Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... but if latency is how the universe works, does that mean that matter was latent until the universe evolved the capacity for it? ... that carbon was latent until the universe evolved the capacity for it? ... that stars, galaxies, life, me, you, etc., were latent until the universe evolved the capacity for them? ... and what of the other almost infinite number of possibilities that never were and never will be realized by the universe - do they all exist as unfulfilled latencies? ... or does it make more sense that the universe simply creates new things (matter, carbon, stars, galaxies, life me, you, etc.) during its long, long trajectory through its state space of possibilities? ...

That is not an explanation, that is an observation. It assumes all the terms that are in need of explanation - 'create', 'new' and 'evolve' for example.


Orthodox Hindu answer from neo-vedanta viewpoint (as I understand it): What is 'latent' in the example I gave is Brahman as 'the cosmic intelligence'. In Indian philosophy it is not 'the universe' that is creating 'all this' (because, apart from anything else, 'all this' simply is the universe). 'All this' is actually a grand cosmic spectacle which the Brahman emanates for no particular reason (or just because he can) as Lila, the divine play. And the point of it is, not to simply to understand the concept, but to transcend our entrapment in it through 'vidya' or right knowledge, which is the culmination of the various paths of Hindu yoga.

But anyway all these kinds of ideas, whether Hindu, Christian, or Transylvanian, are anathema to materialism. That's what Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Carl Sagan in Demon-Haunted World and Dawkins in The God Delusion are arguing so fiercely against. Don't scientists want to be able to reduce or explain everything we see to one or another intelligible algorithm? Isn't this what natural selection + mendelian genetics is supposed to be doing? So what need is there for a cosmic intelligence in this picture?

But we are still left with a great many imponderables. I think the situation in regards to the materialist philosophy of science, is that they are questioning really whether there is any order at all beyond what their own intelligence is capable of discerning, and in so doing, cutting the ground from under their own feet. This I think it why they (and I don't think anyone here is doing this) give the concept of 'randomness' such centrality in the scheme of things. It is not only believed, but truly important, that nature is dumb. I really believe that this kind of 'scientific atheism' is actually deeply irrational, so forgive me for a rather extended quote from Sufi scholar Henry Bayman (in an analysis of Neitszche and Hume and their attitude to 'the cosmic order')

Thus, the denial of God has driven Nietzsche to deny science, the laws of nature, the existence of order and even of causality. There is no purpose in the world, only chaos. Instead of "law," Nietzsche substitutes "necessity." But what is this but another name for "law"? Likewise, biologist Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity (1971), denied the purposefulness implied by "teleology" only to exchange it with an almost identical word, "teleonomy." What is gained by substituting one word for another if both are intended to describe the same thing?

Now it is interesting to note that Nietzsche is not alone in the conclusions he reaches. Before him, David Hume trod the same path, and in his efforts to deny God did away even with the connection between cause and effect. Thus, as Professor Jacques Barzun notes, Hume arrived at a distrust of science and religion alike: "Hume's last word of doubt on religion carries with it such a doubt about the mind of man that the certainty of science goes down in shipwreck too." It was Kant who, transcending Hume, slipped a fresh foundation under the work of science.

Strikingly, we find the same attitude in Nietzsche. In The Will to Power, he states: "the psychological necessity for a belief in causality lies in the inconceivability of an event divorced from intent... The belief in [causes] falls with the belief in [purpose]." Thus the denial of God leads to the denial of causality, the basic underpinning of science. The world is not an organism, it is not even a machine. Even grammar does not escape his attacks, for it is a system of rules, order, and the repository of a hidden belief in causality.

Why? Why do both Hume and Nietzsche, in their overzeal to deny God, end up debauching science as well? Because their denial of God is dependent on the denial of any order whatsoever in the universe. Because they knew that science took its origin, and is still based on, a world in which order prevails. If the world is chaos, there can be no order, and hence no laws either of nature or of science. (In our day, however, even the word "chaos" is being redefined, as mathematicians and scientists discern hidden order in chaos.) For the existence of any kind of laws presupposes a Lawgiver, and indeed the originators of modern science—Newton, Descartes, Leibniz, etc.—quite openly expressed their faith in a Divine Lawmaker. In order to deny the latter, Hume, Nietzsche, and those who follow their path must deny the existence of any kind of order at all. But without such order, the whole enterprise of science falls down, for it is then senseless to seek for laws, order or pattern in a disordered world. Nietzsche borders on Orwellian Newspeak in his implied conclusion: "truth is a lie," and falls into the same rut that he so despises in those who confuse mortality and immortality. Yet paradoxically, Nietzsche was also genius enough to recognize that his nihilistic teaching (and Zarathustra's) is a "rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'."

But is all this true? "By their fruits you shall judge them." Science works—it is the most successful enterprise in the history of humanity. Even chance, even probability, has its laws and is not chaos. In that case, it makes sense to view the world as ordered, a place where laws—laws of science, laws of nature—hold. So it makes sense, in turn, to talk about a Lawgiver—which Newton, Copernicus, et al. had told us right from the very beginning, and which we would never have lost sight of had we not extended our debunking of the Christian conception of God to God Himself. The alternative is to assume that we ourselves project order onto the universe, which is a form of solipsism. In that case, though, the basis for an objective universe and materialism collapses. Even granting the point of solipsism, however, if man finds meaning within himself, where does he dredge up this meaning from? For according to Sufism, God is both Within and Without, so that we approach God even when we go within. God is both transcendent and immanent. Contrary to what Nietzsche thought, He is not just incarnate in Jesus, and not just beyond the universe.

Source

And to that, I can only say 'Amen'

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

It is not only believed, but truly important, that nature is dumb.

The history of science and human inquiry in all its forms clearly shows that facts, theories, concepts, and methods are not entities with a fixed and stable nature but process-geared eventuations that changeably reflect the cognitive state of the art of a place, time, and cultural modus operandi. What appear as the timeless truths of one era are merely transitory beliefs from the vantage point of another. (Nicholas Rescher)

... so, if the characterization "It is not only believed, but truly important, that nature is dumb" is accurate and widespread, then perhaps it would be useful to ask, "Given the cognitive state of the art of this place, time, and cultural modus operandi, why is such a belief held to be truly important?" ... unfortunately, I can give you no help in this respect, as it is not my belief (so perhaps the cultural situation that makes such a belief so important is on the wane?) ... as it stands today, nature is not dumb - being an intelligent being, and being part of nature, I am an existence proof ... four billion years ago, nature was not as discernibly intelligent, as this planet was still in its chaotic formative stages ... extrapolate this trend back 12 billion years, and there was no discernible intelligence at the big bang ... that's the science ... the choice between believing that all of the discernible intelligence in nature today existed from the very beginning in latent form or believing that if nothing else nature (and by implication, we) is (are) inherently creative (or any other of the multitude of beliefs out there) is metaphysics and/or religion, not science ...

[jeeprs]

Yes and it is perfectly true that you do not characterise the outlook that I am talking about...

As to 'why', that is a very interesting question and one that I have spent a lot of time contemplating. And I think it is historically determined, if you look at the specific historical and cultural origins of the rise of materialism in the European Enlighenment, and the rejection at that time of religious authority....although now it has gone much further than that, as Bayman notes, not just the rejection of religious authority but the whole idea of anything spiritual...but as we both know, you can be scientific without being materialist (and visca versa) and besides, the times they are a'changin, I think you're correct and the materialism of Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson is on the wane..perhaps it is, as Hegel foresaw, it is all part of a dialectic....

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

So if you aren't proposing the interferance of external intelligence...

Well, I am. Barbara isn't, but I am.

I do not suggest that everyones individual DNA must be authored externally. That may or may not be the case and I have no position on that at all (well, I am actually starting to plum for the internal intelligence]). I'm suggesting sentient authorship for the genesis source of information. The code that got it all started.

Computer Science and A.I. are full of examples where code may sense, react, adapt, modify and re-author its own programming, with no external sentient intervention. But in all cases, the program must be sentient designed to do this from the very beginning.

Thanks for the explanation of random vs chaos. It makes perfect sense and I embrace the reasoning behind it.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 10:28 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Aedes

I'm quite familiar, though I'm not sure pseudogenes are what you're thinking of.

I'm still in the middle of my move, but I did get the computer I needed set up. Not much time to enjoy our conversation, but I wanted to pass along that Russian research I mentioned earlier. I would love to get your impressions on this.

Gariaev 06

And thank you kindly for the excellent explanation of random vs chaos. I'm pleased to see a clear separation between the two.

Going to sleep now

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by Aedes

To be random means that all possible outcomes have equal probability, at least when "random" is not being used colloquially.

In its colloquial use, it's often interchanged with chaos, i.e. unpredictability.

By analogy, think about car accidents. Car accidents are a great example of chaos. At the beginning of the day, you cannot predict which two cars will collide with one another at the end of the work day, 10 hours later. The number of initial variables is too great, and the outcome partially dependent on so many of them. This is the so-called "butterfly effect".

But car accidents are NOT random. Elderly drivers, teenage drivers, males, distracted drivers, drunk drivers, speeders, etc are all more likely to be in accidents than sober, middle aged soccer moms driving the speed limit with their kids in the back. In other words, not all cars are equally likely to be in a collision.

So - I might be stating the obvious - you have the minute and unpredictable changes being brought about by genetic variation, on the one hand, and on the other hand, 'selection' due to circumstances which favour some of them, ever so slightly. All well and good. But then, it is not really feasible to completely seperate the genotype (if that is the right word) FROM the environment. So the totality of the change is not really just with regards to the organism but the organism-in-an-environment. So even though with regards to this or that variation, or this or that particular species, you can isolate exactly what might have changed between this and an earlier form, in another sense, the change reflects nature itself, the universe at large. So in this perspective an organism is a function of nature, rather than something existing apart from nature.

I suppose this is a 'holistic' perspective. I don't know if I am saying anything, or not...

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

So in this perspective an organism is a function of nature, rather than something existing apart from nature.

Well, it depends upon where you draw the line in the sand for what "nature" is allowed to represent.

If something does in fact exist, is it not appropriate to consider it as part and parcel of nature (that which is)? I reject the term "supernatural". I don't believe such a concept is even possible.

If a God exists, then it is perfectly natural for a God to exist. Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever. Yet most would not allow for this, as they most commonly reserve "natural" for that which consists of material energy/matter alone.

If that be the case, then all of life is beyond natural, and thus supernatural due to the third agent of immaterial information required for its existence.

So which is it, natural as energy+matter alone as non-life, or natural as energy+matter+information as life?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

I wanted to pass along that Russian research I mentioned earlier. I would love to get your impressions on this.

Gariaev 06

There are some shocking inaccuracies in that reference, things that would be obvious even to an undergraduate student in biology. Their bolded statement "The genome (total sum of all genetic material) of an organism cannot consist of 98% garbage. This is nonsense from the perspective of evolution, which throws away anything unnecessary." is absurd. Evolution does not "do" anything -- unnecessary genes are only lost if they are deleterious. They completely neglect that some of that 98% of noncoding sequences are regulatory or code for functional RNA segments (other than mRNA). Their statement about embryology is wholesale ignorance ("some of these proteins are synthesized in one place of an organism, while their action in the form of a command is immediately expressed in another place of the embryo separated from the first one by hundreds of cells. There is no explanation for this immediate distant transmission of the command.") There is outstanding research (and has been for at least 20 years) on protein gradients within oocytes, so that even an unfertilized egg already has polarity -- dorsal/ventral, cranial/caudal, and lateral polarity. Thus, when a fertilized egg divides for the very first time the cytoplasm of the daughter cells differ from one another. This leads to asymmetrical gene regulation. It may be that maternal helper cells are directly trafficking mRNA transcripts into oocytes, and these are translated within the oocyte to create protein gradients of genetic regulatory elements. The Homeobox genes are the most famous, but there are others (I worked on the bicoid gene when I was an undergrad, about 15 years ago).

So the very premises of the article display a striking lack of accuracy. The rest of it is essentially unreferenced, certainly not basing any substantial part of the text on research that's made it to a refereed journal (and with all due respect to Russian science, which is perfectly fine, the best research from anywhere in the world goes to English language journals because they have the strictest standards and largest readership).

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by Aedes

There are some shocking inaccuracies in that reference...

Thanks so much for taking the time with that. Your assessment is valued, worthy of deep consideration.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

But then, it is not really feasible to completely seperate the genotype (if that is the right word) FROM the environment. So the totality of the change is not really just with regards to the organism but the organism-in-an-environment. So even though with regards to this or that variation, or this or that particular species, you can isolate exactly what might have changed between this and an earlier form, in another sense, the change reflects nature itself, the universe at large. So in this perspective an organism is a function of nature, rather than something existing apart from nature.

True, and this is in part because DNA is nothing without regulation of its expression, and environmental cues can either directly modify DNA expression, or set in motion physiologic processes that in turn regulate expression.

But, jeeprs, even if these things aren't completely separable, that doesn't change the fact that the genome (of one organism), the genome (of a species), an organism, a population, are 'discrete' enough that you can study and understand them unto themselves too. This is particularly relevant when you can study lots of examples in lots of conditions (think of medical research), or you can study something in a lab with totally controlled conditions (think of a lab rat or a bacterial culture).

Nonetheless, the take home message for evolutionary biology is that selection acts on function and not on sequence, i.e. whether it's the structure of a gene product or if it's simply the amount of the same gene product, it's this end effect that matters in the end however it's achieved.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by QuinticNon

If a God exists, then it is perfectly natural for a God to exist. Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever. Yet most would not allow for this, as they most commonly reserve "natural" for that which consists of material energy/matter alone.

[large red flashing light icon]....God 'exists' - if God exists - in a completely different way to the way in which material objects or persons exist. But I think to discuss this requires some concept of the 'hierarchy of being' which I don't think is part of the modern, or scientific, lexicon. Probably not the thread to discuss theology though.

Originally Posted by Aedes

True, and this is in part because DNA is nothing without regulation of its expression, and environmental cues can either directly modify DNA expression, or set in motion physiologic processes that in turn regulate expression.

But I don't think these two perspectives - focussing on the individual in particular, or as part of a larger whole, are contradictory. One is more 'holistic', that is all - kind of an environmentalist's perspective. A considerable part of the modern angst can be overcome by overcoming one's sense of alienation from nature. I rather like the idea of nature becoming articulated via living organisms.