|
Author
|
Topic: the concept of evolution
|
Jakob Wolf
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 04. February 2003 07:42
There is a logic to the concept of evolution. It seems to me, that according to this logic Neodarwinism precludes evolution.
Evolution is a relational concept, something evolves from something. This means there must be a connection between the two things. But how do you establish this connection. It seems to me this is impossible to Neodarwinism.
When we say that the human being has evolved from the ape, we establish the connection between the ape and the human being by comparing them. But a comparison presupposes a structure,a type, a design. Evolution means that a new creation has come about, the human being, but still something is the same, you see the ape in the human being, you see a common structure.
Neodarwinism claims that structure and design is an illusion, but doesn´t that imply, that evolution is an illusion?
Structure is always conceptual. It implies intelligence. It seems to me you must presuppose design if you want to understand life as evolution. Otherwise it is impossible to connect phenomema separated in time and space.
Why is evolution such a popular idea? I think it is popular, becauce it corresponds to the way we understand life in our daily life. We understand things as variations of types. Neodarwinism does not support the idea of evolution, it undermines it. It supports the idea of life being a chaos of individually different things.
I think this is not what most Darwinists want. They want to support the idea of evolution. But if they want that, they have to admit that they pressupose design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 04. February 2003 11:20
I hope that the moderator will allow me to be the first one to respond to Jakob's comments. Althought they do not seem to propose a positive contribution to ID, they do seem to argue that since intelligence is required to understand 'X', 'X' must be intelligently designed. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of Jakob's claims, please correct me.
I am not sure where you are heading but if you want to argue that intelligence is required to analyze and observe evolution then you are right. Similarly it requires intelligence to understand the laws of nature but that does not mean that the laws of nature require intelligence.
I do not follow you when you state that Neo-Darwinism does not support the idea of evolution, could you be more specific how you reached this conclusion?
Evolution is in many ways a historical science in which one observe a pattern created by the mechanisms of evolution such as nested hierarchies, common ancestry, homologies, etc. Combined with the mechanisms of inheritance and variation one can formulate likely relationships.
All in all, your suggestions if logically extended, would assume that anything is intelligently 'designed' since intelligence is required to understand the relationships. I find such logic flawed for obvious reasons but perhaps this is not what you are trying to communicate. All that Darwinists have to presuppose is 'design of first life' whether through intelligent intervention or natural processes. The rest follows quite naturally
[ 04. February 2003, 11:25: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jakob Wolf
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 06. February 2003 14:25
I am sorry I am not very clear. I´ll try to reformulate my point;that Neodarwinism precludes evolution. Neodarwinism explains evolution by smal gradual changes. Small gradual changes result in big changes. This means that all organisms are just different from each other. They are not alike. Gradual change corresponds to to time sucession, and time succession separates before and after. Now my point is that evolution means that one organism has evolved from another, which means that the two organisms are not just different but are also alike. There is a relationship. They are related. In biology e.g. you talk about species and genera etc.The problem is, how do you establish this relation. What unites the two organisms? That which unites what time succession separates must transcend time succession. Neodarwinism precludes that becauce it can only operate with grudual changes.
I think only intelligent design theory can solve that problem, because design unites what is separated by time sucession. Organisms are related by design.
In philosophical terms my point is that neodarwinism supports nominalism and thereby precludes evolution. - Maybe I am just repeating an old point, but what I am aming at is to uncover how biology constantly unconsciously presupposes design. Now it just struck me that the concept of evolution is an example. Neodarwinism does not just preclude, that evolution has a direction, it precludes the concept of evoloution all together.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 06. February 2003 15:28
This will be (with the Moderator's forbearance) a short reference posting. Jakob asked quote:
In biology e.g. you talk about species and genera etc.The problem is, how do you establish this relation. What unites the two organisms?
I suggest you start here . Following up the references therein will lead you to further information regarding your questions.
As you read, note that the issue in common descent is not about the relation between two organisms, it is about the relationships among populations, groups of organisms.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 06. February 2003 23:56
Dear Jakob
I fail to see why and how Neo Darwinism presupposes design, unless we redefine the meaning of the word design.
Perhaps philosphy is beyond my reach but I fail to see any relevance in your comments. Perhaps you may want to take RBH's suggestion to look at some scientific works on common descent and let us know how this relates to your claims, although I still fail to understand them. But your conclusion that neo darwinism precludes the concept of evolution seems illogical since Neo Darwinism provides for the mechanisms of evolution to explain the historical facts.
What am I missing here?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jakob Wolf
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 07. February 2003 10:17
It is true my comment is philosophical. I´ll try to relate it more specific to scientic works on common descent at a later date.
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 07. February 2003 18:27
Jakob Woolf seems to me to be arguing against any sort of change. He says:
quote:
Gradual change corresponds to to(sic) time succession, and time separates before and after. Now my point is that evolution means that one organism has evolved from another, which means that the two organisms are not just different but are also alike. There is a relationship.
and
quote:
That which unites what time succession separates must transcend time succession.
If we are to deny evolution as change because evolution is a time series then any kind of cause and effect is also denied. Cause and effect are in a time succession and cause and effect are also "not just different but are also alike". An acorn and an oak tree are "not just different but are also alike". Does this mean that the oak tree is present within the acorn? If it does then there is no cause and effect, since the effect, the oak tree, is already present and there is no need to cause it as it is already caused. If the oak tree is not present within the acorn, then what is the connection between the two? Remember also that an acorn is not sufficient to cause an oak tree on its own. It needs soil, water, sunlight and so forth. With a web of relationships like this, all of which are at some level "the same" then we will soon be unable to distinguish anything from anything else by Jakob's logic. All change will be lost in a universal sea of sameness.
I disagree with Jakob, in that he seems to treat the world as basically static, with a veneer of change on the surface. I see the world as basically changing, with a veneer of stasis. He says "we understand things as variations of types". This leads him to make some errors in his treatment of evolution. A species is not a "type", certainly not in the philosophical sense. A species is a collection of unique individual organisms, each one different. A species has no real existence beyond the individual organisms that are in it, it is a mere collection. A species can often have fuzzy boundaries due to the variation among individuals. Is a tigon a lion or a tiger? Hardly a basis for a fixed "type". Jakob also seems to see evolution as working on individual organisms "one organism has evolved from another". Evolution works on populations, not on individuals. It is a group effect not an individual one. The continuity that Jakob seeks is present in the group which evolves, but the group is not a philosophical "type" which he seems to want to introduce.
Jakob says:
quote:
[Neodarwinism] supports the idea of life being a chaos of individually different things.
There is some loaded language in there, but basically this is correct. To me the world is best understood as a constantly changing flux of things interacting with each other in different ways.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jakob Wolf
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 10. February 2003 12:32
I am not arguing against any sort of change.
My point is to say that (your example) the oak tree is both completely different from the acorn and the same. The only way to solve the problem of evolution and common descent is to say so, I think. If we have to choose between "different" and "the same", the concept of evolution is impossible. It sounds paradoxical, but it is not more paradoxical than that is what we experience, when we experience growth. The idea of a variation of a type actually expreses the paradox of growth. The oak tree is at any point of the time succession a variation of the acorn or you may say the acorn is at any point of the time succession a variation of the oak tree. Variation means different, type means the same.
It is a misunderstanding to understand the type as a fixed thing. It is not fixed as for example a definition of a species, however that may be. You cannot define a type. A species is only an abstract approximation of the type, which can always be questioned. But what cannot be questioned is that something unites the separate, the type, I think. Lions are united by a type, and lions and tigers are united by a type. The point is that a type is not fixed.
Let us just say populations in stead of individuals, but what defines "the group"? Is that an abstraction, and if it is doesn´t actualle presuppose an undefined type?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic