The Evolution Thread

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 36927
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:15 pm

infidel wrote:
wosbald wrote:I'm sure that you can understand it, if you try. But here's a hint: The point of contention is not whether or not the manifestation of Forms change but, rather, that there are Forms. Knowable Forms.

Now, just try to integrate both Knowable Forms and Darwinism into a coherent Scientific paradigm. Try to explain the ghost in the machine without resorting to an ad hoc "'… and then a miracle happens' Postulate" which only finds traction in the "New Age meets Scientism" scientific fringes.
The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time figuring out why it even matters.
I'm not sure they are compatible but one can see the influence of Plato in the early assumptions made while the life forms were categorized in the early taxonomies.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:23 pm

UncleBob wrote:
infidel wrote:
wosbald wrote:I'm sure that you can understand it, if you try. But here's a hint: The point of contention is not whether or not the manifestation of Forms change but, rather, that there are Forms. Knowable Forms.

Now, just try to integrate both Knowable Forms and Darwinism into a coherent Scientific paradigm. Try to explain the ghost in the machine without resorting to an ad hoc "'… and then a miracle happens' Postulate" which only finds traction in the "New Age meets Scientism" scientific fringes.
The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time figuring out why it even matters.
I'm not sure they are compatible but one can see the influence of Plato in the early assumptions made while the life forms were categorized in the early taxonomies.
Yeah, I can see why people think in terms of Forms, but Reality has turned out to be a lot fuzzier than anyone knew.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 36927
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:25 pm

infidel wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
infidel wrote:
wosbald wrote:I'm sure that you can understand it, if you try. But here's a hint: The point of contention is not whether or not the manifestation of Forms change but, rather, that there are Forms. Knowable Forms.

Now, just try to integrate both Knowable Forms and Darwinism into a coherent Scientific paradigm. Try to explain the ghost in the machine without resorting to an ad hoc "'… and then a miracle happens' Postulate" which only finds traction in the "New Age meets Scientism" scientific fringes.
The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time figuring out why it even matters.
I'm not sure they are compatible but one can see the influence of Plato in the early assumptions made while the life forms were categorized in the early taxonomies.
Yeah, I can see why people think in terms of Forms, but Reality has turned out to be a lot fuzzier than anyone knew.
I believe I-D said it best:
IrishDane wrote:Yep.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20234
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:45 pm

+JMJ+
infidel wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
infidel wrote:
wosbald wrote:I'm sure that you can understand it, if you try. But here's a hint: The point of contention is not whether or not the manifestation of Forms change but, rather, that there are Forms. Knowable Forms.

Now, just try to integrate both Knowable Forms and Darwinism into a coherent Scientific paradigm. Try to explain the ghost in the machine without resorting to an ad hoc "'… and then a miracle happens' Postulate" which only finds traction in the "New Age meets Scientism" scientific fringes.
The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time figuring out why it even matters.
I'm not sure they are compatible but one can see the influence of Plato in the early assumptions made while the life forms were categorized in the early taxonomies.
Yeah, I can see why people think in terms of Forms, but Reality has turned out to be a lot fuzzier than anyone knew.
Fuzziness is not what matters. What matters is our direct onto-epistemological participation with the external Object, not whether our categorization of Forms is exhaustively precise. What matters is our ability to categorize – to determine the Object and to reflect upon our participation (encounter) with it. It is this which is not smoothly synthesized with Darwinism on the Human plane.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 36927
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:10 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Rusty
In Memoriam
Posts: 25059
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Post by Rusty » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:55 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
infidel wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
infidel wrote:
wosbald wrote:I'm sure that you can understand it, if you try. But here's a hint: The point of contention is not whether or not the manifestation of Forms change but, rather, that there are Forms. Knowable Forms.

Now, just try to integrate both Knowable Forms and Darwinism into a coherent Scientific paradigm. Try to explain the ghost in the machine without resorting to an ad hoc "'… and then a miracle happens' Postulate" which only finds traction in the "New Age meets Scientism" scientific fringes.
The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time figuring out why it even matters.
I'm not sure they are compatible but one can see the influence of Plato in the early assumptions made while the life forms were categorized in the early taxonomies.
Yeah, I can see why people think in terms of Forms, but Reality has turned out to be a lot fuzzier than anyone knew.
Fuzziness is not what matters. What matters is our direct onto-epistemological participation with the external Object, not whether our categorization of Forms is exhaustively precise. What matters is our ability to categorize – to determine the Object and to reflect upon our participation (encounter) with it. It is this which is not smoothly synthesized with Darwinism on the Human plane.
I think the argument doesn't hold water. Darwin was puzzled by all the variations in the same species across islands. It's not like species are fixed and that is evident. If you were a field naturalist arguing this it would be different because you would be bringing in the world. Instead you're making assumptions about world with no evidence whatsoever.

This strike me a bit like arguing that the world is composed of platonic solids vs. calculus and a world of change.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:33 am

wosbald wrote:What matters is our direct onto-epistemological participation with the external Object, not whether our categorization of Forms is exhaustively precise. What matters is our ability to categorize – to determine the Object and to reflect upon our participation (encounter) with it. It is this which is not smoothly synthesized with Darwinism on the Human plane.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Humans categorize certain aquatic fowl as ducks. Just because today's ducks are descendants of yesterday's non-ducks doesn't change the fact that they are today's ducks. Maybe it's the "Human plane" that isn't smoothly synthesized with reality.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
John-Boy
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
Posts: 33275
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:00 pm
Contact:

Post by John-Boy » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:43 am

For a thread about evolution, this hasn't really changed much.
Praying - coco
Sometimes memes can be helpful as well as humorous - Jocose
Yer mom is kindhearted and well respected in her community - JMG
And when I am sitting on my new saddle, I will know that my weight is resting upon the collective minds of CPS - GaryinVa

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20234
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:26 am

+JMJ+
infidel wrote:
wosbald wrote:What matters is our direct onto-epistemological participation with the external Object, not whether our categorization of Forms is exhaustively precise. What matters is our ability to categorize – to determine the Object and to reflect upon our participation (encounter) with it. It is this which is not smoothly synthesized with Darwinism on the Human plane.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Humans categorize certain aquatic fowl as ducks. Just because today's ducks are descendants of yesterday's non-ducks doesn't change the fact that they are today's ducks. Maybe it's the "Human plane" that isn't smoothly synthesized with reality.
This brief article, from an atheist perspective no less, may help to explain my point.

The Core of 'Mind and Cosmos'
This is a brief statement of positions defended more fully in my book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False,” which was published by Oxford University Press last year. Since then the book has attracted a good deal of critical attention, which is not surprising, given the entrenchment of the world view that it attacks. It seemed useful to offer a short summary of the central argument.

The scientific revolution of the 17th century, which has given rise to such extraordinary progress in the understanding of nature, depended on a crucial limiting step at the start: It depended on subtracting from the physical world as an object of study everything mental – consciousness, meaning, intention or purpose. The physical sciences as they have developed since then describe, with the aid of mathematics, the elements of which the material universe is composed, and the laws governing their behavior in space and time.

We ourselves, as physical organisms, are part of that universe, composed of the same basic elements as everything else, and recent advances in molecular biology have greatly increased our understanding of the physical and chemical basis of life. Since our mental lives evidently depend on our existence as physical organisms, especially on the functioning of our central nervous systems, it seems natural to think that the physical sciences can in principle provide the basis for an explanation of the mental aspects of reality as well — that physics can aspire finally to be a theory of everything.

However, I believe this possibility is ruled out by the conditions that have defined the physical sciences from the beginning. The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.

So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. Further, since the mental arises through the development of animal organisms, the nature of those organisms cannot be fully understood through the physical sciences alone. Finally, since the long process of biological evolution is responsible for the existence of conscious organisms, and since a purely physical process cannot explain their existence, it follows that biological evolution must be more than just a physical process, and the theory of evolution, if it is to explain the existence of conscious life, must become more than just a physical theory.

This means that the scientific outlook, if it aspires to a more complete understanding of nature, must expand to include theories capable of explaining the appearance in the universe of mental phenomena and the subjective points of view in which they occur – theories of a different type from any we have seen so far …

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:53 am

wosbald wrote:This brief article, from an atheist perspective no less, may help to explain my point.

The Core of 'Mind and Cosmos'
So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. Further, since the mental arises through the development of animal organisms, the nature of those organisms cannot be fully understood through the physical sciences alone. Finally, since the long process of biological evolution is responsible for the existence of conscious organisms, and since a purely physical process cannot explain their existence, it follows that biological evolution must be more than just a physical process, and the theory of evolution, if it is to explain the existence of conscious life, must become more than just a physical theory.

This means that the scientific outlook, if it aspires to a more complete understanding of nature, must expand to include theories capable of explaining the appearance in the universe of mental phenomena and the subjective points of view in which they occur – theories of a different type from any we have seen so far …
This sounds suspiciously like something BW/GN posted once, perhaps from Aristotle, about "proving" the existence of Spirit or something along those lines, and it makes just as little sense to me. I don't see how the conclusion necessarily follows, and I'm not clear what any of it has to do with Forms.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
MacGuru
I'm a PC
I'm a PC
Posts: 4783
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Mouth of the Rat

Post by MacGuru » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:36 pm

This all sounds to be headed in a metaphysical direction- questioning natural selection and competition for resources as not singularly causative for creating the variety of forms seen, because the approach is not regarded as holistic enough to encompass all possible eventualities. This is a fruitless pursuit at best.

Adaptation creates form. Form follows function. Therefore, forms are not subject to a metaphysical "why" - they are simply adaptations of a fixed template that allows a given creature to better compete for resources, and in so doing to be significantly more likely to survive and pass along genes. That's it. That's the entire raison d'etre of forms: a chicken is merely an egg's way of creating another egg.

And if we are to really attempt to parse "why" into the equation of sexual selection and adaptation to environmental pressures, the discussion is doomed to failure from the outset simply because "why" is a subjective question with subjective answers.
"If you get that you're cooler than MacGuru. And nobody's that cool."- LushMojo

Meh Meh Meh.

User avatar
AFRS
Darth Floof-Floof
Darth Floof-Floof
Posts: 9992
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: University of Mars

Post by AFRS » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:09 pm

John-Boy wrote:For a thread about evolution, this hasn't really changed much.
AFRS approves of this post.

User avatar
MacGuru
I'm a PC
I'm a PC
Posts: 4783
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Mouth of the Rat

Post by MacGuru » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:39 pm

AFRS wrote:
John-Boy wrote:For a thread about evolution, this hasn't really changed much.
AFRS approves of this post.
It's not evolution, we're merely adapting to the environmental pressures of a long-dead horse being beaten.
"If you get that you're cooler than MacGuru. And nobody's that cool."- LushMojo

Meh Meh Meh.

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 22448
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Post by Thunktank » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:32 pm

MacGuru wrote:
AFRS wrote:
John-Boy wrote:For a thread about evolution, this hasn't really changed much.
AFRS approves of this post.
It's not evolution, we're merely adapting to the environmental pressures of a long-dead horse being beaten.
Except that the so called"dead horse" is still stubbornly kicking with it's last breaths.

User avatar
MacGuru
I'm a PC
I'm a PC
Posts: 4783
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Mouth of the Rat

Post by MacGuru » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:52 pm

Thunktank wrote:
MacGuru wrote:
AFRS wrote:
John-Boy wrote:For a thread about evolution, this hasn't really changed much.
AFRS approves of this post.
It's not evolution, we're merely adapting to the environmental pressures of a long-dead horse being beaten.
Except that the so called"dead horse" is still stubbornly kicking with it's last breaths.
There is still some discussion as to whether the horse's flagellants evolved their beating method through adaptation, or whether their arguments are a result of irreducibly complex hand-stick-horse techniques.
"If you get that you're cooler than MacGuru. And nobody's that cool."- LushMojo

Meh Meh Meh.

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 22148
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Post by Jocose » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:42 am

Basashi?
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS

"Other vessels will work, but the idealality of the Spam can cannot be contested." ~ JimVH

"The yutz is silly Jocose. I have him foed yet still have to view his stupid and annoying thread titles." ~ Goose55

User avatar
AFRS
Darth Floof-Floof
Darth Floof-Floof
Posts: 9992
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: University of Mars

Post by AFRS » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:09 am

Systematic Horseology

User avatar
John-Boy
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
Posts: 33275
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:00 pm
Contact:

Post by John-Boy » Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:26 am

Image
Praying - coco
Sometimes memes can be helpful as well as humorous - Jocose
Yer mom is kindhearted and well respected in her community - JMG
And when I am sitting on my new saddle, I will know that my weight is resting upon the collective minds of CPS - GaryinVa

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:11 pm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-bri ... al-flings/
“These results suggest that women may acquire genetic benefits for offspring by selecting musicians able to create more complex music as sexual partners,” Charlton concludes in the paper, published this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. He notes that music likely evolved for other reasons too, such as strengthening social ties. But the study affirms that sexual selection played a role, just like Darwin thought. And the more that women favored musically sophisticated men, the more complex music became over time, the study suggests.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:16 pm

Thunktank wrote:
MacGuru wrote:
AFRS wrote:
John-Boy wrote:For a thread about evolution, this hasn't really changed much.
AFRS approves of this post.
It's not evolution, we're merely adapting to the environmental pressures of a long-dead horse being beaten.
Except that the so called"dead horse" is still stubbornly kicking with it's last breaths.
'e's not dead, 'e's restin'
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

Post Reply