural Selection

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I was thinking about Darwin's theory the other day, and I realized that he never actually proves that living things exist. I'm kind of wondering: if living things don't exist (which seems indicated by other sciences), would the entire science of biology be useless?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Living things clearly exist. I really don't know what else to say. On what grounds could someone claim otherwise?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I would claim that living things only exist in the same sense that games exist. For instance: poker and soccer are both games. Trees and humans are both living. These only exist because of comparisons, not because of any real proof. All proof is completely post hoc and circular, as it already assumes the existence of living things prior to proving that living things exist.

Now, if living things do not exist, all biological theories will eventually run into contradictions and absurdities.

The extremes of Darwinism (when it is applied to human beings conscious of Darwin's theory of natural selection, for instance) do run into such contradictions, particularly in the domains of social dynamics and morality.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I could fix it by redefining biology to be:

The study of Darwinian agents, as well as their superstructures and substructures.

[Notice that I completely removed the word "life" from the equation, since the assumption that living things exist leads to contradictions, so living things cannot actually exist.]

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Trevor,

I would claim that living things only exist in the same sense that games exist.

To say that something is 'alive' is indeed as arbitrary as saying that it is 'red'. Yet, saying that either doesn't exist seems to fly too far in the face of practical language for my tastes.

All proof is completely post hoc and circular, as it already assumes the existence of living things prior to proving that living things exist.

The scientific definition of life is prescriptive as opposed to descriptive. It just keeps folks on the same page insofar as the words use is concerned. There is no question that living things don't possess a vital force of any sort.

Now, if living things do not exist, all biological theories will eventually run into contradictions and absurdities.

I don't see this. Biology only concerns itself with those things that fall into its rather arbitrarily defined area of research. Biologists aren't out looking for a vital force, but simply study those things that we would say are alive by matter of habit.

The extremes of Darwinism (when it is applied to human beings conscious of Darwin's theory of natural selection, for instance) do run into such contradictions, particularly in the domains of social dynamics and morality.

Social Darwinism has little to do with its namesake. In fact, it predates Darwin, and was first advocated by Herbert Spencer (if I understand correctly). I recently read an article in the New Yorker that humorously suggested that Darwin was a biological Spencerian.

[Cory Duchesne]

I was thinking about Darwin's theory the other day, and I realized that he never actually proves that living things exist.

He did state that the implication of his theory was the appearance of there being 'species' was an illusion. So I think he apparently had at least a vague apprehension that things in general, don't inherently exist.

I'm kind of wondering: if living things don't exist (which seems indicated by other sciences), would the entire science of biology be useless?

I always regarded the theory of natural selection as a part comprising the entire science of biology. So I don't quite understand why you think an understanding of natural selection is useless. I think it's one of the most powerful scientific theories we have.

[Cory Duchesne]

I would claim that living things only exist in the same sense that games exist. For instance: poker and soccer are both games. Trees and humans are both living. These only exist because of comparisons, not because of any real proof.

Not only. They exist also because of how they appear.

They appear to be differentiated in a similar and significant way from other things, thus the dichotomy between a chemical compound and an organic compound.

What things exist because of real proof anyway?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Cory,

I always regarded the theory of natural selection as a part comprising the entire science of biology. So I don't quite understand why you think an understanding of natural selection is useless. I think it's one of the most powerful scientific theories we have.

I've seen natural selection pulled out of biology and used in computer simulations. If it is one of the most powerful scientific theories we have, perhaps it is time to distance it from biology. Not all living things naturally select, and not all naturally selecting agents are alive. Therefore, natural selection is not technically biological (concerned with life). It simply corresponds with biology at some level: but calling it a biological theory is a misnomer.

What things exist because of real proof anyway?

This gets into the question of what constitutes a real proof. I do not think that a series of comparisons (ala game theory) counts as sufficient proof to merit a science. "Biology" is as ridiculous as "Pokerandsoccerology". The distinction is not careful enough to be worth the length of time it has been sustained. It will need to be abandoned in favour of clarity.

They appear to be differentiated in a similar and significant way from other things, thus the dichotomy between a chemical compound and an organic compound.

Since there are major differences in the theoretical constructs used between these, I agree that "chemical" and "organic" is a far better distinction than "living" and "non-living". Diamonds cannot arrange themselves into working hearts.

However, assuming that all organic compounds must behave in a Darwinian manner is not, as far as I can tell, proveable. Organic chemistry and what I'm tentatively labelling "Darwinology", although they share some similarities (as all sciences do), are categorically different. They are as different from one another as physics is from chemistry.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

ExpectantlyIronic,

I would not like to see natural selection destroyed, only revamped in a more careful, philosophic manner. This is pretty much for my own benefit, since I'm having a hard time reconciling Darwinism with the more recent, highly esoteric, metaphysical theories that I simply can't disprove (the existence of Heidegger's Dasein, for instance).

Looking for ways to keep Darwin's theories useful, while finding out the exact range of the theory, seems necessary. I simply can't see the theory as a "theory of life", despite the similarities between natural selection and the behaviour of living organisms. The proof simply isn't there.

So yes, I agree the distinction between life and non-life is arbitrary. The difference is that I see this as unacceptable. I would like to hope my distinctions are slightly less arbitrary.

Social Darwinism, whatever its relationship to Darwin's theories, is patently false. Natural selection cannot be applied to some aspects of life. Questions like "which other aspects of life is it incorrect to apply it to?" seem relevant.

[Cory Duchesne]

I agree that "chemical" and "organic" is a far better distinction than "living" and "non-living". Diamonds cannot arrange themselves into working hearts.

However, assuming that all organic compounds must behave in a Darwinian manner is not, as far as I can tell, proveable. Organic chemistry and what I'm tentatively labelling "Darwinology", although they share some similarities (as all sciences do), are categorically different. They are as different from one another as physics is from chemistry.

I'll admit, I'm confused as to where physics ends and chemistry begins, and likewise, where chemistry ends and organic chemistry begins. To understand one field, it seems you have to understand the other to some degree.

That's why I've been interested in looking at micrographs lately.

I always hated learning about chemistry in school because they tell you 'what' is what, but not how exactly it is they know 'what'.

For instance, I really found it interesting learning about how Rutherford developed his model of the atom. (although, I'm still left without an understanding of how exactly he harnessed 'alpha particles' to begin with, and how they identified them as alpha particles)

I'd love to see some documentary or something that kind of summarized the evolution of physics and chemistry via microscopes, giving you a perspective of what the first microscopes were capable of by displaying photos of what they would have seen back then, discussing how it was that certain distinctions and models were established, and showing how the evolution of microscopes and knowledge were concomitant.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Cory,

I'll admit, I'm confused as to where physics ends and chemistry begins, and likewise, where chemistry ends and organic chemistry begins. To understand one field, it seems you have to understand the other to some degree.

Most of the sciences do begin quite arbitrarily. I have a bit of disagreement with how universities arrange these. If I were in charge, I would call a "science" something that is already finished, and a proto-science all the rest of it.

Newtonian physics, for instance, is a science. So is Darwinian selection, although it seems to be unfairly lumped with biology. Quantum physics is proto-scientific: there is no complete and logical theory to support the whole structure. It's more like alchemy, which was also proto-scientific (and which was useful in its own right... but still fell short on many philosophic points).

Chemistry is a relatively complete science, since all the theoretical backbone is there (brilliantly summed up in the famous periodic table). It has a well-defined range.

Most of biology, however, is proto-scientific. It uses natural selection to some extent, but also commits countless philosophic blunders. More sciences will likely sprout from biology, but it seems quite aimless and proto-scientific for the most part.

I always hated learning about chemistry in school because they tell you 'what' is what, but not how exactly it is they know 'what'.

Well, it has its assumptions. It has fundamental units that are adequately proven to appear in some form. It is quite complete and self-contained.

For instance, I really found it interesting learning about how Rutherford developed his model of the atom. (although, I'm still left without an understanding of how exactly he harnessed 'alpha particles' to begin with, and how they identified them as alpha particles)

I seem to remember that experiment had something to do with gold? *shrug*

I'd love to see some documentary or something that kind of summarized the evolution of physics and chemistry via microscopes, giving you a perspective of what the first microscopes were capable of by displaying photos of what they would have seen back then, discussing how it was that certain distinctions and models were established, and showing how the evolution of microscopes and knowledge were concomitant.

I can't think of a single invention that has increased the range of our observations more than the microscope (and hence, our ability to create accurate sciences). If a video like that doesn't exist, it better.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: I'd love to see some documentary or something that kind of summarized the evolution of physics and chemistry via microscopes, giving you a perspective of what the first microscopes were capable of by displaying photos of what they would have seen back then, discussing how it was that certain distinctions and models were established, and showing how the evolution of microscopes and knowledge were concomitant.

Trevor: I can't think of a single invention that has increased the range of our observations more than the microscope (and hence, our ability to create accurate sciences). If a video like that doesn't exist, it better.

I just did a few google searches and came up with pretty much exactly the sort of video we're looking for:

The Perception of Life

Directed by Peter Whitehead
UK 1964, video, color, 30 min.

An extraordinarily beautiful and simple science film about the history of biological ideas which shows how they expanded as technology improved. Filmed in museums and in the Cambridge University labs where Whitehead had been a student, The Perception of Life was filmed through microscopes used by scientists from the 17th to the 20th century, including the electron microscope in the MRC unit where Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA.

Taken from this page: The Films of Peter Whitehead

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

I'll admit, I'm confused as to where physics ends and chemistry begins, and likewise, where chemistry ends and organic chemistry begins. To understand one field, it seems you have to understand the other to some degree.

Most of the sciences do begin quite arbitrarily. I have a bit of disagreement with how universities arrange these. If I were in charge, I would call a "science" something that is already finished, and a proto-science all the rest of it.

I know what you mean here, and although I'm hardly in the position to agree, due to what I've read out of John Horgan's book, end of science, my intuition says that you, he, Gunter Stent, and others I can't recall, are correct.

From what I've read in his book, Horgan's opinion is that physics and chemistry is complete, and that all of the major scientific discoveries have been made. Discoveries from this point on will simply build on the basic foundation that has already established.

Are you aware of the amusing long-bet between John Horgan and Michio Kaku?

Horgan writes:

In their search for the primordial symmetry of a theory of everything, physicists have gone off the deep end, postulating particles and energies and dimensions whose existence can never be experimentally verified. The Superconducting Supercollider, the monstrous particle accelerator that Congress canceled in 1993, would have been 54-miles in circumference. Gaining access to the infinitesimal microscales where superstrings supposedly wriggle would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around. (The entire solar system is only one light day around.)

Newtonian physics, for instance, is a science. So is Darwinian selection, although it seems to be unfairly lumped with biology.

So what do you want to call it, if not biology? Organic chemistry?

Quantum physics is proto-scientific: there is no complete and logical theory to support the whole structure.

Well, the Copenhagen interpretation and Bohm's interpretation reportedly work equally well, but for some reason (actually, in my view, a fairly congruent reason) the Copenhagen theory has been the most popular. I think it's because 1) it can be thought of as indeterministic (allowing people to absurdly try arguing for free will on that basis) and 2) it allows for superstring theory to finish it off, making it seem beautiful and elegant.

As far as I know, Bohm's QM theory points to a much less elegant place, it's deterministic, and as far as I know, due to Bohm's ideas about the holographic nature of reality, the door is closed on superstring theory.

Chemistry is a relatively complete science, since all the theoretical backbone is there (brilliantly summed up in the famous periodic table). It has a well-defined range.

I'm sure it is, I just wish I had a better understanding of how they drew up the models, their reasons for why, etc. (this I think requires an understanding of physics, which, last time I tried to tackle, was difficult. I was working on a thread a while back on blackbody radiation, Max Planck's ultraviolet collapse, etc. that maybe I should revisit and trudge onward, as I did make some progress last time I tried. Hodges and Leyla were helpful on that one, I recall.

Most of biology, however, is proto-scientific.

I think the priorities of biology should be getting a better handle on an empirical basis for the masculinization and feminization of the brain, and to see if this helps us better understand and correct mental disorders. This seems to only be possible via greater understanding of neuroendocrinology, the internal secretions and how they are stressed and damaged by environment or made deficient because of genes. But of course, it was only a month ago that I started to think this, so really, I feel like I hardly know anything at this point, and maybe this sense will only get worse as I plumb further.

It uses natural selection to some extent, but also commits countless philosophic blunders.

Addressing these blunders specifically might be a good idea. I'll admit, I'm not quite sure what they are.

More sciences will likely sprout from biology, but it seems quite aimless and proto-scientific for the most part.

What criticisms did you have in particular?

I always hated learning about chemistry in school because they tell you 'what' is what, but not how exactly it is they know 'what'.

Well, it has its assumptions. It has fundamental units that are adequately proven to appear in some form. It is quite complete and self-contained.

I'd just like to get a basic handle on how the very first compounds were ascertained, why they drew the models the way they did, etc.

For instance, I really found it interesting learning about how Rutherford developed his model of the atom. (although, I'm still left without an understanding of how exactly he harnessed 'alpha particles' to begin with, and how they identified them as alpha particles)

I seem to remember that experiment had something to do with gold? *shrug*

Well, if you're interested in knowing, here it is:

Rutherford and Thompson wanted to test out Thompson's assumption that atoms were comprised of electrons, much like a chocolate chip cookie is comprised of chips. The dough was presumed to be a positive charge that held it all together. (this of course was wrong, but a reasonable place to start from)

So they took a piece of gold foil, assuming that the foil was comprised of atoms (atoms without a nucleus) and put forth the hypothesis that positively charged alpha particles could be shot through the gold foil, and that any alternations in the trajectory of these particles as they came out from the other side of the foil, could be traced by observing the glowing scintillation marks the alpha particles made on a white screen on the other side. The white screen was placed on the opposite side of the gun shooting the particles (the foil stood between the gun and the white screen).

They wanted to understand why the alpha particles did not pass through straight but instead were altered to varying degrees (per single shot, or per hundereds of shots simultaneously, I'm not sure. The later seems more likely)

They noticed that, the majority of alpha particles were not altered at all, a smaller minority were altered slightly, and rare individuals: extremely.

^ Ah, Good analogy for an aphorism

- and it's non-agricultural to boot ;)

They postulated that the slight variation in the minority group of particles and the extreme variation in the rare individual alpha particle trajectories were caused by a nucleus that was in each of the atoms comprising the gold foil, and that these nucleus's were much more positively charged than the rest of the atom, thus having the power to alter or radically deflect the positive particles that were being shot through.

I'm pretty sure that the radical deflections were totally unexpected by Rutherford and Co. The discovery was made by mistake, as usual.

Here is an animation

Of course, like I mentioned, I'd be interested to hear not only how they harnessed alpha particles, but how they detected them to begin with, and how they differ from electrons, what wave length of photon they are comprised of, etc.

I'm not even sure I understand how and why a photon and an electron are different from each other, not to mention proton, etc.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Cory, these were the most pressing issues. I'll deal with the rest later.

I think the priorities of biology should be getting a better handle on an empirical basis for the masculinization and feminization of the brain, and to see if this helps us better understand and correct mental disorders. This seems to only be possible via greater understanding of neuroendocrinology, the internal secretions and how they are stressed and damaged by environment or made deficient because of genes. But of course, it was only a month ago that I started to think this, so really, I feel like I hardly know anything at this point, and maybe this sense will only get worse as I plumb further.

This is how proto-science operates. Take an historic look at alchemy: all the alchemical work was necessary for chemistry..

Addressing these blunders specifically might be a good idea. I'll admit, I'm not quite sure what they are.

The first and foremost one is that a living thing exists. Being the science of life, it already assumes something that could be disproven by another science. The statement: "life is not an accurate label for anything," severely compromises all of biology. Diogenes was already referring to this.

What criticisms did you have in particular?

This one: that the old problem of knowing the prophecy changes it. Humans can deliberate over knowledge of their biology and actively apply logic to their own organism. This creates huge problems in dealing intelligently with humans from the standpoint of "living organism" -- since it is inconceivable that humans will end up behaving like any non-logical organism. What constitutes life needs to be seriously redefined to account for that. Changing from "living organism" to "Darwinian agent" will improve the accuracy of natural selection greatly. Like a moral agent, a Darwinian agent acts in a particular manner.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The statement: "life is not an accurate label for anything," severely compromises all of biology.

It's a label and as labels go their accuracy is something to be challenged, again and again.

For example Lovelock talked about 'slow life' as opposed to normal 'fast life' to include geological processes. One could also talk about biology as 'self-replicator' science. Everything that replicates itself will run into the same 'biological' patterns (genes, gene containers, competing replicators, cooperative replicators) which are linked to mathematical principles developed or discovered within game theory.

We might have to include economy, society (socio-biology), culture, information and computer programs in biology too. Not because they're alive (that would revive the old gods and demons concepts, perhaps not coincidentally) but because they're self-replicating. The new science would then be replicalogy :) This science might be too broad to address (a bit like semiology vs linguistics) and biology becomes a subset.

From Wikipedia:

Classes of self-replication

Recent research [1] has begun to categorize replicators, often based on the amount of support they require.

* Natural replicators have all or most of their design from nonhuman sources. Such systems include natural life forms.
* Autotrophic replicators can reproduce themselves "in the wild". They mine their own materials. It is conjectured that non-biological autotrophic replicators could be designed by humans, and could easily accept specifications for human products.
* Self-reproductive systems are conjectured systems which would produce copies of themselves from industrial feedstocks such as metal bar and wire.
* Self-assembling systems assemble copies of themselves from finished, delivered parts. Simple examples of such systems have been demonstrated at the macro scale.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Cory,

So what do you want to call it, if not biology? Organic chemistry?

Organic chemistry already is a science. Diebert had a good suggestion. "Replicatology": the science of replicating things.

I simply don't think that biology is coherent enough to be a science: like quantum physics and alchemy, it is too scattered and prototypical. Worse, however, is that it makes an assumption that can be disproven by another science: that living things exist. If physicists proved otherwise, then there would be a contradiction. Even allowing that to be a possibility is a huge handicap. If it turned out to be true a hundred years down the road, there would need to be some major (expensive) revisions.

Of course, like I mentioned, I'd be interested to hear not only how they harnessed alpha particles, but how they detected them to begin with, and how they differ from electrons, what wave length of photon they are comprised of, etc.

I'm not even sure I understand how and why a photon and an electron are different from each other, not to mention proton, etc.

Alpha particles are harnessed through pretty much all forms of radiation. I think it's what geiger counters detect.

Otherwise, there are supposedly 20+ different ways a particle can spin, etc. and each has a different name, mass, and such. Proton, electron, and neutron are the three most common forms of matter.

I might be a little off, but I'm working from memory.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Diebert, I love the idea of making biology a subset of this science. It would certainly put biologists in their place. "Life isn't that important in the big scheme of things. Not even important enough to be worth its own independent science."

[RalphPL]

would the entire science of biology be useless?

I don't thinks so, because we have better understanding through science, we save lives (medicine)...So, even if it's a delusion, it works with the hallucination, so why not use it?

[RalphPL]

I'd define life, as this: Something which works to sustain itself through complex processes, naturally.

[Faust]

darwin's theory of evolution is pure rubbish with no scientific evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence at all that new species are made through natural selection. evolutionists still cling to the idea that 99.9% of our genes are identical, and ignore the fact that so far 10 to 12% of our genes are immensely diverse. Evolutionists and biologists ignore these facts. darin was simply WRONG that evolution even exists, yet he is immensely popular with idiots such as you people, not to mention the imbecile fanaticism of arseholes such as Dawkins.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

that link has very good debunking information. HOWEVER it's comedic because the people there are CHRISTIANS. I always laugh at religious people who talk of scientific evidence but also hold insane superstitious and draconian beliefs.

It is simply a lie and a myth that over TIME things can randomly come together to form life. This is FALSE. Top scientists cannot make 1 single celled organism out of inorganic matter. Single celled organisms are so complex that they would NEVER RANDOMLY be created over TIME.