Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Evolution / Creationism / Intelligent Design

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

If, by "prove", you mean that we would have to go back in time to see species changing into others, of course we cannot prove speciation in that way! That is impossible. This doesn't mean that extant species have not left evidence of speciation: we have the fossil record, changes in morphology, and DNA evidence.

Unfortunately, even if you *could* do the impossible and browse through time "directly" to show speciation taking place, it still wouldn't be enough for religionists. They are, after all, used to evading the direct evidence of their senses, much less higher level cognitive functions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask your biology professor, if all species evolved from a common amoeba, why is there only one species able to adapt the environment to himself. All other species adapt to the environment.

Statistically, there should be several or many species that evolved to a higher level of intelligence. Think about this for a moment with an open mind.

Hmmm?

Obviously, you have never seen a beaver's dam.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stove. If you take a mean temperature of the universe known to man it is colder than my stove.

The universe is also bigger than any part it contains. Simply because it contains all the other stuff, too, like me for example.

There is no such thing as the mean temperature of the universe. There is only the mean temperature of some of its existents. There are many existents in the universe that do not possess the attribute of "temperature", such as electromagnetic radiation. It makes no more sense to speak of the mean temperature of the universe than it does to speak of the mean wavelength of the universe -- these are attributes of entities, that do not necessarily apply to collections of entities.

The fallacy you are committing is the fallacy of composition, which is the unwarranted assumption that the group or the whole possess all of the characteristics of its parts. As an example, consider a collection of money that includes both coins and dollar bills. The coins are rigid; the bills are non-rigid. The collection, however, is not both rigid and non-rigid. The collection is neither, since rigid and and non-rigid apply to the existents, not to a collection of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as the mean temperature of the universe. There is only the mean temperature of some of its existents. There are many existents in the universe that do not possess the attribute of "temperature", such as electromagnetic radiation. It makes no more sense to speak of the mean temperature of the universe than it does to speak of the mean wavelength of the universe -- these are attributes of entities, that do not necessarily apply to collections of entities.

The fallacy you are committing is the fallacy of composition, which is the unwarranted assumption that the group or the whole possess all of the characteristics of its parts. As an example, consider a collection of money that includes both coins and dollar bills. The coins are rigid; the bills are non-rigid. The collection, however, is not both rigid and non-rigid. The collection is neither, since rigid and and non-rigid apply to the existents, not to a collection of them.

Gravity has no temperature, too. Fields don't have temperatures. But it is irrelevant to the temperature-question. Every existent is made out of quarks. They don't have a temperature, because at that level the term temperature becomes meaningless. So if you isolate every quark in my stove, you cannot say that it has a temperature, because the quarks it consists of have none.

You cannot attribute a wavelength to the universe, because at that scale the concept of wavelength becomes meaningless. Even humans don't have wavelength, because already there it becomes pointless. But here concepts like temperature find meaning and they don't lose it if you expand your focus, even to the entire universe. There are electromagnetic waves coming through the window next to me. I don't have to care about them because they are irrelevant for the question. Still the glass has a temperature.

My processor is hot even though the voltage isn't. I see no problem at all.

The coin-example didn't mention how the dollar bills and the coins are arranged. For a loosely arranged bunch of coins and bills, I would measure the rigidity of the bills and the coins separately and then I can calculate a mean based on volume or weight. If you have them glued together, they are as rigid as the weakest link. You have to further define what you mean by rigidity.

For the temperature of the universe you have to define that you want the mean temperature.

But if I throw a bunch of ice cubes into my glass of orange juice, this arrangement does have a temperature and I can calculate the mean temperature despite any gravity or electromagnetic fields that may be in the glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gravity has no temperature, too. Fields don't have temperatures. But it is irrelevant to the temperature-question. Every existent is made out of quarks. They don't have a temperature, because at that level the term temperature becomes meaningless. So if you isolate every quark in my stove, you cannot say that it has a temperature, because the quarks it consists of have none.
All of which proves that the concept "temperature" has meaning only in certain contexts, i.e. only when applied to entities that possess that attribute. The universe is not an entity, so it cannot be one of the entities to which the concept of temperature applies.

You can say, "The mean temperature of all the matter that we have managed to measure is X degrees." Likewise, you can say, "The mean wavelength of all the radiation that we have managed to measure is X nanometers." That does not mean that the universe has a temperature and a wavelength.

You cannot attribute a wavelength to the universe, because at that scale the concept of wavelength becomes meaningless. Even humans don't have wavelength, because already there it becomes pointless. But here concepts like temperature find meaning and they don't lose it if you expand your focus, even to the entire universe.
This is a selective application of the fallacy of composition. You rule out the notion of the universe having a wavelength because it contains existents to which the concept of wavelength does not apply. But you arbitrarily insist that it can have a temperature, despite the fact that it contains existents to which the concept of temperature does not apply.

At this point, you have given good examples of the things to which the concepts of temperature and wavelength can apply -- and you have given good examples of the things to which these terms can not apply. What you have not done is show why either of these terms should apply to a collection that includes all of the things you have mentioned, the things to which the concepts apply and the things to which they do not apply. This is a textbook example of the fallacy of composition.

There are electromagnetic waves coming through the window next to me. I don't have to care about them because they are irrelevant for the question. Still the glass has a temperature.

My processor is hot even though the voltage isn't. I see no problem at all.

You see no problem because you do not grasp the distinction between an existent, which has a metaphysical existence and attributes of its own, versus a collection, which has only an epistemological existence and does not have a separate, metaphysical existence (apart from the enitities it comprises) and which cannot, therefore, be ascribed the characteristics of an existent.

The coin-example didn't mention how the dollar bills and the coins are arranged. For a loosely arranged bunch of coins and bills, I would measure the rigidity of the bills and the coins separately and then I can calculate a mean based on volume or weight. If you have them glued together, they are as rigid as the weakest link. You have to further define what you mean by rigidity.
This does not deserve much of a response. I think it is quite clear what rigidity means in this example. The point is that it is non-sense to say that the money collection is simultaneously rigid and non-rigid. The fact that you can glue the pieces of money together or measure the rigidity and calculate a mean changes nothing. It is still non-sense to speak of the collection as being simultaneously rigid and non-rigid.

But I will simplify it even further. Here is the essence of your error. The number 2 is even. The number 3 is odd. If we put them together in a collection, we will have the number 5. According to your argument, 5 is both odd and even. Or, 5 is 50% even and 50% odd.

For the temperature of the universe you have to define that you want the mean temperature.

But if I throw a bunch of ice cubes into my glass of orange juice, this arrangement does have a temperature and I can calculate the mean temperature despite any gravity or electromagnetic fields that may be in the glass.

So what? This issue is not what you can measure and calculate about any particular existents. The issue is whether you can ascribe the attributes of entities to things that are not entities, like the universe. You cannot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe is not an entity, so it cannot be one of the entities to which the concept of temperature applies.

I think this is one of the problems in our discussion. Please say, what is the difference between an entity and a non-entity? And how do you know it?

You can say, "The mean temperature of all the matter that we have managed to measure is X degrees." Likewise, you can say, "The mean wavelength of all the radiation that we have managed to measure is X nanometers." That does not mean that the universe has a temperature and a wavelength.

Actually this is not what I meant. The wavelength of a molecule is not the mean of the wavelength of its atoms. It's possible to calculate the wavelength of a human being, but it has no use. This doesn't make it a fallacy.

I think it is quite clear what rigidity means in this example. The point is that it is non-sense to say that the money collection is simultaneously rigid and non-rigid. The fact that you can glue the pieces of money together or measure the rigidity and calculate a mean changes nothing. It is still non-sense to speak of the collection as being simultaneously rigid and non-rigid.

It was absolutely not clear what rigidity meant in the example. And I didn't say that the collection was both rigid and non-rigid. Either something is or it isn't. The problem is that the question 'Is this collection rigid?' was a misuse of the word rigid, it was a floating abstraction. I just put it back on two feet to give some answer to this question.

5 is odd. Just like the molecule has a different wavelength than the mean of its atoms.

What I am saying is that sometimes this 'Saying something about all the stuff' makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. And if it doesn't you have to specify what you say. You can say that my kitchen is colder than my stove because it consists mainly of air having room temperature. All I am saying is that by the same argument you can say that the universe, consisting mainly of empty space (which is cold), is colder than my stove. Where's the problem? It was a simple induction. The problem must have something to do with this "The universe is no entity"-argument that I don't understand.

And I still don't understand what's wrong with my examples. The glass of orange juice has a temperature just like my window does. Here I don't have to take into account any fields. Why when I speak about the universe? In both cases I just ommit the field stuff because it is irrelevant. Maybe our concepts of what the universe is are different. I still try to understand, but I just can't.

This is a textbook example of the fallacy of composition.

:ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is one of the problems in our discussion. Please say, what is the difference between an entity and a non-entity? And how do you know it?

A single entity is a preceptual concrete which is differentiated from other perceptual concretes by an essential difference. The concept "universe" refers to every entity that exists. "Universe" is a concept, not an entity.

Please let me know if there is anything here I've failed to mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single entity is a preceptual concrete which is differentiated from other perceptual concretes by an essential difference. The concept "universe" refers to every entity that exists. "Universe" is a concept, not an entity.

Please let me know if there is anything here I've failed to mention.

But why isn't the universe not an entity? If I take some parts and build a robot, I have taken entities to build a new entity. Now the universe is all the entities that exist taken together. That's an entity, too, isn't it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why isn't the universe not an entity? If I take some parts and build a robot, I have taken entities to build a new entity. Now the universe is all the entities that exist taken together. That's an entity, too, isn't it?

Ask yourself this:

"What is it that we may differentiate the Universe from perceptually?"

In the case with the robot, sure you create a sum from the parts but the reason you call it a 'robot' is to differentiate it from any other arrangement of those parts.

Again, are you able to apply that to the concept of 'Universe?' No, because there is nothing to differentiate it from perceptually. The Universe is everything you can possibly perceive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this:

"What is it that we may differentiate the Universe from perceptually?"

In the case with the robot, sure you create a sum from the parts but the reason you call it a 'robot' is to differentiate it from any other arrangement of those parts.

Again, are you able to apply that to the concept of 'Universe?' No, because there is nothing to differentiate it from perceptually. The Universe is everything you can possibly perceive.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So an entity must be perceptually differentiated from something else. Good, if we take that definition, then the universe is not an entity because there exists nothing to differentiate it from except nonexistence but that doesn't count because it doesn't exist (Which leads to the interesting question if empty space exists, but I digress).

Is an electromagnetic field an entity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is an electromagnetic field an entity?
Yes.

The term "entity" has several meanings, depending on context. The primary meaning (for purposes of this discussion) is as follows: "An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence, as against a quality, an action, a relationship. etc., which are simply aspects of an entity that we separate out by specialized focus. An entity is a thing." (Peikoff, The Lexicon, page 146)

An entity has a real, metaphysical existence. A concept that refers to a collection of entities does not. For example, consider the concept "society". While the concept is useful, there is no such entity as "society". All that actually exists (in this context) are individual human beings.

There are certain attributes that apply to individual human beings that do not apply to the concept, “society”. For instance, one cannot refer to the sex of a society; sex is a characteristic of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” to be male or female. Likewise, one cannot refer to the mind of society; the mind is an attribute of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” that possesses a mind.

One can measure certain attributes of individual members of a collection and refer to an average. For instance, one can say the average age in a particular society is 45 years.

But such statements have no meaning when one measures a property possessed by some members of the collection but not by others. It would make no sense to say, society is an average of 4.5 months pregnant. Society cannot be pregnant. Only individual females can be pregnant.

Like the concept “society”, the concept “universe” refers not to an entity, but to a vast collection of entities. The wider and more disparate the nature of the entities subsumed by a collection, the less you can say about the collection as a whole. When you use a term that refers to all entities – living and non-living, matter and energy, nano-scale and galactic scale – about all you can say about the collection is that it includes everything that exists, it possesses identity, it follows natural law, etc.

Attributes of individual human beings, like sex and mind, are not attributes of the collection “society”. Likewise, attributes of individual existents are not attributes of the collection that includes all existents: the universe. The universe does not have a wavelength, a temperature, a color, an orbital velocity, a sex, a lifespan, a career, a consciousness – or any of a whole host of properties that apply only to entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certain attributes that apply to individual human beings that do not apply to the concept, “society”. For instance, one cannot refer to the sex of a society; sex is a characteristic of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” to be male or female. Likewise, one cannot refer to the mind of society; the mind is an attribute of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” that possesses a mind.

Now I got it. So the universe is just a concept like society. And as such, it doesn't have certain properties at all, like volume or weight. Is that the argument?

I thank you, too.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with a similar topic. - sN ***

 

After following the recent debate in this paper concerning evolution, I am amazed by how little the opponents of evolution actually know about it. What amazes me even more is that they would wish to flaunt this lack of knowledge to the whole world with statements such as "If evolutions really happened why are there still monkeys?" The fact that evolution states that humans and other modern primates are cousins and descended from a common ancestor, not one from the other, is readily available information. In light of the fact that there is no lack of information available on evolution on the Net, there can only be two reasons why people who wish to debate evolution are not properly educated about it. One is willful ignorance and the second is that they don't know where to look. Of course nothing can be done about the first, as the old cliché goes, one can lead a horse to water but can not make him drink; So, I will address the second possibility. www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution provides information on, to name a few, the fossil record, transitional forms of animals, the evolution of the eye, case studies of animals, and many videos. There is FAQ that includes the answers to questions like "Did we evolve from monkeys?", "Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?", and "What is "intelligent design," and is it science?" The National Academies (www.nationalacademies.org) also provides reports, statements and research papers on evolution. If the opponents of evolution were to research just the two aforementioned websites they would find that evolution is supported with volumes of experimental evidence and that intelligent design has “not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community.”

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most importantly, Wallace avoided personifying the principle, so that it remained a process, rather than a force. This allowed him to avoid the teleological thinking that still bedevils adherents of Darwin's "natural selection." In fact, Wallace later (1866) wrote a letter to Darwin on just this point, suggesting that Darwin substitute Spencer's "survival of the fittest" for "natural selection":

See the comments after the linked article by A.R.Wallace.

That phrase ["survival of the fittest"] should be used cautiously in evolutionary biology.

I used "survival of the fittest" because according to John Reiss that was Wallace's preferred term. Wallace was co-discoverer of "Darwinian" evolution and does not get as much credit as he deserves.

What is the nature of your reservation about "survival of the fittest"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
What is the nature of your reservation about "survival of the fittest"?

My reservation is that the term "fit" brings certain images to mind in most people: that of a strong, physically fit, healthy individual. The term fitness is used a lot in biology, but it doesn't mean physically fit in this sense. The fittest are those with genotypes that allow them to be the best adapted to the conditions at hand and thus have the greatest resources for reproduction.

This is why the allele for sickle cell anemia stays in African populations: there is a fitness advantage of individuals heterozygous for this allele. It confers protection against malaria. Those who are homozygous for the sickle cell allele will die of sickle cell anemia. Those who are homozygous with two normal alleles will die or malaria. Those individuals who only have one allele for sickle cell anemia and a normal allele (heterozygous) are healthy and do not have sickle cell, nor will they die from malaria.

I agree that Wallace doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. My reservation is relatively small - only that people understand what they're talking about. We have a similar problem, as you noted, with the term "natural selection" since people see it is a force, and thus they think that something or someone must be behind that force. aaargh!

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this:

"What is it that we may differentiate the Universe from perceptually?"

In the case with the robot, sure you create a sum from the parts but the reason you call it a 'robot' is to differentiate it from any other arrangement of those parts.

Again, are you able to apply that to the concept of 'Universe?' No, because there is nothing to differentiate it from perceptually. The Universe is everything you can possibly perceive.

Isn't the concept of 'Universe' differentiated from any subset of its parts? i.e. a galaxy isn't a universe.

Now I got it. So the universe is just a concept like society. And as such, it doesn't have certain properties at all, like volume or weight. Is that the argument?

The universe does have properties, such as mass, volume, overall energy state, hubble parameter, speed of light, plank length, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those apply to the universe itself. They are all properties and measurements between various existents inthe universe. I.e., time is not a property or nor does it actually apply to the universe itself, but between events that take place within it. Size does not apply to the universe, the universe is finite and unbounded, but apply's to existents in the universe. Existent's in the universe have mass, but the universe itself does not. And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people (intelligent design followers and creationists in particular) marvel at how perfectly tuned the universe is to life. i.e. if the Hubble parameter was a little higher, atoms wouldn't be able to hold together, or if it were lower, the universe would collapse on itself. The charge of an electron must also be what it is for atoms to work and molecules to form. I read there are six such constants (at least) which must be exactly what they are otherwise the universe wouldn't be able to produce the phenomenon that it has, including life. The theory is that there are countless universes which all have different values for these constants, and the only universes that can harbor life are the few that just happen to have these constants set right.

So in that sense those six (or more) constants are properties of a universe.

Time is one of the properties of a universe. I don't mean the current date and time of a universe - that's meaningless. I mean that a universe has time at all. Time is an imaginary (in the mathematical sense) axis, as opposed to the spatial axis. The trace of a flat-space matrix is [-1,1,1,1,...] where the ones are the x,y,z axis, and the -1 is the time axis. Depending on what theory you subscribe to, there may be more elements. The sign of these elements have profound implications to how the universe works. Why does our universe behave the way it does? Because of its properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reservation is that the term "fit" brings certain images to mind in most people: that of a strong, physically fit, healthy individual.

The accuracy of the phrase doesn't rest on the misconceptions of those who imagine it wrong. I would assert that the "fittest" in that phrase is contextual to that which is surviving and in what conditions and environment it must survive. What constitutes the needs for man's survival may be entirely different than what affords a some other species or things survival. Certainly adaptability is frequently a "strength" in the survival process.

[Edit - "Fitness" to "Fittest" (doh!) - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just to add my two cents on this matter, as a former student of the Dominican order and devout Catholic whom supports the theory of evolution.

The primary arguement in favor of "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" rests pretty much on the arguement from Incredulity, which is always a losing arguement, and is a literal admission of intellectual ineptitude. Just because a mind is fascinated by the order in which things are built does not necessitate that they are designed, and it definately does not prove that they magically sprang up out of a void.

To understand that the universe is suitable to life is the admission that we are living in it, and that goes to the axiom of "existence exists". However, in order for things to adapt, develop, change, or evolve they must be in motion (physics). The optical cells that make up the eye and the bond that holds them together are not denegrated to the cause of chance with out a designer (unless one wishes to argue that the law of causality is itself a designer of sorts, and this would only hold up as an abstract analogy at best).

Furthermore, "Intelligent Design" suggests some sort of biological determinism, which as a proponent of free will I clearly reject. If we assume that God exists and that his will is supreme, (note: I am speaking hypothetically here, my own beliefs in God might suggest I was advertizing a non-Objectivist arguement, which are only welcome on the debate forum) there would be no contradictions in that will, hense science would serve to illuminate to the senses and the mind the true nature of the universe, which is the work by which any God's credibility as a creator would be measured.

The theory of evolution explains that things adapt to their environment, and this is self-evident from observing phenomena with the eyes, eyes which "according to the Intelligent Design/Creationist crowd" were given to us by God. To assert that our eyes and our minds decieve us when we utilize the clues of the universe to understand it's nature is to assert that it we somehow that we are getting away from understanding God by trying to understand him. It's patently absurd, and I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from those who think such contradictory thoughts.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...