|
Author
|
Topic: How has Darwinism persisted?
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. July 2006 23:37
Posted for John A. Davison.
I like titles presented as questions because that is what science is really supposed to be all about - answering questions. One cannot answer a question until it has been posed.
I have used this technique in the past with "Is evolution finished" and most recently, also in the current issue of Rivista di Biologia, "Do we have an evolutionary theory?"
You will note that I choose my words carefully. I do not question that it has persisted because that is self-evident, but rather how has that been possible?
I have the answer and here it is in abbreviated form.
Darwinism has persisted because it failed to recognize the nature of first causes. It is only natural to assume that results had causes and it the duty of the scientist to find and reveal those causes. At this science has been incredibly successful. Many examples are presented in medical science with the discovery of the causes, treatments and cures for hundreds of diseases. All of Chemistry has been revealed from the consideration of how atomic forces have caused molecules to have the structure and properties that they have. This is analytical science and it is great science.
But does this approach have limits beyond which it cannot DIRECTLY proceed? This is another very critical question and I will answer it with a resounding yes.
Those limits are met when we attempt to identify the causes of the tools with which we proceed.
I will use mathematics as an example. Mathematics has rightfully been described as "The Queen of the Sciences." Without math there could be no science, at least a science as we know it.
So here comes the moment of truth as it were. What is the cause of mathematics? More accurately we should ask - what WAS the cause of mathematics because it has always been there just waiting to be discovered. That discovery began with the Pythagoreans and continues to this day.
Mathematics has no discernable cause does it? Now what does this all have to do with evolution? It has everything to do with evolution because both ontogeny and phylogeny, like mathematics have no discernable cause.
And so we come to the answer to the question posed in my title.
Darwinism has persisted because it assumes a detectble, discernable cause, a cause which never existed. It even claims to tell us all about this non-existent cause. The cause is random changes in genes (mutations) coupled with nature acting to select which of these should survive. These two processes, genetic variation and selection, have been the sole means by which organisms have evolved.
Now what is the actual tangible evidence to support this model? That is another very good question by the way. That is what science is all about, asking questions and then trying to answer them. In this case the answers that emerge are very clear.
Natural selection first of all is very real. Its effect is to prevent change rather than to promote it. This was first recognized by Mivart and then subsequently and independently by Reginald C. Punnett and then Leo Berg.
So you see there are really two reasons that Darwinism has persisted.
The first I have already presented. It assumes a cause which never existed. The second reason it has persisted is because it has also assumed that no one ever existed who questioned the cause which never existed.
Like mathematics, both ontogeny and phylogeny never had exogenous causes. Both are manifestations of the expression of preformed pre-existent blocks of highly specific information which has been released over the millennia as part of a self-limiting process known as organic evolution, a phenomenon, my opinion, no longer in progress.
Everything we are now learning supports this interpretation which I have presented in summary form in my recent paper - "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis."
I would appreciate any constructve feed back, positive or negative which might be forthconing. I always like to try my ideas out before committing them to hard copy in a scientific journal.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. July 2006 23:39
Hi John. I beleive that this is the post you requested. I hardly consider myself qualified to thoroughly critique your work. I will say, however, that your point about there being on search for a cause to mathematics is obviously true, and highly intriguing. It seems that we are findind the absolute limits to science.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. July 2006 07:36
Thank you very much Bruce for reprinting my message. I am having problems typing with my fingers cramping up.
"Ascertainable truth is partial, piecemeal, uncertain and difficult."
Bertrand Russell
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. July 2006 19:07
I understand I am going to be readmitted at Uncommon Descent which I take to be a very good sign.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 08. September 2006 22:27
John
I rather think Darwinism is indeed much like mathematics. This is not to say I agree with your explanation of either.
Mathematics does not exist outside of our imagination. It is a virtual reality. It can be conceived through observation or not, but has no tangible connection to the physical world. If we accept a set of axioms, then we are free to construct any system we like based on those axioms and logical inference. Many systems so imagined are useful to make predictions concerning the real world and some are not. This is of no consequence to the pure mathematician. The only quality that might be construed as a cause of mathematics is faith. Yes, I said faith. Some measure of faith is involved in the acceptance of the axioms since they are taken without proof.
Darwinism, like any mathematical system, is based on a set of premises that are taken without proof. Some claim to have shown a number of these premises are false. I am not a student of biology; therefore I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of these claims. In any case the faith demonstrated by Darwinists is strong and not diluted by the findings of those on the “fringe” of science. They claim to make accurate predictions with respect to reality using their theory and I admit the purely logical inferences of Darwin’s ideas are at least tenable. The supposed cause is two fold: blind luck and brutal necessity. At the heart of these twins is faith once again. Let’s keep our fingers crossed these potentially terminating random mutations continue to combine for design-like life improving modifications; they might say.
As an aside John, if my statements do not ring true to you, then please remember they are just ideas and in no way meant as a personal attach on you. It is possible that you take yourself too seriously at times. Perhaps Brainstorms is not the place for Dave’s humor but you must admit the Santa letters are very funny.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. April 2007 17:07
Dear Mel
I have been very busy and just discovered that I failed to respond to your latest comment. I very definitely do not agree with your view on the status of mathematics. I believe that mathematics exists entirely independent of the human condition and was only discovered. I believe that is true also for all of science. Science is NOTHING BUT discovery of what is there and always was there. How I let your comment escape my attention is beyond me.
Much has happened in the interim. I was readmitted at Uncommon Descent only to be banned once again by DaveScot (David Springer). I can assure all that I will never be banned again from that forum or any other venue that finds it necessary to ban those who only voice dissenting opinions concerning matters about which little is known with certainty.
Thanks for your patience.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. April 2007 17:49
Of course John Davison's conception is very incentive. Even if Melvin Fox write opposite it will be contradicted by some observation:
Melvin Fox:
quote:
Mathematics does not exist outside of our imagination. It is a virtual reality. It can be conceived through observation or not, but has no tangible connection to the physical world.
And yet according very interesting outdoors research on lions:
Karen E. McComb, now at the University of Sussex, found that females would attempt to repel groups of tape-recorded females only when the real group outnumbered the taped invaders by at least two. Females can count, and they prefer a margin of safety. Numbers are a matter of life and death, ...
http://www.lionresearch.org/current/cooperation.html
Another point is of savants ability to count that trained mathematics cannot achieve however they train. According Snyder & Mitchell:
However, reports overtime about the ability of autistic savants to accurately guess large numbers of objects remain enigmatic (Scripture 1891; Sacks 1986; Treffert 2000). For instance, Oliver Sacks(1986) observed autistic twins who instantly guessed the exact number of matchsticksthat had just fallen on the floor,
saying in unison ``111''
Such an ability is very curious we are still unable to explain. Might be there are some other maths in our brain we are not aware of. Might be we use "unconsciously" arabic numbers not at all - btw. modern mathematics is based on arabic numbers that are "more fit" for calculation as previous roman ones.
The astonishing skills of savants have been suggested to be latent in everyone, but are not normally accessible without a rare form of brain impairment. We attempted to simulate such brain impairment in healthy people by directing low-frequency magnetic pulses into the left fronto-temporal lobe.
There are many secrets as to computanional ability of animals. Even Dawkins misused this computational ability to support his "selfish gene" conception.
On the other hand John Davison's thoughts on "prescribed evolution" seems to fit better to explain how structures of living world evolved.
---
According some description of savants they see "forms" even "colors" instead on "arabic numbers" when they compute. Anyway such a represetation of numbers seems to be more efficient in computational process that no matematician using arabic numbers can ever overtake as to quickness of giving correct results.
[ 05. April 2007, 18:27: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. April 2007 21:06
Thank you Martin. You remain my strongest ally and I yours.
"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."
Samuel Johnson
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. April 2007 05:49
Martin
It is obvious that we do not exist. This is an old story and the standard way that those with whom we disagree respond. George Bernard Shaw explained it this way -
"Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn."
I do not necessarily agree. Silence may also be the most perfect expression of fear. It is no accident that we have been banned from the same forums and for exactly the same reasons. We were critical of the "one true faith," Darwinian mysticism, every bit as much a religion as Christian fundamentalism. I have managed to be banned by both camps, no small feat.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. April 2007, 05:52: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cindy S. Clark
Member
Member # 5016
|
posted 29. April 2007 08:48
Apparently, I've come to the right place.
I call the zealots you've encountered (in your banning experiences) the "either/ors".
If my thoughts don't alarm anyone, I have to go back to the drawing board because, as a determinist/materialist proponent of ID, I'm pretty much "the enemy" wherever I go.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. April 2007 09:44
Cindy,
I don't see how anyone could support an ID science without recognizing that science deals with deterinistic causal relationships. However, there seem to be a lot of different concepts of materialisms, most of which are not compatible with scientific analysis.
Look forward to hearing your views.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2007 11:16
Cindy
Welcome to the vocal minority. It is the majority that is now silent. It is about time.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Cindy S. Clark
Member
Member # 5016
|
posted 29. April 2007 12:28
The "materialism" is my protest of the idea that man (mind) is "special" or otherwise not subject to the laws that govern the mechanism of which he is a part.
Science cannot, currently, test for materialism. That is true. But this is not due to the nature of materialism itself.
If something doesn't follow "physical laws", what is the most likely cause?
If a physical law appears to have been broken, it is assumed there is something wrong or strange or special about the thing that broke the law. It is not, usually, publicly considered that the fault may lie in man's understanding - or lack thereof - of physical laws.
We are so small and know so little...anything's possible. Including a purely physical mechanism following purely physical laws that would never be recognized by its human components in their current state of 5 senses & monthly McPaychecks. ID or no ID.
(Apologies for the rant.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Cindy S. Clark
Member
Member # 5016
|
posted 29. April 2007 12:34
Thanks, nosivad! Let me know if I get out of line.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. April 2007 19:34
Cindy
Everything is material or it wouldn't be there. It was only in the very beginning that it was necessary to implement the supernatural. I don't see how that can avoided. Only atheist Darwinians can manage to do that!
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, originally in italics.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 29. April 2007, 19:38: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic