Problems with evolution?

[Cargést]

So why are these "scientists" totally unable to philosophise?

[Galvanized]

the only 'problem' I see with the idea of natural selection is that it sort of leaves out the infinite amount of variables that play into adaptation

Why do you think it leaves these out?

The actual nature of things, for one, but that's assuming that you interpret natural selection from a positivist perspective, and by that I mean (to use simple terms) progressivism.

I found an amusing quotation earlier that relates to a few of the posts earlier in this thread:

"Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier and some people prefer it."

As was said earlier, this isn't informative in the least. I don't prefer philosophy, I use it for an entirely different goal than scientific research. Hell, not being a researcher, I don't really use scientific research, as in using the research directly. Philosophy is the organization of thought, for as a wise man once said in response to the superficial statement that all thought without action is wankery, 'All action without organized thought is disorganized, and thus wankery.'

[▓]

So why are these "scientists" totally unable to philosophise?

Unable? Perhaps they just have no need to philosophise.

Think: if you come to conclusions via Aristotelian logic, then your mind will already have created assumptions that may colour your own observations when you put them to the test in the real world.

[▓]

the only 'problem' I see with the idea of natural selection is that it sort of leaves out the infinite amount of variables that play into adaptation

Why do you think it leaves these out?

The actual nature of things, for one, but that's assuming that you interpret natural selection from a positivist perspective, and by that I mean (to use simple terms) progressivism.

I found an amusing quotation earlier that relates to a few of the posts earlier in this thread:

"Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier and some people prefer it."

As was said earlier, this isn't informative in the least. I don't prefer philosophy, I use it for an entirely different goal than scientific research. Hell, not being a researcher, I don't really use scientific research, as in using the research directly. Philosophy is the organization of thought, for as a wise man once said in response to the superficial statement that all thought without action is wankery, 'All action without organized thought is disorganized, and thus wankery.'

Galvanised, I would prefer it if you allowed Erosion to offer his own reasons for his post. Especially as yours is barely intelligible.

[Galvanized]

We're one and the same person, I just switched over to my laptop. I don't think there's anything unintelligible about my response. In fact, I think it's pretty simple. The organization of thought is the process of determining action; everyone does it, only some people do it on a more macro-cosmic scale (i.e. on a more long-term basis, in case you decide to nitpick) than others. I don't really want to imply that you're being an ideologue, but did you just say that my response is 'barely intelligible' because you feel you're on the defensive against everyone who doesn't outright agree with you?

As far as any sort of ideology coloring your perspective goes, I try to avoid that argument at all costs. The only reason I do so is because I don't like to assume that everyone who isn't 'on my side' willfully rejects what is proven to them to be irrefutably true with data, evidence, study, etc. Thing is, a lot of people like to accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them of doing this, and then attempting to gain support by implying that they do not do such a thing, which further implies that their conclusions must be infallible. I think this is a really subversive method of argument.

[▓]

We're one and the same person, I just switched over to my laptop. I don't think there's anything unintelligible about my response. In fact, I think it's pretty simple. The organization of thought is the process of determining action; everyone does it, only some people do it on a more macro-cosmic scale (i.e. on a more long-term basis, in case you decide to nitpick) than others. I don't really want to imply that you're being an ideologue, but did you just say that my response is 'barely intelligible' because you feel you're on the defensive against everyone who doesn't outright agree with you?

No I said it because it was entirely unrelated to your own claim that evolutionary science does not address a multitude of weakly-acting causal pathways that determine the success of a specific trait.

If you can show evidence of evolutionary theory disregarding certain variables that have a clear significance, then we will have made some progress.

[Galvanized]

No I said it because it was entirely unrelated to your own claim that evolutionary science does not address a multitude of weakly-acting causal pathways that determine the success of a specific trait.

If you can show evidence of evolutionary theory disregarding certain variables that have a clear significance, then we will have made some progress.

You got me all wrong, I said natural selection disregards these variables, and to put it simply, I was saying that the idea that all living organisms get better with time is ridiculous. I'm not denying that organisms change as they adapt to their environment, but I don't think that necessarily means that they become absolutely superior. They certainly do in that they become better suited to the environment at hand, but obviously adaptation isn't a static process, and obviously that seemingly superior adaptation is going to become inferior at some point, making that seemingly superior adaptation not absolutely superior. Sorry for the convoluted language. I think you tagged me as a creationist before you even attempted to read into what I was saying, because I made this statement really clear with my first post. Maybe your perspective is the one that's colored?

[Veritas]

Personally, I think the science of evolution is basically true. Sure, nothing science says is absolute - we all know that - but for what it is, I think it's good to use. Natural selection is pretty cool, and I think the stuff about genetic mutation is very interesting.

But why do we have to say that evolution actually happened, in the sense that it is used? I thought science was about trying to discover the laws of nature, not about conducting a macro-scale investigation of history. I think they should make it more clear that these are different things, and not tie them together.

[indjaseemun]

The Bible already knew evolution. How did it know that life started in water (the spirit of god moved on the waters). How did it know that first came the animals, and then man?

[Galvanized]

The creationism vs. evolution debate should be avoided. It's an utterly useless debate that does no good for scientific study and has absolutely nothing to do with theology.

[▓]

 I made this statement really clear with my first post.

You genuinely did not do that. What you have said in this recent post is that evolution is short-termist. I would agree with that. You have now clarified a part of what you were thinking, if not typing, earlier. But your earlier post said "the idea of natural selection leaves out...the infinite amount of variables that play into adaptation"


Now, that sounds very different to your clarification here. Earlier, you were talking about the "idea" (ie: the theory) leaving out details. Now you revise/clarify this to mean the process. These are different things entirely. All scientists can happily agree that evolutionary process can be flawed with comparable short-termist selections that can be damaging when the environment changes. But to transfer that flaw of the process onto a suggestion that the theory (ie the observation, cataloguing and explanation) is flawed would be wrong.

Maybe you were never attempting to do that, but if so the language used was incredibly misleading.

[Galvanized]

I don't think that my statement was misleading at all, as made evident by the fact that I pointed out that I was talking about natural selection and not the theory of evolution, and that my understanding of natural selection was that it was an evolutionary progressivism. Do I think the theory of evolution is flawed? No. Do I think that people use their probably faulty understanding of the theory of evolution as the basis for misguided progressive conclusions? Totally.

[Cargést]

So why are these "scientists" totally unable to philosophise?

Unable? Perhaps they just have no need to philosophise.

Think: if you come to conclusions via Aristotelian logic, then your mind will already have created assumptions that may colour your own observations when you put them to the test in the real world.

Ok.  From now on, I'll run everywhere.  Sure, I'll miss most of what I could observe while walking, because running requires that I pay more attention to what's in front of me than what's to the sides.  I may or may not let you know when I hit a wall - I may not even know myself, and may just start bashing into it repeatedly while failing to realise a way around it.  (I like this "Philosophy = Walking, 'Science' = Running" analogy.)

Conclusions require observation; observation results in conclusion.

Lolokay, the debate is certainly not worthwhile, as it arises from ▓ misunderstanding Erosion's minutely garbled writing style.

Can I subtly insult anyone else for no reason?

[JewishPhysics]

But why do we have to say that evolution actually happened

Well, for one because it did happen.  Second, we can observe the history of a species through its DNA.  Third, it would be completely retarded not to.  Why would we pretend to not know something that we do know?  That would seem to be the height of absurdity.

[Galvanized]

I don't have a problem with evolution, or saying it happened, but I do think that the manner in which people interpret the significance of the idea is a bit convoluted. People tend to think they can wrap up complex ideas such as the one being discussed into simple observations that bear little to no practical value.