Is evolution surpising

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Is evolution surpising

Post by maestro »

I was reading an article about Darwin
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Scienc ... 330&page=1

I do not understand what is all the fuss about evolution.

From a purely empirical perspective, any system will develop stable patterns, that are reinforced by the environment. All life forms are such patterns, further reinforced by the memory they pass on in the form of heredity or culture. Changes in environment affect the stability of patterns and induce changes in the patterns. What is so surprising about evolution that nobody before Darwin thought of it?

Perhaps it were the mental blocks introduced by religion, that led to such a very simple observation hyped up as a great insight, or a dangerous idea. However while this may be true for the masses, people with clearer heads, throughout the ages must have realized the truth of evolution. Does anybody know of philosophers before Darwin discussing this idea?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Perhaps it's better to say that the specific contribution of Darwin was the idea of natural selection. So the way the environment can affect this 'stability of patterns'. Just thinking 'environment' affects this or that is not different from much ancient philosophy and religious concepts like 'God did it' [as many believe God is everywhere] or 'coincidence'. One has to explain and describe the patterns and this is what Darwin attempted.

Work on evolution goes on and I'd say current evolution theory has only a few general concepts in common with Darwin but also a lot has changed in the thinking: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Cory Duchesne »

maestro wrote:I was reading an article about Darwin
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Scienc ... 330&page=1

I do not understand what is all the fuss about evolution.

From a purely empirical perspective, any system will develop stable patterns, that are reinforced by the environment. All life forms are such patterns, further reinforced by the memory they pass on in the form of heredity or culture. Changes in environment affect the stability of patterns and induce changes in the patterns. What is so surprising about evolution that nobody before Darwin thought of it?
I'm sure there were many who had more vague conceptions of natural selection. Probably farmers who dealt first hand with breeding and selection were the most likely candidates for 'getting it'. After all, Darwin spent a lot of time with plant and animal breeders, picking their brains. He credited them for helping him develop his theory.

It's not an easy theory for most people to grasp because you have to imagine subtle changes over millions of years, and you also have to be comfortable with death. Lots and lots of death. Because the form of an organism is shaped by the hand of death. Massive destruction begets speciation. People are squeamish and prefer a more comforting explanatory model, a model that involves a cosmic caretaker who guides ones life to heaven.
Perhaps it were the mental blocks introduced by religion,
I blame the desire for religion, more than religion itself. Religion would have no power if people didn't desperately desire to deny death and deny the lack of cosmic daddy. If all religious ideology were somehow wiped from human memory, I have no doubt humanity would just create new religions, largely out of fear and difficulty with thinking too subtely and broadly.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Shahrazad »

Cory said,
It's not an easy theory for most people to grasp because you have to imagine subtle changes over millions of years, and you also have to be comfortable with death.
I agree that massive death makes us uncomfortable, but the theory is actually easy to grasp in the most general way. When I use a roach spray to kill roaches by the thousands or when antibiotics kill bacteria by the millions, it is not hard to imagine that whatever bugs survive would have to be stronger or fitter.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Shahrazad wrote:Cory said,
It's not an easy theory for most people to grasp because you have to imagine subtle changes over millions of years, and you also have to be comfortable with death.
I agree that massive death makes us uncomfortable, but the theory is actually easy to grasp in the most general way. When I use a roach spray to kill roaches by the thousands or when antibiotics kill bacteria by the millions, it is not hard to imagine that whatever bugs survive would have to be stronger or fitter.
Yeah, but what about drastic macro-evolution? Like, a roach evolving into a radically different creature?

You'd have to take that scenario of killing thousands of roaches, and multiply but a million different instances. This is hard for people to imagine.

The fundies I've talk to usually have no problem understanding microevolution, small adaptations. But they just can't wrap their head around macroevolution (which is basically vast, vast occurrences of microevolution)
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by marcothay »

Shahrazad wrote:Cory said,
It's not an easy theory for most people to grasp because you have to imagine subtle changes over millions of years, and you also have to be comfortable with death.
I agree that massive death makes us uncomfortable, but the theory is actually easy to grasp in the most general way. When I use a roach spray to kill roaches by the thousands or when antibiotics kill bacteria by the millions, it is not hard to imagine that whatever bugs survive would have to be stronger or fitter.

That is remain me of Hitler ideology.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by maestro »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Perhaps it's better to say that the specific contribution of Darwin was the idea of natural selection. So the way the environment can affect this 'stability of patterns'.
This is trivial, only those patterns will survive that fit with the environment. As an instance pure sodium is not evolutionarily fit for earth as it gets oxidized by air, while it may survive well enough in a different environment (say a vaccum lab).

To treat life as fundamentally different from non life seems to be the basis for this irrational high regard for the idea of evolution. For example consider any natural process such as the water cycle or nitrogen cycle, these processes would also have evolved and co adapted with the environment and are very similar to life in the sense of a stable self sustaining system.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Shahrazad »

Cory,
Yeah, but what about drastic macro-evolution? Like, a roach evolving into a radically different creature?
Lots of small changes eventually add up to big changes. What's the big deal?
You'd have to take that scenario of killing thousands of roaches, and multiply but a million different instances. This is hard for people to imagine.
If so, people are dumber than I thought.
The fundies I've talk to usually have no problem understanding microevolution, small adaptations. But they just can't wrap their head around macroevolution (which is basically vast, vast occurrences of microevolution)
Fundies don't get it because they have their whole lifestyles vested in evolution not being true.

When I look at my daughter, it is sometimes hard to imagine that she is actually the same baby that I had some time ago, only with 23 years of evolution. But I have evidence that it is true.


BTW, the article Diebert linked to was very good.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Shahrazad wrote:Cory,
Yeah, but what about drastic macro-evolution? Like, a roach evolving into a radically different creature?
Lots of small changes eventually add up to big changes. What's the big deal?
The random variation aspect of Darwinian evolution is hard for people to take in light of sublime features like a birds wing. That's why, prior to Darwin we had sincere guys like Lamarck who was interested in evolution, but believed each new generation of creature inherits learned characteristics of the parent generation. If Lamarckism was true in the way it was originally conceived, we'd have lot more people accepting of evolution! It's much easier to accept.

Personally, I still have a difficult time accepting Darwinian evolution without some degree of Larmarckianish inheritance happening.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Nick »

A piece of garbage stuck in a some grass reminded me of evolution and natural selection a while ago. It was the way it was stuck on a perfect aerodynamic angle that allowed it to remain in place no matter how hard the wind blew, perfectly adapted to its environment, almost as if someone had placed it just so. Then I thought about how many times the garbage must have changed it's positioning, dying, being reborn, evolving, due to the elements, until finally the perfect piece of garbage was born, positioned, and of course naturally selected to reign supreme.

No, evolution, change, causality, or whatever else you want to call it is not all that surprising, and I don't need to travel to the Galapagos Islands to understand it.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by brokenhead »

Shahrazad wrote:Fundies don't get it because they have their whole lifestyles vested in evolution not being true.
Hi Shah
If by "Fundies" you mean people who think the Bible is an inerrant historical record, then they are deceiving themselves. I say, do not be tethered to the bible or any book. Books are just tools. If there is a god, you would do well not to chain yourself unyielding to any specific tool.

Clearly evolution happened. The truth will set you free.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Shahrazad »

broken,
If by "Fundies" you mean people who think the Bible is an inerrant historical record, then they are deceiving themselves. I say, do not be tethered to the bible or any book. Books are just tools. If there is a god, you would do well not to chain yourself unyielding to any specific tool.
It is obvious you are not a fundie.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Animus »

I think the thing to realize is these are lower mind forms. Just as there is an evolution of species, there is an evolution of thought. We truly stands on the shoulders of giants in respect to philosophy and science. I don't generally regard science as anything but an application of great philosophy though. Even it has its origins in various cultures and traditions. Although it might be common to think of it as a Western tradition, and is probably rooted in Greek philosophy, it has also been inspired by the likes of Ibn Al Haytham a Muslim scholar. We can imagine that pretty much all of our current understanding would not be so if we couldn't pass on wisdom even verbally.

In terms of neuroscience and sheer introspection, probably obvious to anyone, we learn by repetition. So having something drilled into your head for 20 years probably sticks. Suppose the carrot and the stick is the only way to pull a person out of it. Try to go down to their level of understanding and provide small hints according to what they understand.

I mean, if I tell a guy on a forum he is deluded he'll probably think I'm a jerk and ignore me or get into some ego-fencing with me. But if I was a member of his church he might consider what I have to say. Otherwise people seem to never really think about reality too much or they google their inclinations. That's pretty much what I do, if something reads "Evolution is a Lie" I tend not to watch it unless it is by EdwardCurrent. Because I've already seen 50 videos or more rhyming off a bunch of non sequiturs to get to Allah or Yahweh. Almost every one of them proclaiming to understand Darwin's beliefs. I can't proclaim to understand Darwin's belief, but the guy mentions a creator 9 times in his book. Suggesting God breathed life into a few simple forms. But maybe he was appealing to the masses. Who can say? Its irrelevant anyway.

I found it interesting that experimental philosophers have looked into what people's natural inclinations are on free-will. I find the facts interesting, but they can't actually tell us if it is true or not. Since it never follows necessarily from our intuitions that anything is true. In discussing free-will people trail off into talking about moral responsibility and the neurological correlates of decision making and consciousness. In the end the common sense logic is still there driving the whole debate, free-will is impossible. Yet, people veer off into talk about indeterminism and even singularities to try to break the laws of physics. Imagining some how we have a singularity inside our minds. Seems rather doubtful.

I submit they are running away from the truth, which makes me wonder about the actual scripture and not the twisted interpretation of the orthodoxy. It is constantly stated that people will know the fear of God. It doesn't sound like some fuzzy idea of a perfect mind which you fear, but who loves you at the same time. I think the contradictions are driving at a point here, the thing being described does have feelings at all. We are the ones who have feelings, and perhaps it through us and us through it. Their whole concept of God has to be in error because what they are saying it says makes no sense, God is a contradiction in every human respect. God might be "all loving" if all the loving in the world, of humans and animals and so forth is God, if God is All. Then a lot of the stuff about loving and fearing makes sense, since when a person faces Reality head on they find it a bit scarey, hence the Idols. And no person denies Reality. You can't its right there infront of you and in you and you are in it.

They got it All wrong not just Evolution.

Romans 8:6-8
6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Proverbs 2

1My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;

2So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;

3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Nick Treklis wrote: Then I thought about how many times the garbage must have changed it's positioning, dying, being reborn, evolving, due to the elements, until finally the perfect piece of garbage was born, positioned, and of course naturally selected to reign supreme.
So were its most perfect, selected, fit qualities in any way perpetuated in other pieces of garbage around it, as if it somehow was spreading? Garbage doesn't breed, creating mini-versions of its qualities mixed with the qualities of another similar type of garbage [although it might in your house]. And this is called speciation. Clouds appear all the time and can look similar to each other, even justifies classification but individual clouds do not perpetuate their individual shape or substance in ways we can recognize. And the patterns of speciation became a subject of science: research into specific origins, or: naming major causes instead of stating only causality.
maestro wrote:To treat life as fundamentally different from non life seems to be the basis for this irrational high regard for the idea of evolution. For example consider any natural process such as the water cycle or nitrogen cycle, these processes would also have evolved and co adapted with the environment and are very similar to life in the sense of a stable self sustaining system.
How many species or subtle variations of the water cycle are there then? It's only in the most gross, general sense caused to be. This is not different than the basic religious idea: the magic of some 'self sustaining system' has just replaced the notion of divine force or platonic essence.

Development of species and the water cycle are both important processes to discover and understand from a scientific point of view. The thought was not new but the gods were in the details as you can see in this ancient (490–430 BC) reference I dug up on natural selection:
Empedocles wrote:And so, in the same way, whatever things are the more adapted for mixing, these are loved by each other and made alike by Aphrodite. But what ever things are hostile are separated as far as possible from each other, both in their origin and in their mixing and in the forms impressed on them, absolutely unwonted to unite and very baneful, at the suggestion of Strife, since it has wrought their birth. - Empedocles, Fragments and Commentary 186
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

maestro wrote:I do not understand what is all the fuss about evolution.
The fuss seems created by it contradicting various dominant theological stances, like the belief God created Earth and the species in six days. Or even created them in the first place as finished product with little or no deviation afterward.

One could see natural selection as one of the final nails in the coffin of the Biblical theology of literalism. As far as I know there's not much fuss outside this friction. But people do desire to know where it "all" came from as to derive meaning and purpose. While Darwinism isn't gonna supply this, it could surely take a few things away in this regard.

Nevertheless, some do seem to use Darwinism as supplier of some new type of morality: the superiority of winning, successful functioning as ultimate purpose, justifying eradication of what's seen as dysfunctional or damaging. Such self-serving ideology can create quite a fuss indeed.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by maestro »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:How many species or subtle variations of the water cycle are there then? It's only in the most gross, general sense caused to be. This is not different than the basic religious idea: the magic of some 'self sustaining system' has just replaced the notion of divine force or platonic essence.
I fail to understand your arguments.

The system is self sustaining in the sense of being both reinforced through and reinforcing its environment. If there are any gods then they just become part of the environment. Natural selection is the same idea that patterns fit the environment, survive and pass on their traits to the next generation. What is so radical about this thesis, that no one could grasp it before Darwin?
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by bert »

Is evolution surpising
It was all over the place in Egypt , is that so surprising as to make a lot of furore about it?
I do not understand what is all the fuss about evolution.
the misrepresentation of the Darwin's value is at the edge of a breeding frustration.
scientists are (finally) gradually finding out that their believes about Darwin's natural selection were of the hook.

Darwin's attraction on Superman is in the regenerated catafalques that are ruins of the classic splendour; its tradition lives on; and which no human vandalism could quite destroy. Darwin was one of the later-few who was touched by the resurrection stepping forth as giantesque ghosts to re-live with the Promethean fire and born a great artist.
Last edited by bert on Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by maestro »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote: Then I thought about how many times the garbage must have changed it's positioning, dying, being reborn, evolving, due to the elements, until finally the perfect piece of garbage was born, positioned, and of course naturally selected to reign supreme.
So were its most perfect, selected, fit qualities in any way perpetuated in other pieces of garbage around it, as if it somehow was spreading? Garbage doesn't breed, creating mini-versions of its qualities mixed with the qualities of another similar type of garbage [although it might in your house]. And this is called speciation. Clouds appear all the time and can look similar to each other, even justifies classification but individual clouds do not perpetuate their individual shape or substance in ways we can recognize. And the patterns of speciation became a subject of science: research into specific origins, or: naming major causes instead of stating only causality.
How reproduction came to be is nowhere accounted for by Darwin either. The process of natural selection is clearly at work in Nick's example. Now if garbage could breed, then the analogy to animal evolution would be complete.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Nick »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:So were its most perfect, selected, fit qualities in any way perpetuated in other pieces of garbage around it, as if it somehow was spreading?
In a way, yes. For instance we can say that all of the garbage's previous positions in time were it's predecessors or ancestors. Predecessors which were ill equipped to hold their position long enough to remain in a fairly stable position.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Garbage doesn't breed, creating mini-versions of its qualities mixed with the qualities of another similar type of garbage [although it might in your house].
Breeding isn't necessary for evolution. The piece of garbage's evolution is much like asexual reproduction.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And this is called speciation. Clouds appear all the time and can look similar to each other, even justifies classification but individual clouds do not perpetuate their individual shape or substance in ways we can recognize.
Evolution is not a process by which something perpetuates it's existence unless it is done consciously. Species, clouds, and pieces of garbage change for a number of reasons, e.g. genetic mutation or wear and tear, and if the change the object goes through is not tolerated by the outside environment, the object in question may no longer fit the definition of what we once considered it to be. None of this is done consciously so it does not constitute what I consider perpetuation. Besides, even if something is perpetuated, that doesn't automatically mean it can't be considered evolution.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And the patterns of speciation became a subject of science: research into specific origins, or: naming major causes instead of stating only causality.
True, but it's still entirely arbitrary.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Is evolution surprising

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

maestro wrote: How reproduction came to be is nowhere accounted for by Darwin either. The process of natural selection is clearly at work in Nick's example. Now if garbage could breed, then the analogy to animal evolution would be complete.
And earlier:
Changes in environment affect the stability of patterns and induce changes in the patterns. What is so surprising about evolution that nobody before Darwin thought of it?
What you seem to be missing big time here is the context of Darwin's ideas: a time in which a massive categorization and collection of specimen of animal and plant life as well as fossils was occurring. This was not done before in any comparable way. So now for the first time the question arose: where do all these varieties come from and what makes the varieties happen?

The significance however didn't lie here. It was the realization of a relative short time-frame in which evolution could manifest by changing physical characteristics and how the pressure of selection could steer this direction much more effectively than random fluctuations could. Hence natural selection as opposed to random occurring mutations that give birth to a unspecific piece of dirt.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Rhett »

Darwins theory isn't immediately apparent. In the usual lifetime adaptation/variation isn't seen, except in the examples of breeding which people would naturally see as a force of man, not a way of nature. The first thought would be that things just are this way.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by bert »

by bert on Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:09 am

Sophia19 wrote:
bert wrote:
mind and matter are always evident to each other:a crystal does not appear to us as an intelligent thing,yet it is perfectly so with respect to its own form and function.to us,a blade of grass seems more intelligent and courageous,too,as it fights for its place in nature with the oak.the insect,bird,reptile,and mammal appear successively more intelligent as complexity increases.this is the great illusion.the minds of the crystal,the rabbit,Michaelangelo,or God,are the same,only the means difffer;the one is manifested more fully then the other.ability is always equal or superior to the means.the dynamic inter-relationship of all things causes the universality of change,a transformation process embracing everything,although the over-all content is the same - everything in time changing into everything else.thus the butterfly became Aristotle!but change is so gradual that any thing is always completely itself as manifest reality.nature does show us rapid metamorphosis,but only during gestative periods or in early forms of life.the most magnificent example being the egg-larve-butterfly emanation;the most perfect allegory of a thing becoming its own Imago.
In what way is ability equal or superior? why not simply more evident? movement can be seen..... however much able it is to be measured.....

what the eye or (scope) cannot see ...... does it not exist?

what role and power does the imagination have?

Is this not in some ways what we must do to "understand" the transformation of energy from entity or element to the next?

Sophia
from the least form to the highest there is a fundamental pattern of change - from simple to complex - which follows definite laws,the whole purpose being to further expressional means and individual perfection for ultimate independence.the case of the individual appears to be more important than the mass.nature's quest is for the genius,the altruistic few who create everything worthwhile in the world.certain beings are older in time ,a point which everyone reaches,but not at the same time.hence there is no equality but always equity - an insoluble mystery of 'Why?'.
Steven Coyle

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Steven Coyle »

if one is able, the mind can open to what some call the 'archives' - the purposeful 'memory banks' - the once cocaine like memories open to a more beautiful lattice, with divine intent.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Tomas »

.


-maestro-
I do not understand what is all the fuss about evolution.

-tomas-
I agree. I'll know what's up when I'm dead.


-maestro-
Does anybody know of philosophers before Darwin discussing this idea?

-tomas-
Abraham Lincoln had talked some about it.

Abe and Chuck were born the same day, and the same year.

Only Abe had his life cut short by his wife, with a .41 caliber to the left earlobe.

PS - Pscho wives do that sort of thing, witness Jackie offing Jack with a .41 caliber to the left earlobe, too. Jack and Abe's sons didn't leave any sons to carry on their names. The lord works in mysterious ways..
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Is evolution surpising

Post by Tomas »

Steven Coyle wrote:if one is able, the mind can open to what some call the 'archives' - the purposeful 'memory banks' - the once cocaine like memories open to a more beautiful lattice, with divine intent.
The once-only cocaine experience [bolivian flake] for me was that I found myself standing on a kitchen table and the room had a tint of blue to it. The kitchen table wasn't high enough for a lattice, much less a stairway to heaven.

Galapagos Islands, here we come :-)
Don't run to your death
Locked