Has Natural Selection Met Its Match?

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer


Continued belief in natural selection stems from our being taught it at school. But in reality, Darwinism is an old standard. Much has happened since then, which compounds the problem of evolution. Science has advanced since the 1800s.

Continued belief in the principle of evolution through means of natural selection stems from the fact that the overwhelming mass of evidence supports the idea that it occurs.The vast majority of evolutionary biologists accept that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution.What has happened since Darwin's day is that we now have a greater understanding of the mechanisms involved in the process of evolution-for example we understand about punctuated equilibrium-which explains the apparent spurts of evolutionary development of certain species over a short period of time which was revealed by the fossil record,however even punctuated equilibrium relies on natural selection.We have discussed Behe's book before on these boards when I pointed out various flaws in the arguments he put forward,and I recall that even he conceded that to a small degree Darwin has triumphed.Small degrees of change over eons of time are all that is necessary to bring about the emergence of new and distinct species,so even if,as Behe states,Darwin triumphs to a small degree his theory of natural selection has been validated not undermined.

[ScabbyDouglas]

If using our "own brains" means not reading books and never borrowing from them, then professors would not have lectures and research in science or philosophy would not be necessary. Are you prizing uneducation? I guess you are too lazy to read a book.
Unnecessary name-calling - Instance number 1 - "lazy"

But since you ask me to say something 'my own' without reference to a book, I will say this. I have observed a grouping of birds, all sitting on the field, and at the same time leaving up in the air and in the same direction. How is this possible under the model of Darwin? How could each bird know exactly when to get up, and in that particular direction?

Ahh, now I can answer that specific point. Flocking is now widely regarded as an example of what is called "emergent behaviour". Roughly speaking, this occurs when a simpler set of behaviours or responses lead to much more complex or elaborate behaviour. It was demonstrated that flocking such as that observed in birds or indeed in many species of fish, could be convincingly modelled in an articial intelligence experiment by giving the individual community members simple instructions. Those instructions would be, more or less, "keep close to the bird that's nearest you" and "don't bump into the birds that are nearest you" and "avoid threat". Each of those individual behaviours can, I woud suggest, be relatively easily identifed as "selectable" by nature. For a better and more detailed elaboration of the experiments, look on Google for "flocking behaviour boids".
I'll cite one back atcha :"Life's Other Secret: The new mathematics of the living world " - Ian Stewart

Or what cats, who always seem to know when the owner is arriving home? How are they there, at the window, ahead of time, looking at you, every time you arrive?

Cats always seem to know what time their owner arrives home? Doesn't seem all that mystical to me. The cat will associate a combination of signals with "owner arriving home" - daylilght, how hungry the cat is, traffic noise in the street, etc...

Any sensible person can see that it was a group mind or one 'leader' bird communicated the 'plan' to the rest, in a fraction of a second.

Any "sensible person"? We're obviously working from different idea of what "sensible" means.

I believe in paraspychology because it is a sensible, scientific thing to believe in. All the evidence is there, in droves.
"Droves" would be the collective noun for quantities of evidence?

And what about the unnecessary intelligence in nature? Why do sharks have much more intelligence than required for their actual problems in nature? Why are they on the same level as a rabbit?

Whoa? says who? I was intrigued by this statement, and a bit of casual snooping about tells me that different species of sharks have different brain sizes. And in any case the ratio of brain size to body mass is widely agreed to be deeply suspect as an indicator of intelligence. So what particular indicators are "they" using here to determine relative intelligence levels? IQ test? SAT scores?

A rabbit 'needs' its intelligence, because its low on the food chain. Sharks don't need it: next to killer whales, they are top of the ocean (and killer whales don't really hunt them).
Hmm... I think you need to sort out your arguments here - you are comparing sharks and killer whales here. I think any "sensible" person would have the impression that killer whales are more intelligent than sharks. If they are so much smarter than sharks, and if evolution (or Natural Selection) favours intelligence, then how come we have sharks and killer whales? And in any case, why do you suggest that being a predator requires less intelligence than being prey?

Look at man, even, and his poetry and civilization: all of which were in excess, greatly, of any actual survival problems he faced in nature. It would seem that nature has a bias for intelligence. Is that not suspicious?

Okay, poetry and civilisation - different things - civilisation, as I suggested earlier on, is actually a mechanism which has grown out of tribal behaviours - civilisation is very much a factor in the "success" of humankind - it's not an inherited trait in the ordinary sense, but is something into which we are born, and which we are socialised into. Poetry has not been demonstrated to have any survival value as far as I am aware. There may be instances of Cro-Magnon man keeping a ferocious predator at bay by reciting nursery rhymes, but I seem to have missed that one. I am not saying that petry has no value, just that while it may be possible to explain intelligence as a trait that's beneficial to survival, that doesn't mean that everything that we do with that intelligence is necessarily a useful survival behaviour.


Natural selection has been challenged by parapsychology. How else do you explain the behaviour of the microstatum, to begin with? Making reference to voodoo is stupid, because voodoo is not parapsychology, anymore than Freemasonry is religion.
First off, what do you mean by "microstratum"? I thought I was being a bit of an ignoramus to start with here, I understand I think broadly what the word means - a layer (stratum) which is a smaller (micro) layer - probably a constituent layer within other layers (strata) - but a quick check on Google only turns up about 3 references for the word microstratum - all different contexts - so what the Darwin are you talking about? And so then, to parapsychology, which is only a science if it uses scientific methodology. Science does not consist in saying "I can't think of anything other than some kind of [insert name of wild unproven thoeory here] to explain this, so that must be the explanation." It's not enough to cite something anecdotal, like "my cat's always at the window when I come home", and say "therefore my cat must be able to tell the time".

And parapsychology is in the same neighbourhood as voodoo for most scientists, I'd suggest.

Clearly, you are an ignoramus when it comes to anything under the 'occult' sun.
Unnecessary name-calling instance number 2 "ignoramus"
Why resort to name-calling? If you feel the need to start throwing insults about at such an early juncture, one might be forgiven for suspecting that you believe your arguments to be rather weaker than you profess. Now if I had called you an "ignoramus", how would you have reacted? If I had called you an offensive, insulting, patronising balloon, I'm sure you would have been uspet. (Well maybe not about the "balloon" bit, that's sort of local to Scotland)

Now had you read the book in question, you might know what I am talking about.
Well, yeah, I might... but am I to regard you as an Oracle of Education? There was nothing in your earlier post that would have made it seem relevant, or interesting to follow that reference up. Sigurd and I have disagreed about many things, but he goes and reads something, and then thinks about it, and likes to stimulate a discussion by asking others for their thoughts on the matter. While you, on the other hand seem to think it is sufficient to say: read So-and-so's work on Such-and-such, and then I'll consider you sufficiently knowledgable to debate with.


Only then can you attempt to 'agree' or 'disagree.' Rather, you have decided, already, that it can't be. Well, on what grounds? Common sense, you might say. But then, common sense tells us that there is an actual world 'out there' and a real me 'in here' activated by 'freedom of the will.' Yet we know from philosophy that there is no proof for belief in any of the three. In fact, they contradict each other very often.

So you approve the use of "being sensible" to tell you that birds have a "group mind", but you also disapprove of "common sense" when it suits you? Any chance you might differentiate those two usages for me - what's the difference between making a "sensible" judgment and using "common sense"?


Continued belief in natural selection stems from our being taught it at school.
I really don't understand your point. You say that nature has "bias" for intelligence - how is that "bias" demonstrated? How is a killer whale - which is proabably more intelligent than a shark - more successful than a shark? Is a cat more "successful" than an ant? Is mankind more "successful" than earthworms? Only if you look at the evolutionary journey from our point of view. If you take intelligence as what has got us to where we are, and then measure other animals by how close they appear to be in intelligence to us, then you get a universe-view which says that we are "better" than other beings.

Really, what evidence is there to suggest that there IS a point to intellectual debate, to philosophy, to poetry, to music, to art? Other than the solipsistic one that says: well, we do so much of it, there must be a point, otherwise, why would we do it?
That's lazy thinking. I suggest that language allows us to interact socially with our neighbors, and is pro-survival. I suggest that the intellectual activities I cited may well be nothing more than the equivakent of revving the engine if you're stuck at the traffic lights. The brain, keeping itself busy...

Brmmm.... Brmmmmm....

[HollyElise]

Originally posted by ScabbyDouglas
Tom Sawyer:Or what cats, who always seem to know when the owner is arriving home? How are they there, at the window, ahead of time, looking at you, every time you arrive?

Cats always seem to know what time their owner arrives home? Doesn't seem all that mystical to me. The cat will associate a combination of signals with "owner arriving home" - daylilght, how hungry the cat is, traffic noise in the street, etc...
[/b]

Funny, I always thought my rather lazy, self-serving cat moved his fat bod to the windowsill shortly after i left and slept there all day until my return.

[HollyElise]

Oh really, Tom. How childish.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view, it doesn't mean you're worthless or threatened, but you're certainly acting like it. You know if you just weren't arrogant about your opinions people wouldn't be so tempted to argue with you to the bitter end.

We all have to be respectful of others to keep receiving it, have you never noticed that?

[ScabbyDouglas]

Interesting rebuttal of Andy's points.

Except they weren't Andy's points. They were mine. And whatever Andy may believe about the paranormal, I don't share those beliefs.

And as for all that cat stuff, I don't actually feeel a need to read between the lines. Reading the lines seems enough of an explanation for me. Trust me - when you are out that cat sits all day on the window sill...



Cheers

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer


What puzzles me, Andy, is that you believe in the paranormal, except when I defend it. You guys are biased, and that's why the only place where you argue, intellectually, is a forum. Is Scotland.com on your resume? What a waste of time. I'm gone.

I never really considered the idea of "arguing intellectually".I only come here because I find some of the discussion topics interesting.I have a tentative belief that certain "paranormal" phenomena are suggestive of the existence of some force which exists above and beyond the physical laws that affect time and matter in our universe.I believe that matters such as near death experiences for example should be investigated thoroughly using scientific methods,because clearly people are experiencing something which they believe to be real.I believe there is a case which can be made for reincarnation and poltergeist phenomena,however I believe that the latter is the result of electro-magnetic anomalies rather than disembodied entities.Nevertheless I think one should be wary of suggesting that such phenomenon provide absolute compelling proof of a spiritual realm.Parascience will no doubt enjoy greater credibility in the future than it does at present and it may even be the means of revealing truths about the nature of our universe but we are dealing with speculation and the paranormal cannot be cited as providing incontravertible evidence of anything.At most it provides evidence which is suggestive of the existence of some spiritual force which is not governed by the physical laws which apply in the material universe.

[HollyElise]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

Holly,

I see that the 'gang' mentality of Scotland.com has resurfaced. First Scabby, then Andy, now you: all aimed at me, at the same time. And why? Because I suggested two books which challenge Natural Selection. Doesn't make much sense.

I agree that would not make sense if that were all to be factored, but you have omitted a lot. It seems to me you choose to ignore how your behavior might provoke these reactions in others or take responsibility for your participation. That's the part that fascinates me.

For example, the first snipe in this thread was cast by you:

"Sooo..... yeaaahhhhh..." (ScabbyDouglas)
I am sure that will be among the quotes of the century. I have to wonder: does the immaturity never cease? (Tom Sawyer)

As for "gang mentality," I acted on my own and i don't even know Scabby and Andy's intentions. I hoped to get through to you in a more positive way, i am just am not very good at it. That presents a challenge to me.