Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by Aedes

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.

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.

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.

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

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that all nuclear particles are decaying. All things have half-life. Nothing stays the same forever. Entropy. I didn't intend to dismiss the assumption that you could not apply it's theory to the areas of creativity it was discovered in, I only implied, that all ideas, all proposition is created from proposition, thus philosophy, and I simply proposed a extended idea, not poetry. However, speaking of philosophy, moderator, all you have done is interject with descartaic syllogism in attempts to provide fallacy. But finite syllogism is not the only form I include in my toolbag, Aedes.

Every single thing you said fits the model I apply, savehow you can say spontaneity and randomness are un-related, a matter of interpretation of my symbolism, and your interpretations of thermodynamics being applied to a system. Both of which also apply to the model, as the reader is always free to interpret any text with it's own mind, and all text is individually interpreted, the symbol itself does not contain the quality.

It's not text that releases quality from mass. It's interaction, thus conflict, with the environment that thus teaches us. Academic study is not very qualitative, but quantitative however, to the point of repetition, as if to replicate its small and unequal size to that of conflict when compared to the true teacher.

My use of the term 'Racism', implying genetic difference, implying a model of Natural Selection in the self-created evolution of a species or, 'race', or creature, my symbology was referenced to the older dismissed idea that it was a selective condition that induced mutation, of which now we realize is not truth.

Natural Selection does not apply to our model. I then attempted to apply it to mankind, but it is a complete different system, because in this system, more and more, due to our creations, the weak do survive, and the strong do not. Throughout history, species of animals have had the idea of natural selection imposed within their purpose, a idea where a species of animal is constantly surviving due to its constant evolution toward a stronger/more efficient form of means of survival, but this only applies to the animal kingdom, and thus is the law of the jungle, and as we are not mere-animals, but conscious feeling and learning beings with a mind of infinite capacity, we do not fit this system of natural selection, we did, but we progressed past it by becoming more aware, as we create our condition. Our studies of amino acids are progressing at such a speed that one day we will create our genome, and thus realize we are creators of ourselves through our creativity.

As equals, we have no power over each other, and it can be said that a equal who does not see another as equal, and thus of them, under no amount of reasoning will accept them or their ideas. Often publishers, feel the need to express their infinite degree of interest in a subject by finite means of academic success, thus elevating themselves, but we have no power over each other, and each's assumed matter of existence is sufficient enough to accept your assumed ability to interpret the environment and that which you do not know.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by l0ck

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that all nuclear particles are decaying. All things have half-life.

No, actually, neither the 2nd law of thermodynamics nor the principle of entropy say anything about that.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, and that the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is taken to be a basic postulate, while in statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of applying the fundamental postulate, also known as the equal a priori probability postulate,[clarification needed] to the future while empirically accepting that the past was low entropy, for reasons not yet well understood.

Originally Posted by l0ck

Entropy. I didn't intend to dismiss the assumption that you could not apply it's theory to the areas of creativity it was discovered in, I only implied, that all ideas, all proposition is created from proposition, thus philosophy, and I simply proposed a extended idea, not poetry.

If you want to talk about entropy, talk about entropy. If you want to use it as a metaphor, then make sure you're being clear that you are using scientific terminology in a way that is unrelated to its scientific definition.

Originally Posted by l0ck

all you have done is interject with descartaic syllogism in attempts to provide fallacy.

By definition I did not give a syllogism. Syllogisms are logical constructs. I did not give a logical construct. I gave an empirical example that is evidence-based and the inference of ongoing human evolution is easily deduced from this evidence.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by Aedes

No, actually, neither the 2nd law of thermodynamics nor the principle of entropy say anything about that.



If you want to talk about entropy, talk about entropy. If you want to use it as a metaphor, then make sure you're being clear that you are using scientific terminology in a way that is unrelated to its scientific definition.

By definition I did not give a syllogism. Syllogisms are logical constructs. I did not give a logical construct. I gave an empirical example that is evidence-based and the inference of ongoing human evolution is easily deduced from this evidence.

Again, symbolic fallacy and individual interpretation. Like in the realm of law, the more defined we are, the more dangerous/fallacious statements are to be created, therefore, you did give a logical construct, one that is of finite syllogism, and of single-view and thus perception. It is not definition that contains quality.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by Aedes

No, actually, neither the 2nd law of thermodynamics nor the principle of entropy say anything about that.

It's also worth pointing out that the law specifies an isolated system, and therefore isn't relevent to things that occur on the planet earth - which receives energy from elsewhere.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

It's also worth pointing out that the law specifies an isolated system, and therefore isn't relevent to things that occur on the planet earth - which receives energy from elsewhere.

We are a isolated, all inclusive, integrated system, of infinite proportions, energy is conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed, thus converted, e=mc^2. Thus we are a infinite set, who's sub-sets are simply conversions, and the whole is present within each of its parts, thus powers of infinity.

It's a whole, hints gravity, the conversion of all this energy, constantly, instantly, into finite form, to reflect upon man's mind, creates a inward flow, a constant one towards singularity, a literal pull upon mass, which is separated, thus not singular, thus resisting singularity, so the more mass, the more pull, inward, as gravity is all one thing, not a individual characteristic. It is safe to assume the black hole, is a symbol of our entire process, mass spirals in very aggressively at first, toward that same pull of singular oneness, and violently crashes against the event horizon, exploding into a single state of energy, as it is all very quickly released, until it finally gets so close that it is instantly released, and pops out of existence.

We are very literally in a fish tank, and there is a pump that recycles a flow in and around us.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by l0ck

We are a isolated, all inclusive, integrated system, of infinite proportions, energy is conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed, thus converted, e=mc^2. Thus we are a infinite set, who's sub-sets are simply conversions, and the whole is present within each of its parts, thus powers of infinity.

Depends on the relevent scope of whatever you are referring to as "we".

Evolution on earth takes place within the system of the earth.

Which isn't isolated - deriving masses of energy from the sun.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by l0ck

Again, symbolic fallacy and individual interpretation.

The difference between science and logic is that in science everyone looks at the same thing. My interpretation of the data I've presented is hardly individual -- in fact it's not even controversial.

You are not employing science. You're not employing logic either -- I'm not even sure what you're arguing. You're making statements about logic that have nothing to do with logic. You're making statements about entropy that have nothing to do with entropy. You're accusing me of "syllogisms" even though my arguments do not contain the form of a syllogism and my are not based on the syntactical relationships that define syllogism.

So what are you actually saying??

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by l0ck

We are very literally in a fish tank, and there is a pump that recycles a flow in and around us.

A typical fish tank isn't an isolated system either. Someone outside the system keeps the water topped up, keeps the filter running, turns the light on and off, drops in some food now and then, buys the occasional new fish, the heat comes from an electric device or radiates through the glass, the pump is electrically powered, and so on...

---------- Post added 11-25-2009 at 03:11 PM ----------

Originally Posted by l0ck

It is safe to assume the black hole, is a symbol of our entire process, mass spirals in very aggressively at first, toward that same pull of singular oneness, and violently crashes against the event horizon, exploding into a single state of energy, as it is all very quickly released, until it finally gets so close that it is instantly released, and pops out of existence.

The event horizon is the edge of a black hole, not the centre, it's at the circumfrence, the distance from the apparent centre where matter (as we normally percieve it) begins to collapse (as we percieve it).

That matter isn't likely to explode into energy. Matter is condensed energy, and gets condensed further in a black hole. It doesn't explode into energy - but implodes into ... something else.

As far as I understand, based on what I've read about black holes, from writers who admit not much is understood about them.

[jeeprs]

I am not a creationist, nor I think is the OP in this thread. There are many points on the spectrum between 'God made Eve from Adam's rib' and 'everything arises out of dumb matter'. It is interesting how hard it is for many scientifically-educated commentators to appreciate the breadth of this spectrum and the various shades of meaning to be found in it. That said, I am more on the side of the religious, and the more I debate the case, the more so I become. (By the way, if you haven't seen Terry Eagleton's original review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books - 'Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching', you really must. Cracker of a read.)

We live a in scientific age, so it is natural to seek scientific explanations. And a good thing too, absoultely necessary in many respects. But the body is more than meat and man more than a product of biology.

I will give the last word to Schopenhaur:

"Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. But all this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time."

(Quoted in the Wikipedia entry on Materialism).

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

It is interesting how hard it is for many scientifically-educated commentators to appreciate the breadth of this spectrum and the various shades of meaning to be found in it.

There are two debates that you may be conflating here:

1) What is the degree of controversy within science?

2) How does the array of scientific explanations compare with this spectrum of non-scientific explanations?

Often times people take question 2 and put it in the guise of question 1. But the issue in these debates is really NOT controversy in scientific terms (including the egregious misuse of the entropy idea). The spectrum of explanations that are consistent with empirical science is actually very narrow, and the areas of controversy are trivially microscopic.

But if you are entertaining explanations that fall outside the realm of empirical science, then the issue is really epistemological. And since evolutionary biology employs the SAME techniques as any other area of biology, then this epistemological question should cause you to doubt EVERYTHING else in biology -- which begs the question why the focus of controversy would be on evolution?