Reflectorites
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:18:27 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
SJ>"I, for one, in spite of all the benefits drawn from genetics and the
>mathematical theory of selection, am still at a loss to understand why it is
>of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the
>Sargasso sea, or why Ascaris has to migrate all around the host's body
>instead of comfortably settling in the intestine where it belongs; or what
>was the survival value of a multiple stomach for a cow when a horse, also
>vegetarian and of comparable size, does very well with a simple stomach;
>or why certain insects had to develop those admirable mimicries and
>protective colorations when the common cabbage butterfly is far more
>abundant with its conspicuous white wings. One cannot reject these and
>innumerable similar questions as incompetent; if the selectionist explanation
>works well in some cases, a selectionist explanation cannot be refused in
>others." (von Bertalanffy L., "Chance or Law," in Koestler A. & Smythies
>J.R., ed., "Beyond Reductionism," 1972, p.65)
>CC>This is easy.
Maybe that's the problem with Darwinist explanations? They assume there
are always "easy" answers to what might after all be complex, multi-
factorial problems.
BTW later on Chris seemingly concedes Bertalanffy's (and my) argument
because he appears to abandons Selectionism and switches to arguing for
Mutationism:
"There was a school of geneticists called the mutationists... All
the mutationists believed that selection had at best a minor
weeding-out role to play in evolution. The really creative force was
mutation itself." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p305)
CC>Selection only works on variations.
That is effectively a tautology (in the sense of circular reasoning) in
Darwinist theory. Variations are ultimately defined by Darwinism as that
which is selected. For example the only variations that count in Darwinism
are those which are inheritable and they are only inheritable if they are
reflected in genes. Yet Dawkins defines a gene as that which is selected:
"We can define a word how we like for our own purposes, provided
we do so clearly and unambiguously. The definition I want to use
comes from G. C. Williams. A gene is defined as any portion of
chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations
to serve as a unit of natural selection."(Dawkins R., "The Selfish
Gene," 1989, p.28)
Darwinism is really a self-delusory definitional `ring-a-rosies'. Variation is
defined in terms of its being able to be selected and selection is defined in
terms of what is varied!
In other cases where selection has not occurred, Darwinist claim, without
any evidence except the lack of selection, that there hasn't been any
variation:
"The swimming mollusc Nautilus, a rather strange squid-like
creature that lives in a shell like the extinct ammonites ... has a pair
of pinhole cameras for eyes. The eye is basically the same shape as
ours but there is no lens and the pupil is just a hole that lets the
seawater into the hollow interior of the eye. Actually, Nautilus is a
bit of a puzzle in its own right. Why, in all the hundreds of millions
of years since its ancestors first evolved a pinhole eye, did it never
discover the principle of the lens? The advantage of a lens is that it
allows the image to be both sharp and bright. What is worrying
about Nautilus is that the quality of its retina suggests that it would
really benefit, greatly and immediately, from a lens. It is like a hi-fi
system with an excellent amplifier fed by a gramophone with a blunt
needle. The system is crying out for a particular simple change. In
genetic hyperspace, Nautilus appears to be sitting right next door to
an obvious and immediate improvement, yet it doesn't take the small
step necessary. Why not? Michael Land of Sussex University, our
foremost authority on invertebrate eyes, is worried, and so am I. Is it
that the necessary mutations cannot arise, given the way Nautilus
embryos develop? I don't want to believe it, but I don't have a better
explanation." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, pp.85-
86)
Thus Darwinists reason in an unfalsifiable circle. If there is selection, then
variation is assumed to have occurred. If there is no selection, then variation
is assumed not to have occurred!
CC>If different but still
>advantageous variations occur in different animals,
This explains nothing but just restates the dogma.
Why is it selectively "advantageous" for "the eels of Comacchio to travel
perilously to the Sargasso sea"?
Why is it selectively "advantageous" for "Ascaris has to migrate all round
the host's body instead of comfortably settling in the intestine where it
belongs"?
Why is it selectively "advantageous" for "a cow" to develop "a multiple
stomach" and not for "a horse, also vegetarian and of comparable size"?
Why is *white* selectively "advantageous" for "the common cabbage
butterfly" against *green* foliage?
CC>they will each be selected for.
This is a tautology too. What was "advantageous" is defined as what was
"selected for" and what was "selected for" is defined as what was
"advantageous"!
How do Darwinists know which "variations" were "advantageous"?
Because they were the ones selected for. How do they know which
"variations" were *not* "advantageous"? Because they were *not* the
ones selected for.
Darwinism therefore explains everything (and its opposite) and thus really
explains nothing.
CC>Also, the environments and diets and other aspects of cows
>and horses, have been different. The mere fact that they are both vegetarian
>is only *one* fact to be taken into account.
Even if "the environments and diets and other aspects of cows and horses,
have been different" how do Darwinists *know* that variation and selection
had anything to do with it?
Cows and horses could have lived in different "environments" and on
different "diets" because they had different *stomachs*. It is more likely that
something would change its diet to suit its stomach than change its stomach
to suit its diet!
CC>If one lives mainly on dry grass
>and the other on green alfalfa, they will have different digestive needs,
>despite the rather abstract fact that both dry grass and green alfalfa are
>vegetarian foods.
But which came first, the "different digestive needs" or the "different
digestive" *systems*?
Darwinism has an all-purpose, Swiss-army knife explanation for
*everything*! There is no need to carry out any actual scientific
investigation. Darwinism has a ready-made explanation for everything and
its opposite.
CC>*Exactly* why one went one way and the other another
>would have to be determined by a detailed examination of each case,
Agreed. But then it is the "*Exactly* why" which is the *real cause* not
variation and natural selection:
"The trouble with this argument is that natural selection provides a
very limited type of explanation, and it fails totally on some very
important and interesting questions. ... Explanations in terms of
history and natural selection are not very helpful since they simply
redescribe what is observed in terms of function and cost, but you
are no wiser for the 'explanation'. Voltaire was scathing about such
statements when used by doctors in the eighteenth century who
described the efficacy of sleeping drafts such as laudanum in terms
of their formative principles'. So no-one should be under any
illusions about the value of biological explanations in terms of
historical narratives and natural selection." (Goodwin B., "How The
Leopard Changed Its Spots," 1995, p82)
CC>but
>the point I'm making is simply that they *are* different cases, and von
>Bertalanffy treats them as if they should be the same because there is some
>slight similarity between them.
No, von Bertalanffy's point was that the Darwinists of his day picked and
chose the easiest cases for their "selectionist" theory and rejected as
"incompetent" the hard cases. His argument was that "if the selectionist
explanation works well in some cases, a selectionist explanation cannot be
refused in others."
I now expect an obvious retort to this from Chris so I will hold my retort to
his obvious retort until he makes it!
CC>If we take this route, we could say,
>
> Why are any species even slightly different from any
> other species? After all, all species we know of live on
> the exact same planet, and they all ingest nutrients.
> One cannot reject these and innumerable similar
> questions as incompetent; if the selectionist
> explanation works well in some cases, a selectionist
> explanation cannot be refused in others.
The point was that the "selectionists" of his day *did* "reject
these...questions as incompetent".
My retort to Chris' expected retort would apply here too.
CC>Frankly, I would not have expected von Bertalanffy, author of a classic book
>on general systems theory, to make such a novice's blunder. But Jones
>caught him, fair and square.
This is the usual Darwinist ad hominem response to critics when the going
gets tough!
The fact is that Encyclopaedia Britannica cites von Bertalanffy as a pioneer
of "organismic biology": a "concept of an organism as a cybernetic, or
automatic-control, system" which in fact "is currently influential in biology":
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,115092+16,00.html
nature, philosophy of
Organisms as systems
The concept of an organism as a cybernetic, or automatic-control, system
is currently influential in biology.
The holistic concept of an organism--i.e., the theory that the determining
factors in biology are its irreducible wholes--owes its success primarily to
the existence of control and regulation mechanisms operating at the
molecular level that determine development and behaviour. ....
A theoretical and methodological program called general systems theory--
presented in its fullest and most persuasive form by Bertalanffy--is an
extension of the tenets of organismic biology. It is an attempt to provide a
common methodological approach for all of the sciences, based upon the
idea that systems of any kind--physical, biological, psychological, and
social--operate in accordance with the same fundamental principles..
------------------------------------------------------------------
CC>I would add that selectionism only explains what we see out of
>the totality of variations that would have occurred had there not
>*been* any selection.
See above where "variations" and "selection" are, like the town hall clock
set by the factory hooter and the factory hooter set by the town hall clock,
defined by each other:
"The story is told of a man whose job was to sound the hooter at a
factory, telling all the other workers that it was time to go home.
Every day at 1.00 p.m. for lunchtime and 5.30 p.m. for the end of
work, he sounded the hooter. He did not use a watch or clock of his
own because just across the street was a jeweller's shop with a large
hanging clock outside. It could be clearly read from the workman's
office. At last the day came when the man retired from work. He
decided he should go and thank the jeweller for his clock and the
help it had been to him. When he told his story to the jeweller, who
was himself an old man by now, a rather strange look came over the
shopkeeper's face. After a pause he replied slowly..."But I always set
that clock right by your hooter!"(Andrews E.H., "From Nothing to
Nature," 1979, p.58)
The fact is that Darwinist "selectionism" predicts nothing and therefore
"explains" nothing, as even Popper admitted:
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as
metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is metaphysical
because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to
assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies
conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about
in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does
not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars
consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By
no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms
among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to
survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or
none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of
variety. It therefore cannot really explain it." (Popper K., "Unended
Quest,: 1982, p.171)
It is interesting that, as I have posted before, in my current two Biology
textbooks, there is hardly anything about natural selection in them. As more
and more is actually learned about biology, less and less is there about
selection.
CC>This is such a small portion of that totality,
>that only a special calculation could get to within a few orders of
>magnitude of the correct value, even if we knew early conditions
>of the first form(s) of life.
It is not clear to me what Chris means here.
CC>Selection does not explain the origination
>of any trait,
An interesting admission. This is what creationists have always said!
CC>but rather the fact that that trait (or a precursor to it)
>is still around for us to explain.
Again, this shows the tautological nature of Darwinian explanations. Is
something in existence? Then natural selection explains why it is in
existence: it was fit and so survived. Is something not in existence? Then
natural selection explains why it is not in existence: it wasn't fit and so it
didn't survive!
CC>This is not a causal explanation of why the trait exists
Another interesting admission!
CC>but rather
>why it was *allowed* to come into existence and stay in
>existence.
"Allowed"? Chris often personifies nature as though it was alive. There is
actually an early evolutionary position called Hylozoism that held that
matter really was alive:
"hylozoism ... a doctrine held especially by early Greek
philosophers that all matter has life"
(http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hylozoism).
CC>Other, conflicting traits and other variations of the trait
>that may have occurred were selected away, leaving only the one,
>of those available, that "worked" the best.
Again, explaining nothing. Did a trait survive? It was what "`worked the
best". How do we know it "`worked the best"? Because it survived!
Such Darwinian pseudo-explanations are just truisms. That is they are
"undoubted or self-evident truth" and thus "too obvious for mention."
(http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=truism)
Besides, what is "best" in a Darwinian system? The horse has survived, the
cow has survived. This is Bertalanffy's point. Selection does not really
explain *why* something has survived. It just restates the fact that it *has*
survived.
CC>But, which ones were available and at which times and places, is
>a matter of chance.
"Chance" is not an explanation either:
"Chance...is only our ignorance of real causes." (Jaki S.L, in Sproul
R.C., "Not a Chance", 1994, pp25-26)
CC>*Perhaps* the horse would be better off
>*now* to have taken the cow's route,
See above. What is "better" and therefore what is "better off" in a
Darwinian system? The horse has survived, the cow has survived. They
both are *equally* "better" and therefore, from a Darwinian perspective,
*neither* is "better":
"The only time when Darwin performed creditably in philosophical
matters relating to his evolutionary ideology came when he jotted
on a slip of paper, which he kept in his copy of Chambers' Vestiges
of Creation the warning addressed to himself: `Never say higher or
lower.' He did not fully remember the gist of that warning, namely,
that a scientific theory (as distinct from a scientific ideology)
permitted no value judgments." (Jaki S.L., "The Absolute beneath
the Relative," 1988, p.191)
CC>but if the correct variations
Similarly, what is "correct"? Chris, like all Darwinists, smuggles qualitative
words into what is supposed to be a mindless, purposeless, materialistic,
mechanistic natural processes.
CC>did not happen to occur, or did not occur at the right time(s) and
>places(s),
What is "right"? See above.
CC>then the horse has to make do with whatever variations
>on its existing digestive system actually *do* occur.
This is supposed to be *explaining* the *how* the horse's
"digestive system" *became* "existing"!
CC>Perhaps an
>increase in stomach acid, or some new enzymes, or whatever.
"Perhaps" indeed!
CC>The
>point is that not everything that might be good for a species may
>happen to begin to occur when it's needed.
What is "good"? See above. What is "needed"? That sounds like
Lamarckism:
"The second belief erroneously ascribed to Lamarck has to do with
the effect of volition. Hasty readers of Lamarck's work have, almost
consistently, ascribed to Lamarck a theory of volition. Thus,
Darwin speaks of "Lamarck nonsense of ... adaptations from the
slow willing of animals" ... In part the misunderstanding was caused
by the mistranslation of the word besoin into "want" instead of
"need" and a neglect of Lamarck's carefully developed chain of
causations from needs to efforts to physiological excitations to the
stimulation of growth to the production of structures. (Mayr E.,
"The Growth of Biological Thought,", 1982, p.357)
CC>Perhaps the cow's
>stomach system is the result of a fairly major mutation that
>happened to be of some value,
"Perhaps" again! And "value" for what? So far Chris has smuggled in
qualitative words like "best", "better", "correct", "right", "good", "needed",
and now "value".
He is using the qualitative language of purpose in what is supposed to be a
purposeless process.
CC>and which evolved over time (via
>other, smaller, variations) to the system cows use today (anyone
>here know about the evolutionary history of the bovine digestive
>system?).
Which is itself revealing. Chris can explain the "history of the bovine
digestive system" using Darwinian explanations without knowing anything
about the actual "history of the bovine digestive system"!
That is because Darwinian explanations don't explain anything. They just
take what is existing and baptise it as the fittest which survived.
Darwinism's all-purpose, Swiss army knife after the fact pseudo-
explanations therefore *can't* be wrong, and that is therefore why they are
not *even* wrong!
CC>Variation is the real "driving force" in evolution, because, without
>it, there is nothing to select. Variation does not need selection, but
>selection *does* need variation.
Thus Chris sounds like he is really not a Selectionist, but a Mutationist?
But "variation" itself needs to be non-circularly defined, independent of
"selection". If "variation" itself is ultimately defined as genetic and a gene
itself is ultimately defined as the fundamental unit of "selection" (as Dawkins
does) then ultimately "variation" and "selection" are just different facets of
the same thing.
CC>Selection is like irregularities in
>land guiding the flow of water, and the variations are like the
>water itself, water that, on perfectly flat land, would simply spread
>out in all directions evenly (see remarks on similes below).
This "simile" is misleading. What Chris needs is a "flow of water" (as it
were) that flows *uphill*!
CC>I'm sad to say that naive or conceptually incautious evolutionists
>have themselves been largely to blame for this fundamental
>misconception of the nature of naturalistic evolution.
It is interesting how Chris accuses creationists like me, and now even
"evolutionists" of a "misconception of the nature of naturalistic evolution",
the presumption being that *Chris* is the judge of what is, and is not, a
"misconception" of "naturalistic evolution".
When Chris made a similar claim a couple of months ago, I asked Chris
what is his basis for claiming that he especially knows what "naturalistic
evolution" is and creationists and now "evolutionists" don't. He never
answered.
I must say I have never seen any evidence that Chris' knowledge of
"naturalistic evolution" is anything special. He seems to me to be just an
armchair theoriser who hardly ever (if ever) cites any actual scientific
literature.
CC>Even my
>own simile, above, is misleading, because it suggests that the
>variations are guided along channels by some sort of barriers
>corresponding to the banks of streams and rivers. ..
CC>... This is not how
>process works, so let's try another metaphor.
If it is "misleading" why use it?
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 19:08:02 EDT