| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2004 01:15:29 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message news:<5557550.yJ84Z4ghIW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
Greetings.
In article <b1c67abe.0404292020.677b36c4@posting.google.com>, david ford
wrote:
I need to provide a citation (preferably from primary sources) for the
assertion that evolution is not goal-directed.
Try Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_, 5.
Thanks! This citation is particularly useful, as the person I'm refuting
is particularly enamoured with Dawkins's memetics. Here's what I'm
planning to write. Again, I'm not a professional biologist, so let me
know if I've made any mistakes.
The evolutionary basis for the theory is frequently mentioned both
in Murray's published works and in his informal rhetoric. ``The
model,'' he writes, ``predicts a path of evolution up to and
`ueber' humans.'' [sic] [Murray, 1997] In this claim Murray
reveals himself to be labouring under the once-common Victorian
misconception that evolution is goal-directed and invariably
progressive, with humankind at its (current) apex. This teleological
view was formally refuted back in Darwin's time [Huxley, 1869] and
is today universally dismissed by evolutionary biologists. Writes
zoologist Richard Dawkins:
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic
process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It
does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no
sight at all. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 5]
It is surprising that Murray either is not aware of or
does not accept this view, as he frequently invokes theories from
Dawkins's previous works (e.g., [Dawkins, 1976]).
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message news:<5557550.yJ84Z4ghIW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
Greetings.
In article <b1c67abe.0404292020.677b36c4@posting.google.com>, david ford
wrote:
I need to provide a citation (preferably from primary sources) for the
assertion that evolution is not goal-directed.
Try Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_, 5.
Thanks! This citation is particularly useful, as the person I'm refuting
is particularly enamoured with Dawkins's memetics. Here's what I'm
planning to write. Again, I'm not a professional biologist, so let me
know if I've made any mistakes.
The evolutionary basis for the theory is frequently mentioned both
in Murray's published works and in his informal rhetoric. ``The
model,'' he writes, ``predicts a path of evolution up to and
`ueber' humans.'' [sic] [Murray, 1997] In this claim Murray
reveals himself to be labouring under the once-common Victorian
misconception that evolution is goal-directed and invariably
progressive, with humankind at its (current) apex. This teleological
view was formally refuted back in Darwin's time [Huxley, 1869] and
is today universally dismissed by evolutionary biologists. Writes
zoologist Richard Dawkins:
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic
process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It
does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no
sight at all. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 5]
It is surprising that Murray either is not aware of or
does not accept this view, as he frequently invokes theories from
Dawkins's previous works (e.g., [Dawkins, 1976]).
[TM]""The model," he writes, "predicts a path of evolution up to and
'ueber' humans." [sic] [Murray, 1997]" What model is being mentioned,
and what does this model say?
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Does the model/theory of which Murray speaks predict that eyes,
light-sensitive spots, and bioluminescence would evolve independently
numerous times, while a high level of intelligence would evolve only
once?
What is Dawkins's explanation of this state of affairs?
For Citations and Further Reading
accounting for parallel and convergent supposed-blindwatchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990712220140.883597C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
30 Apr 2004 01:53:29 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404301019.1279716e@posting.google.com...
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message
news:<5557550.yJ84Z4ghIW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
(snip)
[TM]""The model," he writes, "predicts a path of evolution up to and
'ueber' humans." [sic] [Murray, 1997]" What model is being mentioned,
and what does this model say?
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Does the model/theory of which Murray speaks predict that eyes,
light-sensitive spots, and bioluminescence would evolve independently
numerous times, while a high level of intelligence would evolve only
once?
What is Dawkins's explanation of this state of affairs?
I imagine it would be the metabolic cost of such a development. Eyes and
light emitting spots are far more useful and less expensive to an organism
than a huge and metabolically taxing brain. Note also that the light
emitting spots and probably most of the eye developments took place in the
ocean, and a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
01 May 2004 09:20:59 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<qcCdnVgN1sg3PA_dRVn-jw@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404301019.1279716e@posting.google.com...
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message
news:<5557550.yJ84Z4ghIW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
(snip)
[TM]""The model," he writes, "predicts a path of evolution up to and
'ueber' humans." [sic] [Murray, 1997]" What model is being mentioned,
and what does this model say?
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Does the model/theory of which Murray speaks predict that eyes,
light-sensitive spots, and bioluminescence would evolve independently
numerous times, while a high level of intelligence would evolve only
once?
What is Dawkins's explanation of this state of affairs?
I imagine it would be the metabolic cost of such a development. Eyes and
light emitting spots are far more useful and less expensive to an organism
than a huge and metabolically taxing brain. Note also that the light
emitting spots and probably most of the eye developments took place in the
ocean, and a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators.
What is the definition of [DL]"metabolic cost"?
Which, if any, of these situations do you consider [DL]"metabolically
taxing"?:
having the bodyweight of a blue whale
having the bodyweight of a pigeon
having the bodyweight of a butterfly
having the food requirements of a mole
[DL]"Eyes and light emitting spots are far more useful and less
expensive to an organism than"
Which is [DL]"more useful and less expensive to an organism"?:
eyes, or light-sensitive spots?
legs, or flippers?
legs, or wings?
legs, or the ability to slither?
[DL]"a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators."
Would a big brain assist in hunting for plankton?
Would a big brain assist in escaping from predators?
In [DL]"metabolic cost" terms, of what, if any, assistance to humans
is the ability to:
create art?
do mathematics?
have religious beliefs?
write?
go to the moon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
01 May 2004 01:04:47 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405010625.565399a8@posting.google.com>...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<qcCdnVgN1sg3PA_dRVn-jw@io.com>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404301019.1279716e@posting.google.com...
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message
news:<5557550.yJ84Z4ghIW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
(snip)
[TM]""The model," he writes, "predicts a path of evolution up to and
'ueber' humans." [sic] [Murray, 1997]" What model is being mentioned,
and what does this model say?
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Does the model/theory of which Murray speaks predict that eyes,
light-sensitive spots, and bioluminescence would evolve independently
numerous times, while a high level of intelligence would evolve only
once?
What is Dawkins's explanation of this state of affairs?
I imagine it would be the metabolic cost of such a development. Eyes and
light emitting spots are far more useful and less expensive to an organism
than a huge and metabolically taxing brain. Note also that the light
emitting spots and probably most of the eye developments took place in the
ocean, and a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators.
What is the definition of [DL]"metabolic cost"?
Which, if any, of these situations do you consider [DL]"metabolically
taxing"?:
having the bodyweight of a blue whale
Not if you have a rich source of protein in the form of immense shoals
of krill
having the bodyweight of a pigeon
Not if you're a pigen, apparently
having the bodyweight of a butterfly
Why should this be a problem?
having the food requirements of a mole
It's tough being a mole - you need to eat a lot to keep a fast
metabolism running when your body is small. However, moles are well
adapted to catch and eat lots of earthworms, which are a high-protein,
abundant food source.
[DL]"Eyes and light emitting spots are far more useful and less
expensive to an organism than"
Which is [DL]"more useful and less expensive to an organism"?:
eyes, or light-sensitive spots?
Depends on the environment. In a cave, neither would be of much use.
This is why animals living in darkness tend to lose eyes. It's called
evolution.
legs, or flippers?
If I'm living in water, I'd want flippers. If I'm living on land, I'd
want legs
legs, or wings?
legs, or the ability to slither?
[DL]"a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators."
Would a big brain assist in hunting for plankton?
Would a big brain assist in escaping from predators?
In [DL]"metabolic cost" terms, of what, if any, assistance to humans
is the ability to:
create art?
do mathematics?
have religious beliefs?
write?
go to the moon?
The cost is that of keeping a huge brain running - it consumes about
30% of our energy intake. The benefit of creating art, etc. is that
you get laid, and have lots of offspring. Read Mark Ridley's 'Sex and
the Evolution of Human Nature'.
Why do you insist of asking questions in this pecular format? It makes
it hard to follow your argument.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
01 May 2004 10:18:18 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<qcCdnVgN1sg3PA_dRVn-jw@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404301019.1279716e@posting.google.com...
Tristan Miller <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message
news:<5557550.yJ84Z4ghIW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
(snip)
[TM]""The model," he writes, "predicts a path of evolution up to and
'ueber' humans." [sic] [Murray, 1997]" What model is being mentioned,
and what does this model say?
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Does the model/theory of which Murray speaks predict that eyes,
light-sensitive spots, and bioluminescence would evolve independently
numerous times, while a high level of intelligence would evolve only
once?
What is Dawkins's explanation of this state of affairs?
I imagine it would be the metabolic cost of such a development. Eyes and
light emitting spots are far more useful and less expensive to an organism
than a huge and metabolically taxing brain. Note also that the light
emitting spots and probably most of the eye developments took place in the
ocean, and a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators.
What is the definition of [DL]"metabolic cost"?
Come on, you're not trying. Something has a metabolic cost if a body
with it takes more energy to operate than a body without it.
Which, if any, of these situations do you consider [DL]"metabolically
taxing"?:
having the bodyweight of a blue whale
having the bodyweight of a pigeon
having the bodyweight of a butterfly
having the food requirements of a mole
Meaningless without comparison to another organism. The question is
whether X is more metabolically taxing than not-X. And whether the cost
is outweighed by the benefit in some particular environment.
[DL]"Eyes and light emitting spots are far more useful and less
expensive to an organism than"
Which is [DL]"more useful and less expensive to an organism"?:
eyes, or light-sensitive spots?
legs, or flippers?
legs, or wings?
legs, or the ability to slither?
Light-sensitive spots are presumably less expensive than eyes. I don't
know if there's any difference in expense between the other pairs you
mention. What is more useful depends on the environment.
[DL]"a big brain is not required to hunt plankton and run from
predators."
Would a big brain assist in hunting for plankton?
Would a big brain assist in escaping from predators?
In some cases it would. The question is whether the cost of the big
brain outweighs its benefit. It's not just a matter of determining
whether it would be useful.
In [DL]"metabolic cost" terms, of what, if any, assistance to humans
is the ability to:
create art?
do mathematics?
have religious beliefs?
write?
go to the moon?
Considering that we probably didn't do any of these things when our
brains were being evolved, that's the wrong question. Once you figure
out the original use of our big brains, then you can ask the question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Watcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
01 May 2004 03:05:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:15:29 +0000 (UTC), (david ford) wrote:
(snip)
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Depends on how you define "high". Amazingly, all our human standards seem to
keep putting us at the top of all the intelligence measurements. I think our
species should change the name from homo sapiens to homo limbaughii, in honor(?)
of our arrogance. BTW, humans haven't been around that long, on an evolutionary
time scale, so I'd think a bigger sample would be needed to decide whether a
"high level of intelligence" appeared elsewhere. It could be argued that our
species claim to a "high" level of intelligence is dubious.
(snip)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Tyler" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
01 May 2004 03:46:42 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins The Watcher <don'tgo@there.com> wrote or quoted:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:15:29 +0000 (UTC), (david ford) wrote:
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Depends on how you define "high". Amazingly, all our human standards seem to
keep putting us at the top of all the intelligence measurements. I think our
species should change the name from homo sapiens to homo limbaughii, in
honor(?) of our arrogance. BTW, humans haven't been around that long,
on an evolutionary time scale, so I'd think a bigger sample would be
needed to decide whether a "high level of intelligence" appeared
elsewhere. It could be argued that our species claim to a "high" level
of intelligence is dubious. [...]
The dolphins are our nearest competitors - according to most metrics -
I believe.
They have larger brains - but also larger bodies.
http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/jbes03/brain.html
....compares brain to body weight ratios as follows:
Species Brain Weight as % of Body Weight
----------------------------------------------------
human 2.10
bottlenose dolphin 0.94
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
02 May 2004 03:15:35 PM |
|
|
In article <Hx1z9I.7Gz@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org>
wrote:
In talk.origins The Watcher <don'tgo@there.com> wrote or quoted:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:15:29 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
Eyes are said to have evolved independently 40-60+ times; the 40-60+
eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going about
seeing/ having vision. Light-sensitive spots supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times. Bioluminescence is said to have evolved
numerous times. In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has
appeared/arisen only once, as far as we know.
Depends on how you define "high". Amazingly, all our human standards seem
to
keep putting us at the top of all the intelligence measurements. I think
our
species should change the name from homo sapiens to homo limbaughii, in
honor(?) of our arrogance. BTW, humans haven't been around that long,
on an evolutionary time scale, so I'd think a bigger sample would be
needed to decide whether a "high level of intelligence" appeared
elsewhere. It could be argued that our species claim to a "high" level
of intelligence is dubious. [...]
The dolphins are our nearest competitors - according to most metrics -
I believe.
They have larger brains - but also larger bodies.
http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/jbes03/brain.html
...compares brain to body weight ratios as follows:
Species Brain Weight as % of Body Weight
----------------------------------------------------
human 2.10
bottlenose dolphin 0.94
*
Lest you think that we're No. 1, take a look at the hummingbird's
brain weight as a percent of body weight.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Tyler" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
02 May 2004 05:34:10 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote or quoted:
In article <Hx1z9I.7Gz@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler < >
The dolphins are our nearest competitors - according to most metrics -
I believe.
They have larger brains - but also larger bodies.
http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/jbes03/brain.html
Lest you think that we're No. 1, take a look at the hummingbird's
brain weight as a percent of body weight.
Heh:
Species Brain Weight as % of Body Weight
---------------------------------------------------
Hummingbird 4.20
Human 2.10
Bottlenose dolphin 0.94
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Watcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is not goal-directed |
03 May 2004 12:18:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 May 2004 20:15:35 +0000 (UTC), Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net>
wrote:
(snip)
Lest you think that we're No. 1, take a look at the hummingbird's
brain weight as a percent of body weight.
Must be something wrong with that measurement. We'll have to "modify" that
system a bit until it comes out correctly(with man as #1). ;)
Our species seems to have a fragile ego which doesn't handle the concept of
humility too well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
