Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 27, 2019, 01:34:51 PM
-
Spotted on another board/thread on this forum.
''There are few ideas that have the range and depth across the science spectrum as evolution.''
Across the science spectrum? Biology maybe.
-
Spotted on another board/thread on this forum.
''There are few ideas that have the range and depth across the science spectrum as evolution.''
Across the science spectrum? Biology maybe.
Seems a reasonable opinion - particularly as the quote says few and not no others. And don't forget that the molecular mechanisms underpinning evolution represent fundamental chemistry and physics so evolution, in its entirety, has far wider reach than just biology.
-
Indeed, not to mention its links to geology via deep time and the fossil record, and cosmology through environmental drivers such as the moon, solar cycles, meteor imapcts etc
Evolution is a biggie... no doubt about that
-
Seems a reasonable opinion - particularly as the quote says few and not no others. And don't forget that the molecular mechanisms underpinning evolution represent fundamental chemistry and physics so evolution, in its entirety, has far wider reach than just biology.
But that means evolution is dependent on molecular mecanism and as you say fundemental physics and chemistry.......but......these things are not dependent on evolution.
All we are left with is niche ultradarwinianism.
-
Indeed, not to mention its links to geology via deep time and the fossil record, and cosmology through environmental drivers such as the moon, solar cycles, meteor imapcts etc
Evolution is a biggie... no doubt about that
Again evolution is dependent on the wide ranging influence of these things and not the other way around.
-
Again evolution is dependent on the wide ranging influence of these things and not the other way around.
Rather simplistic I think, the reality lies in the interconnectedness of nature and natural systems and evolution is central to much of that interconnectedness. For example, climate change can provide intense selection pressures shaping life, but the converse is also true, for an example the Carboniferous resulted directly from the evolution of lignin. And for a more modern example, the Anthropocene is a direct result of the evolution of homo sapiens.
-
Rather simplistic I think, the reality lies in the interconnectedness of nature and natural systems and evolution is central to much of that interconnectedness. For example, climate change can provide intense selection pressures shaping life, but the converse is also true, for an example the Carboniferous resulted directly from the evolution of lignin. And for a more modern example, the Anthropocene is a direct result of the evolution of homo sapiens.
Ultradarwinian poetic hyperbole.
Those processes which give rise to evolution are not dependent on it and moreover the universe it seems holds huge tracts in which evolution does not occur.
Evolution is therefore not central to interconnectedness since ecology does not apply to fundemental physics or chemistry.
You are confusing the succour the notion evolution gives to people who,like Krauss, want a Godless universe with the genuine significance of evolution......I would hazard.
-
Gibberish
-
But that means evolution is dependent on molecular mecanism and as you say fundemental physics and chemistry.......but......these things are not dependent on evolution.
All we are left with is niche ultradarwinianism.
That we are having this conversation is dependent on evolution - sounds quite significant to me.
-
That we are having this conversation is dependent on evolution - sounds quite significant to me.
But ask yourself this.What is it appealing to as far as you are concerned.
Universally speaking......it isnt.......as torrid don says......... "central".
-
But ask yourself this.What is it appealing to as far as you are concerned.
Universally speaking......it isnt.......as torrid don says......... "central".
Eh ??? Can you repeat in English please.
-
Ultradarwinian poetic hyperbole.
Those processes which give rise to evolution are not dependent on it and moreover the universe it seems holds huge tracts in which evolution does not occur.
Evolution is therefore not central to interconnectedness since ecology does not apply to fundemental physics or chemistry.
You are confusing the succour the notion evolution gives to people who,like Krauss, want a Godless universe with the genuine significance of evolution......I would hazard.
Well you would hazard wrongly in that case, what we have come to understand about the interconnectedness of Earth systems is from science, not from atheism. Nothing happens in isolation, changes in the biosphere inevitably lead to changes in atmosphere and changes in atmosphere lead to changes in the biosphere. For instance the evolution of cyanobacteria on primordial Earth led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere which in turn led to the evolution of oxygen-tolerant species like us. We find out these relationships from palaeontology, from paleo-climatology and geochemistry and so forth, we don't find them because Mr Krauss has declared it true. You need to get over your obsession with 'new atheists', it seems like that is the only lens through which you can understand the world and that is very limiting in a similar way to that in which millions of Republicans in the US are failing to engage with climate change because they can only see it through a political lens, associating climate change with Democrats. To see the bigger issue, we need to get past our pet prejudices.
-
Well you would hazard wrongly in that case, what we have come to understand about the interconnectedness of Earth systems is from science, not from atheism. Nothing happens in isolation, changes in the biosphere inevitably lead to changes in atmosphere and changes in atmosphere lead to changes in the biosphere. For instance the evolution of cyanobacteria on primordial Earth led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere which in turn led to the evolution of oxygen-tolerant species like us. We find out these relationships from palaeontology, from paleo-climatology and geochemistry and so forth, we don't find them because Mr Krauss has declared it true. You need to get over your obsession with 'new atheists', it seems like that is the only lens through which you can understand the world and that is very limiting in a similar way to that in which millions of Republicans in the US are failing to engage with climate change because they can only see it through a political lens, associating climate change with Democrats. To see the bigger issue, we need to get past our pet prejudices.
I think then that you make a greater case for photosynthesis to be the principal process rather than evolution.
-
I think then that you make a greater case for photosynthesis to be the principal process rather than evolution.
Photosynthesis is a product of evolution
-
Niche ultradarwinianism, what the hell is that?
-
Photosynthesis is a product of evolution
So you agree that the dependent process is less significant than that which it is dependent on.
-
Niche ultradarwinianism, what the hell is that?
The term ultradarwinianism was introduced to describe people who consider evolution as operative universally and beyond biology eg Dennett and Dawkins.
Dawkins advocates Smolin who has a Darwinian model of the multiverse.
I use the word niche with regard to these people to remind that the belief is not nor should be universal.
Those who hold the view are sometimes referred to as universal darwinians.
Here is Jay Goulds original article.Actually written prior to the New Atheist malarkey.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/
-
The term ultradarwinianism
Have you tried googling that word?
-
Have you tried googling that word?
Try this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
-
So you agree that the dependent process is less significant than that which it is dependent on.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, you can't really compare the myriad phenomena produced through evolutionary processes with the process of evolution itself. Not comparing like with like.
-
Try this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
Have you tried googling "ultradarwinianism"?
That was the question.....
::)
-
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, you can't really compare the myriad phenomena produced through evolutionary processes with the process of evolution itself. Not comparing like with like.
But you do agree with the title.
In what other area of science other than biology does Darwinian evolution occur?
And to come back to our point, It is not evolution which affects the abiotic component of any given ecological situation but the processes deriving from it.
The romance you and others have for evolution seems for you to embue it with mystical powers.
-
Have you tried googling "ultradarwinianism"?
That was the question.....
::)
Is that from Hamlet?
-
Is that from Hamlet?
Nice to see that you are consistently managing to complete reading my posts all the way to the end.
Is your narcolepsy improving?
Anyhoo, back to the original question......
-
But you do agree with the title.
In what other area of science other than biology does Darwinian evolution occur?
And to come back to our point, It is not evolution which affects the abiotic component of any given ecological situation but the processes deriving from it.
The romance you and others have for evolution seems for you to embue it with mystical powers.
I don't recognise 'romance' or 'mystical powers', I don't see where you get that from. Rather, the processes described are inevitable consequences deriving from fundamental forces of nature. In a purist sense, biological evolution only happens in biology but its value in interdisciplinary sciences derives from its interconnectedness with other fields of study, for instance a bigger picture of the history of Earth arises out of geology and biology combined when we look at geographic distributions of extant species in the light of our understanding of plate tectonics and geomagnetic dating. When dating techniques as remote from each other as biological clock and radioisotope dating show agreement then we can have much greater confidence in the conclusions. In a looser sense of the principal, evolution happens ubiquitously. Astronomers talk of stellar evolution and the evolution of galaxies. The Miller-Urey experiment opened our eyes to the concept of chemical evolution. These are all processes of evolution, or the development and emergences of patterns over time in non-living systems and again, there is no element of mysticism in these observations, the patterns emerge inevitably as a consequence of underlying physical principals. When a water droplet freezes into a beautiful symmetric snowflake, it is not magic, it is a manifestation of the laws of physics.
-
I don't recognise 'romance' or 'mystical powers', I don't see where you get that from. Rather, the processes described are inevitable consequences deriving from fundamental forces of nature. In a purist sense, biological evolution only happens in biology but its value in interdisciplinary sciences derives from its interconnectedness with other fields of study, for instance a bigger picture of the history of Earth arises out of geology and biology combined when we look at geographic distributions of extant species in the light of our understanding of plate tectonics and geomagnetic dating. When dating techniques as remote from each other as biological clock and radioisotope dating show agreement then we can have much greater confidence in the conclusions. In a looser sense of the principal, evolution happens ubiquitously. Astronomers talk of stellar evolution and the evolution of galaxies. The Miller-Urey experiment opened our eyes to the concept of chemical evolution. These are all processes of evolution, or the development and emergences of patterns over time in non-living systems and again, there is no element of mysticism in these observations, the patterns emerge inevitably as a consequence of underlying physical principals. When a water droplet freezes into a beautiful symmetric snowflake, it is not magic, it is a manifestation of the laws of physics.
Manifestation of the laws of physics or whatever is what I am arguing.
You are arguing the title.
Many of the examples you give in your post are not darwinian evolution.
Self replication is biology.
-
Manifestation of the laws of physics or whatever is what I am arguing.
You are arguing the title.
Many of the examples you give in your post are not darwinian evolution.
Self replication is biology.
Well even if you restrict the scope to darwinian biological evolution, the reach of the theory is still vast. If you are an epidemiologist, you cannot get by without understanding the principals of evolution. Likewise if you are a virologist or a cell biologist or a zoologist or a geneticist or a biochemist or a microbiologist or an ecologist or a doctor or a vet .... well you get the picture. There are few ideas with such reach and scope of application.
-
Well even if you restrict the scope to darwinian biological evolution, the reach of the theory is still vast. If you are an epidemiologist, you cannot get by without understanding the principals of evolution. Likewise if you are a virologist or a cell biologist or a zoologist or a geneticist or a biochemist or a microbiologist or an ecologist or a doctor or a vet .... well you get the picture. There are few ideas with such reach and scope of application.
All biological sciences.
Hardly argument for evolution fitting the title of the thread.
Or against my opening post.
-
The term ultradarwinianism was introduced to describe people who consider evolution as operative universally and beyond biology eg Dennett and Dawkins.
Dawkins advocates Smolin who has a Darwinian model of the multiverse.
I use the word niche with regard to these people to remind that the belief is not nor should be universal.
Those who hold the view are sometimes referred to as universal darwinians.
Here is Jay Goulds original article.Actually written prior to the New Atheist malarkey.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/
Just a point of information Stephen Jay Gould’s family name is Gould, not Jay Gould.