'South Korea will remove evolution from its high school textbooks'

[boramk]

And someone was saying Asians are brighter lol. Wonder what's dumbing them down.

Begins with "R" and ends with "N"....

radiation.

 

[STS]

Well this is circular logic.

Too vague dude. Try Plato's Theory of Forms to fill the Gaps.

Different animals are attracted to different things and there is no such universal rule of attractiveness. To make up a definition for attractiveness is one thing, but to make a measurable attribute which applies to attractiveness is impossible unless you do it for each unique organism.

Likewise with fitness, there may not even be an environment with predators but an environment with harsh conditions. Is the animal that goes into hibernation until it makes contact with water more fit than the the animal that burrows under the ground to reach water?

Survival of the fittest means the best adapted for the immediate environment, whatever that environment may be. we could hardly call an ostrich fit being stranded in the artic, likewise we wouldn't call a polar bear fit being in the middle of the ocean.

the point is that any animal that successfully reproduces and creates another generation has fulfilled it's purpose and can be declared fit for its environment

 

[abandonallhope]

I'm confused...
If I had to tell you something was true untrue you'd be asking me for the proof. Now that its the other way around you refuse to provide me with the answers?

So lets start with basics. It seems like you think the theory of evolution is false because how the heck did life come from nothing. Again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Which then begs the question, why did you say this:



If you said that because you think there is a lack of evidence for the theory of evolution, then that is also mistaken. So what are you talking about?

PS - if you cant be bothered to explain to other people what you are talking about, then seriously, WTF are you doing here other than trolling?

1st off - I never denied trolling, you were just short-sighted enough to keep fuelling the fire.

2nd : I said the theory of amoeba-to-man evolution hangs on nothing, because amoeba-to-man evolution has nothing to say about where the very simplest building block(s) of life, which are necessary for its so-called mechanisms or processes, came from.

 

[boramk]

@ small Sorry, it was a joke

 

[STS]

@ small Sorry, it was a joke

omg, i read through all of that on wikipedia now and i wasn't sure if you were being serious *mind explodes*

 

[abandonallhope]

And someone was saying Asians are brighter lol. Wonder what's dumbing them down.

And you have no idea what actually was removed from the textbooks do you ? I mean you would still look pretty bright yourself if the parts that were removed were arguments for evolution that evolutionists themselves have discredited ?

 

[Techne]

Different animals are attracted to different things and there is no such universal rule of attractiveness. To make up a definition for attractiveness is one thing, but to make a measurable attribute which applies to attractiveness is impossible unless you do it for each unique organism.

Likewise with fitness, there may not even be an environment with predators but an environment with harsh conditions. Is the animal that goes into hibernation until it makes contact with water more fit than the the animal that burrows under the ground to reach water?

Survival of the fittest means the best adapted for the immediate environment, whatever that environment may be. we could hardly call an ostrich fit being stranded in the artic, likewise we wouldn't call a polar bear fit being in the middle of the ocean.

the point is that any animal that successfully reproduces and creates another generation has fulfilled it's purpose and can be declared fit for its environment

If fitness is not an empirically measurable attribute, what makes it different from other things which are not empirically measurable? The concept, the way you define it, appears to be defined using circular logic and makes it out to be a non-measurable attribute. Doesn't make any sense.

 

[STS]

If fitness is not an empirically measurable attribute, what makes it different from other things which are not empirically measurable? The concept, the way you define it, appears to be defined using circular logic and makes it out to be a non-measurable attribute. Doesn't make any sense.

it is not meant to be measurable, it it meant to be goal orientated. we can use logic and deduce that a penguin will nto survive long in the safari, this doesn't mean that we give it 1 out of 5 stars for survival. likewise we cannot measure which argument in a discussion is better as it is an expression of ourselves, as our phenotypes and instincts to survival are. what is circular about an animal living reasonablely well in it's environment? an animal reproduces, it fulfills its purpose, there is no need for measurements.

 

[boramk]

If fitness is not an empirically measurable attribute, what makes it different from other things which are not empirically measurable? The concept, the way you define it, appears to be defined using circular logic and makes it out to be a non-measurable attribute. Doesn't make any sense.

How is it circular logic?

 

[Techne]

it is not meant to be measurable, it it meant to be goal orientated. we can use logic and deduce that a penguin will nto survive long in the safari, this doesn't mean that we give it 1 out of 5 stars for survival. likewise we cannot measure which argument in a discussion is better as it is an expression of ourselves, as our phenotypes and instincts to survival are. what is circular about an animal living reasonablely well in it's environment? an animal reproduces, it fulfills its purpose, there is no need for measurements.

Now you are defining fitness in a distinctly teleological manner. In other words, it is some intrinsic propensity or potentiality towards a specific end that may or may not be realized/actualized depending on other factors. Interesting. Fitness then essentially becomes a philosophical issue and not an issue that can be solved or measured with empirical science.

 

[Guantanamo]

http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

Creationists look at an ape and say "It is impossible that I may have evolved from that because I don't look like that." They clearly misunderstand how evolution works and the fact that there are two types of evolution, macro- and micro-. The one is a result of the other, there isn't a distinct change between species at a certain point. Certain stresses were placed on a certain group of a certain species which they then adapted to, the same species 100 miles away might not have experienced this stress and therefor never developed this feature. It is why you will find snakes that live in forests or green areas are green and snakes that live in the desert are not. But they are still both snakes. This is microevolution.

Another thing that grates me is when they say "but it is a theory which means it hasn't been proven." A scientific definition for theory is "As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

 

[STS]

Now you are defining fitness in a distinctly teleological manner. In other words, it is some intrinsic propensity or potentiality towards a specific end that may or may not be realized/actualized depending on other factors. Interesting. Fitness then essentially becomes a philosophical issue and not an issue that can be solved or measured with empirical science.

i believe people are mistaking the definition first of all for survival of the fittest. fittest does not mean the strongest, fastest, biggest, etc, it again means that which is best adapted to the immediate environment. it may not need to be fast or strong at all, it merely has to survive and reproduce.

arguing for it to have an empirical and measurable attribute is like asking which electronic device is the best designed, and then comparing a microwave to a fridge. they serve their own unique purpose and you have to first set down criteria for what you wish to measure, but in the end they do what they were meant to do.

i think it's improtant to stress fittest does not mean the best adapted to survival, or the phrase merely becomes "survival of the best suited for survival" which is pointless. fittest means something else here

 

[Techne]

Ok, so first you say:

we would obviously have our own definitions and ideas of what fit is. we can look at an athlete next to a fat person and deduce that the athlete is more fit, as an example. if you mean fit as in "survival of the fittest", it is basically the animal that can outrun the other animals when chased by predators, than can survive anything thrown at it and reproduce for another generation

Then you say this:

i believe people are mistaking the definition first of all for survival of the fittest. fittest does not mean the strongest, fastest, biggest, etc, it again means that which is best adapted to the immediate environment. it may not need to be fast or strong at all, it merely has to survive and reproduce.

arguing for it to have an empirical and measurable attribute is like asking which electronic device is the best designed, and then comparing a microwave to a fridge. they serve their own unique purpose and you have to first set down criteria for what you wish to measure, but in the end they do what they were meant to do.

i think it's improtant to stress fittest does not mean the best adapted to survival, or the phrase merely becomes "survival of the best suited for survival" which is pointless. fittest means something else here

And by conceding that it is not an empirically verifiable trait and that it is basically a teleological feature of living things, you in effect concede that it is not an empirical issue but a philosophical and metaphysical issue.

 

[STS]

Ok, so first you say:


Then you say this:


And by conceding that it is not an empirically verifiable trait and that it is basically a teleological feature of living things, you in effect concede that it is not an empirical issue but a philosophical and metaphysical issue.

First, i thought your original question was this:

Why do you think "we can both look at something and and agree on the remark that it seems fit" if we don't even know what "fit" actually means?

in this context i was misleading you by accident, survival of the fittest doen't just end at an animal reproducing, it actually has to make it that far, and with many animals being part of the group means the weakest(or unluckiest) animals get knocked off while the strongest of the group survives. this also relates to genetics as animals that get better genes are normally better off than those that do not. but this is why i was discussing why you cannot measure "fitness" as even an animal which is better adapted to the environment may fall to bad luck and get eaten of an animal which is not as well adapted.

your point about Teleology:

if my arguments sound teleologic, they should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds by anything other than from mutations arising by chance. when i say organisms have goals, for example when i say they need to reproduce and survive, i make them appear teleological, and are actually incorrect, and is more due to my laziness than to write carefully and properly.

there is no final cause or destination in nature, it is simply somehting that happens and has no more purpose than waves crashing on the beach. animals survive, they were not put here to survive and have not made a choice to survive, they merely do it because they live and that is a side effect(small result) of being alive

 

[porchrat]

Wait wait wait. You mean to tell me that Techne managed to turn this into yet another debate about the definition of fitness?!?!? For fscks sake man how many times a week do you have to do this?!?

 

[STS]

Wait wait wait. You mean to tell me that Techne managed to turn this into yet another debate about the definition of fitness?!?!? For fscks sake man how many times a week do you have to do this?!?

it is quite tricky, as "fittest" would imply that something else was not quite as fit as something else, but it's merely a phrase to show that the remaining organisms in the end were the best adapted, not that it's actually a race

 

[Techne]

First, i thought your original question was this:

in this context i was misleading you by accident, survival of the fittest doen't just end at an animal reproducing, it actually has to make it that far, and with many animals being part of the group means the weakest(or unluckiest) animals get knocked off while the strongest of the group survives. this also relates to genetics as animals that get better genes are normally better off than those that do not. but this is why i was discussing why you cannot measure "fitness" as even an animal which is better adapted to the environment may fall to bad luck and get eaten of an animal which is not as well adapted.

Well, this view fits in with the view that fitness is an irreducibly teleological feature i.e. an intrinsic potentiality or propensity towards some end that may or may not be realized.

your point about Teleology:

if my arguments sound teleologic, they should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds by anything other than from mutations arising by chance. when i say organisms have goals, for example when i say they need to reproduce and survive, i make them appear teleological, and are actually incorrect, and is more due to my laziness than to write carefully and properly.

there is no final cause or destination in nature, it is simply somehting that happens and has no more purpose than waves crashing on the beach. animals survive, they were not put here to survive and have not made a choice to survive, they merely do it because they live and that is a side effect(small result) of being alive

Well, now you are making several metaphysical claims which need to be backed up with some sort of reasoning. For example, you claim that change (evolution and mutations) happens by chance. What exactly is it supposed to mean? You need to clarify what you mean by "chance".

Also, you say organisms have goals (e.g. reproduce and survive) and then backtrack and refute yourself by saying this is incorrect. Why?

You claim there are no natural ends intrinsic to nature. Do you wish to claim that not even instincts (whose natural end is survival) are real since there are no such things as final causes or natural ends intrinsic to nature? Not to mention the natural ends of gravity, electrons, yourself, the natural end of a wave in a sea etc.

You need to at least have some sort of reasoning behind these metaphysical claims as they are not empirical claims or measurable/testable claims.

 

[STS]

Well, this view fits in with the view that fitness is an irreducibly teleological feature i.e. an intrinsic potentiality or propensity towards some end that may or may not be realized.

some things in nature are not there to achieve a result, they simply are just there. examples are unused wings, needless bones and organs, useless processes, etc.

Why do vertebrates have hearts? In order to pump blood around the body. This is a functional explanation. In evolution, the question ''why do organisms adapt?'' is not answered teleologically with ''to survive'', but because of history - ''because those that were less adaptive didn't survive''. this is all it is.

When Dawkins and Darwin talk about genes maximising their representation in the gene pool, this is a metaphor, not an explanation.

Well, now you are making several metaphysical claims which need to be backed up with some sort of reasoning. For example, you claim that change (evolution and mutations) happens by chance. What exactly is it supposed to mean? You need to clarify what you mean by "chance".

Also, you say organisms have goals (e.g. reproduce and survive) and then backtrack and refute yourself by saying this is incorrect. Why?

You claim there are no natural ends intrinsic to nature. Do you wish to claim that not even instincts (whose natural end is survival) are real since there are no such things as final causes or natural ends intrinsic to nature? Not to mention the natural ends of gravity, electrons, yourself, the natural end of a wave in a sea etc.

You need to at least have some sort of reasoning behind these metaphysical claims as they are not empirical claims or measurable/testable claims.

Systems of biology that seem to goal-driven are thought to be directed towards some end, but what is this end? this something that evolution makes no use of. outside biology and outside science you can use teleology all you like as it is a man made concept, but it does not work as an explanation of any phenomena other than those that are in fact the outcomes science.

nature is not directed towards perfection even if it appears so, it just works and just happens that random mutations make organisms better. there is no natural ends to nature to be anything just as there is no end for nature to kill everything it has created thus far. am i understanding what you are trying to say?

 

[Techne]

some things in nature are not there to achieve a result, they simply are just there. examples are unused wings, needless bones and organs, useless processes, etc.

Why do vertebrates have hearts? In order to pump blood around the body. This is a functional explanation. In evolution, the question ''why do organisms adapt?'' is not answered teleologically with ''to survive'', but because of history - ''because those that were less adaptive didn't survive''. this is all it is.

When Dawkins and Darwin talk about genes maximising their representation in the gene pool, this is a metaphor, not an explanation.

Re the claim that "some things in nature are not there to achieve a result". Let's for arguments sake agree that your pinkie is a useless bone. You can lop it off and it may make no difference. This does not imply that the pinkie does not have natural ends or intrinsic potentialities or dispositions. In fact it quite clearly has. You can multiply the example where a pinkie may be potentially useful in particular situations, where its potentiality may be actualized.

Re you claim about adaptation. There are at least two ways to understand this concept. Again, physiologically and evolutionary. To physiologically adapt to cold water when you fall in a pool is a natural process with natural ends e.g. vasoconstriction of the exterior limbs, increased metabolism etc. In evolutionary terms, to adapt simply means, as you point out, those individuals that had a fitness advantage where able to pass on their gene successfully in a particular environment. But we end up with a teleological concept of fitness whereby certain potentialities were simply actualized.

Systems of biology that seem to goal-driven are thought to be directed towards some end, but what is this end? this something that evolution makes no use of. outside biology and outside science you can use teleology all you like as it is a man made concept, but it does not work as an explanation of any phenomena other than those that are in fact the outcomes science.

nature is not directed towards perfection even if it appears so, it just works and just happens that random mutations make organisms better. there is no natural ends to nature to be anything just as there is no end for nature to kill everything it has created thus far. am i understanding what you are trying to say?

You are now just forcing metaphysics into empirical science. Empirical science does not claim a teleological or ateleological view of reality, those are philosophical claims, not empirical claims.

Re your claim about mutations. Mutations do not occur randomly on the genome, this has previously been pointed out. This is an empirical fact. The only way mutations are argued to be random is that it is random with regards to fitness. But you can't claim mutations are random if you don't even have a quantifiable measure of fitness in the first place.

 

[w1z4rd]

Wait wait wait. You mean to tell me that Techne managed to turn this into yet another debate about the definition of fitness?!?!? For fscks sake man how many times a week do you have to do this?!?

Ive always found people who redefine words they dont like to be dodgy