Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by l0ck

I fail to see how natural selection is at all present with human existence of today.

Study the genetics of sickle cell disease, including linkage analysis, and you'll see a flabbergasting example of natural selection.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Study the genetics of sickle cell disease, including linkage analysis, and you'll see a flabbergasting example of natural selection.

Disease? AIDs? The concept that that mutations are not spontaneous, and thus statistically random events, and thus a effect of entropy, has not been widely accepted since the 1940s, before that we assumed mutations occurred in response to selective condition, and unless you are being racist, of which I assume you are not (ofcourse you are not, as a moderator I assume your passionate), the occurance of disease in these cultures is due to their progress, they are segregated from all the ideas and creations we are not, I would at least appreciate if you would research the modern view of a current situation.. Entropy is a ever increasing vortex of chaos that re-arranges all mass. It's form is present within the human genome, as it too is composed of mass. The human body is conscious, aware, and growing in awareness, but areas of the world where a paradigm that continues to exists in the minds of those which of that is no longer needed, are throughout history under metamorphism out of existence via entropia. From a perspective that doesn't include human compassion, such as one of economics (one we have created, one that rather than declines, grows), we have the means to help these cultures that fit this model, yet we do not, we grow away from it more and more as time goes on. It is not my intent to justify compassion, but simply apply a extension to the perspective in which to view a certain, and unfortunate incident, as even I have loved ones, direct family members whom of which are HIV+.

It is safe to assume human creativity will continue to evolve, we create everything, we will create means to write the human genome, we will create means to inherit our absolute nature, we constantly self-create obstacles in order to progress ourselves, and even one day, the physical form of the body itself will be evolved upon, as the earth is under thermonuclear expansion, and heat driving towards the surface will one day test our anatomic-prosthetic creations, I hope this provides at all the least bit of hope for the future of disease. It is safe to assume our creative means, which always include means of survival, will continue to do so, and as I have said, our creativity will cross and go beyond that of cohesion within the environment, this includes an eventual decline in population due to creations in fields such as autonomy, and replacement of human labor, but instead of focuses on mourn, we should turn our attention forward, and provide ideas around creating a means to these problems.

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Why does time and space need to be created? Not to mention, why does there need to be 'mind' to create these things? "Co-creators of our own reality" implies that there is something besides us that creates our reality. What is this so-called co-creator? I can see how time does not exist as a thing in itself, because I assume you are talking about space-time, but why does space not exist as a thing in itself. It seems that space may be the only thing that truly exists as a thing in itself. Everything else seems to be dependent on something else, but empty space just is.

Space does not exist as a thing-in-itself. Think about what the three dimensions of space are. They are merely the relation between objects, or different points on the same object. Imagine you were floating somewhere in outer space, somewhere where you could not even see any stars of planets, just an infinite blackness. Also imagine you dont have a body, but are just basically a consciousness floating there - ie imagine a state where there are no objects whatsoever, and in that state space does not exist. Time is also the same - think about a similar state where there are no objects or occurances, you are also not breathing, or thinking. Once again time would not exist. Time and space are merely the form our mind gives external reality to make sense of sensuous input.

When I said we are co-creators of our onw reality, I didnt mean there was anything apart from us, I just meant that all conscious beings alone are co-creators with each other.

[jeeprs]

As regards your interpretation of the 'necessary a priori', I think from my very modest understanding of Kant, if that is who you're referring to, that this is not something his philosophy would support. I think, and am quite willing to be corrected, that his outlook was one of 'transcendental realism' rather than 'transcendental idealism' in the sense that you seem to be indicating. I think he would say, not that we create time and space, but that the 'pure intuition' of time and space must always be assumed in any act of cognition. In that sense we are indeed co-creators of the reality that we experience, and that is the only reality that we know (as we cannot know the 'reality in itself'.)

I don't quite see how this has bearing upon the weakness of Darwinism as a philosophy though (even though I agree that Darwinism is great science and poor philosophy).

I think a more fruitful line of enquiry might be sought along the lines of the cosmological argument. It is one that I don't think Richard Dawkins has ever understood, let alone refuted.

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

As regards your interpretation of the 'necessary a priori', I think from my very modest understanding of Kant, if that is who you're referring to, that this is not something his philosophy would support. I think, and am quite willing to be corrected, that his outlook was one of 'transcendental realism' rather than 'transcendental idealism' in the sense that you seem to be indicating. I think he would say, not that we create time and space, but that the 'pure intuition' of time and space must always be assumed in any act of cognition. In that sense we are indeed co-creators of the reality that we experience, and that is the only reality that we know (as we cannot know the 'reality in itself'.)

I don't quite see how this has bearing upon the weakness of Darwinism as a philosophy though (even though I agree that Darwinism is great science and poor philosophy).

I think a more fruitful line of enquiry might be sought along the lines of the cosmological argument. It is one that I don't think Richard Dawkins has ever understood, let alone refuted.

Im not exactly sure of what you're saying - Kant certainly thought time and space were creations of our minds, and not that time and space exist independently of us, and that we experience, or intuit them if thats what you mean. (And just checking wiki quickly) he was a trascendental idealist, and not a transcendental realist. In the critique of pure reason he certainly states that time and space are mere relations that we use to structure experience.

My beef with darwinism (or probably more accurately dawkinsism) is that it imagines objects in time and space (primitive lifeforms) before any higher conscious being existed as 'all there was', and that everything about life can be explained in a process of evolution from that point. (I probably should have been more precise).

[jeeprs]

yes you're right, I stand corrected- transcendental idealism it was.

Nevertheless the weakness I feel about the naturalist argument is how 'intelligence' was spontaneously generated from 'dumb matter'. I think it is the same idea you have but I have a slightly different approach. Evolutionary biology would say 'well that is simple - consciousness evolves'. What I want to say is 'our capacity for consciousness evolved'. So they would say 'do you mean, consciousness is something that precedes evolution?' I think it is but it is very hard to articulate without falling back on some kind of religious formula. I mean, the world is full of scriptures which say something like that. But it ought to be demonstrable by some kind of philosophical argument. And I think that Western philosophy is actually the best source for that argument, out of all the world cultures.

The best one I have been able to come up with goes back to the Platonic idea of intelligibility. This is something along the lines that there is a transcendent level or realm of perception, which corresponded in Platonism to the realm of forms or ideals. There is an idea that the intelligibility of the Universe, which is certainly not apparent to the untrained mind, betokens a deep level of rationality about the way the universe works. Meanwhile the intellect within man corresponds with the intellectual order of the Universe. This was very much the province of the idea of 'universals' and is closely related to the various 'ontological proofs' of medieval times (all of which are always ridiculed by the ditchkens mob without them displaying the least inkling of what they are about.)

None of this is new, it is all part of Thomism, Augustine, and scholastic and medieval philosophy. I am still stumbling around it trying to find a foothold (never having studied the Classics, Latin, or the other parts of the Curriculum) I tried to articulate it in this post on the nature of consciousness. I don't know if it is a good argument or not, but nobody really challenged it.

[richard_mcnair]

Yes, excellent post. The thing that cant be answered naturalistically is for me the simple fact of subjective experience itself. I am a subjective experiencing being, i know this, I assume all other human beings, and animals are too. The dawkins/dennet - ites, are surely contradicted by the fact that you can build a machine as complex as you like, but never can you build a machine to subjectively experience, and the only way such a thing can be answered is through the transcendant and the mystical.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by l0ck

I fail to see how natural selection is at all present with human existence of today. We have self-created ways of dissolving this idea within our own species, even with the animals we love and care for, often now, the strongest do not survive, whereas the weakest often do.

From this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

For example, kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease.



Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolonged periods at altitudes over 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or “altitude sickness”. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.



Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and tribal Americans. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless or neutral in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature. According to Science-Frontiers.com, if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant, if not immune to AIDS.



Similarly, population genetics is being credited as one reason incidence of sickle-cell genes in African-Americans is apparently decreasing over time.



For another example we’ve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.



There’s also a family in Germany who were already unusually strong. But in one case, one of their children was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a Herculean kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the muscle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.



And then there’s a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density. According to their investigators, members of this family have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the Bruce Willis movie, 'Unbreakable'.



All of these are examples of specifically identified mutations which are definitely beneficial, and which have spread through the subsequent gene pool according to natural selection. This is one of many indesputable proofs of evolution in humans. But we’ve identified beneficial mutations in other many other species too.

So as you can see, some populations of humans are benefitting from changes in their body's form or function as a result of mutation, and are passing those changes down to their descendants more often than not because of natural selection.

---------- Post added 11-25-2009 at 09:07 AM ----------

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

The dawkins/dennet - ites, are surely contradicted by the fact that you can build a machine as complex as you like, but never can you build a machine to subjectively experience, and the only way such a thing can be answered is through the transcendant and the mystical.

You assume such a machine is impossible, and you assume that that assumption points to a mystical answer as to why a biological machine capable of what you assume is impossible exists.

But such assumptions are just based on preferences for a mystical answer - not any readily apparent truth.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

Im not exactly sure of what you're saying - Kant certainly thought time and space were creations of our minds, and not that time and space exist independently of us, and that we experience, or intuit them if thats what you mean. (And just checking wiki quickly) he was a trascendental idealist, and not a transcendental realist. In the critique of pure reason he certainly states that time and space are mere relations that we use to structure experience.

My beef with darwinism (or probably more accurately dawkinsism) is that it imagines objects in time and space (primitive lifeforms) before any higher conscious being existed as 'all there was', and that everything about life can be explained in a process of evolution from that point. (I probably should have been more precise).

As existence is composed of two separate magnitudes: finity and infinity, the one leads to the 2, and we can begin to form a logic of interpretation, since existence is composed of both infinite and finite expression, we can now apply our logic, and assume existence is atleast of infinite circumference, because if its circumference was that of finity, it would not achieve the capacity for infinite circumference. This means that even one infinite aspect of existence is enough to prove that the whole thing is of infinite proportion following our basic logic and premise. This allows us to begin using both finite and infinite logic's, and tools, to apply our model, and it means that existence is a infinite all inclusive set, a infinite set, and it's sub-sets are that of finity. Thus powers of infinity, thus Aleph-Powers and infinite set theory developed by George Cantor.

Infinite expressions cannot be measured, only compared, and are of mind. Since existence is a inclusive and integrally related whole (or infinite set), the fact that humans (conscious beings) can learn, and absorb quality (infinite expression), from the environment (mass, finite expression), means that infinite capacity must also not only exist in the environment as existence is again, a single whole that only appears to be separated, but infinite capacity also exists in their minds (are you getting the whole picture? mind? environment? capacity? paradox? reflection?), and the human is only a monadic extension of the environment.

The brain, physically, is not of infinite proportions, this is because the brain is only a tool used to interpret, thus process and collect and thus create, the environment around it. Like a dam, it hinders and collects energy from the flow of the infinite conscious awareness ocean, and as each is individually shaped, each ones limited perception of the environment too is individually shaped. Thus humanity's purpose is one of a conversion process between discovery of awareness, as the environment is externalized unaware form, and the quality the human has capacity for is a infinite and internalized form.

It can also be assumed, that since this is humanity's purpose, and thus reason for expression, and since nothing is expressed without purpose, that conscious life outside of human form will not be found, as we already contain that purpose, and instead we find ourselves.

Finite expressions, such as those of mass, can be measured. The instant mass is created, space is created, time is created, one cannot exist without the other for the purpose of finite expression.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by l0ck

Disease? AIDs?

AIDS has been an epidemic for less than 30 years, and it's only known to have been in human populations for 50-100 years. Given the human generation time, there is no way we would see selective effects from this disease yet, especially because people with AIDS can (and do) reproduce and even without therapy about 75% of their children would be uninfected. There are MANY human mutations known to be protective against HIV, with CCR5 deficiency being the famous one.

Originally Posted by l0ck

The concept that that mutations are not spontaneous, and thus statistically random events, and thus a effect of entropy, has not been widely accepted since the 1940s

This quote makes no sense for a variety of reasons. First, spontaneity and randomness are entirely unrelated concepts and therefore it is nonsensical to tie them together. Secondly, entropy is a thermodynamic phenomenon. You are using it inappropriately. Thirdly, entropy is not an "effect". It is, again, a thermodynamic phenomenon by which energy is lost in chemical reactions. Finally, whether mutations are random or not, what is NOT random is which mutations get preserved: it is the advantageous ones that get preserved.

Originally Posted by l0ck

unless you are being racist, of which I assume you are not (ofcourse you are not, as a moderator I assume your passionate), the occurance of disease in these cultures is due to their progress, they are segregated from all the ideas and creations we are not, I would at least appreciate if you would research the modern view of a current situation..

I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who has done published research in the genetics of the malaria-host interaction in one of the most famous such labs in the world. I'm quite literate in the genetics of sickle cell disease, which by linkage analysis has independently arisen at least 5 times in Africa in the last 10,000 years -- which is coincidentally around the time that Plasmodium falciparum emerged as a species. The geographic distribution of the sickle cell allele is almost identical to that of the malaria parasite. Heterozygotes for sickle cell are significantly less likely to die of it or experience cerebral malaria and other complications. But homozygotes for it get sickle cell anemia and in the absence of medical care will die in childhood. So this mutation is SO advantageous that 5 separate times it has arisen -- but outside of malarious areas it is so deleterious that the mutation has become extremely rare. By nearly all statistical measures, malaria has been the single most important selective force on the human genome in the last 10,000 years.

Racist? What in god's name are you talking about.

Originally Posted by l0ck

Entropy is a ever increasing vortex of chaos that re-arranges all mass.

Nice, poetic, but this has nothing to do at all with entropy as it is understood in science.