ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/24/85)
>[Paul] sarcastically calls the position that "the fittest organisms > will survive" profound because it doesn't "say anything". >... >What natural selection and evolution "predict" >is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the >organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those >circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the >offspring that follow into the next period. [Rich] I'm believe Paul's sarcasm was quite on target, Rich. You say that the organisms to survive will be the `best suited' ones. Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the hell do you mean by `best suited'? Certain amazingly perverse evolutionary patterns have been known to occur in a species, such as are postulated to have created the male pheasant's arguably useless long tail, a major handicap which attracts mates (as well as predators). A common explanation is that any male who survives to sexual maturity must possess other quite extraordinary qualities. Furthermore, a genetic female preference for such a noticeable handicap evolved from the normal male-recognition mechanism. Note that not many males need to survive in order to produce a new generation. Therefore, females who possess genes with a preference to mate with such a fine specimen might produce many `superior' offspring, similar to their parents, who in turn... Somehow, possessing a handicap is more well suited, in these circumstances. A similar but unchecked evolutionary spiral is assumed to have driven the Irish Elk to extinction, which perhaps had the largest antlers of any similar creature to ever roam this planet. Did a few males become so `well suited to their circumstance' that Irish Elks vanished? Consequently, I see no way to define `well suited' in your sentence: " organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited " for those circumstances ..except as `well suited' == `likely to survive'. Now compare this to your own description of creationist thought: " They prefer an explanation that just says "God did it" because " that's what they want. Not because there's any basis to it. " Just because that's what they want. Since tautologies have a basis in any consistent universe, they are unfalsifiable metaphysics, and little different from the ideas of your opponents. I know that you mean well, Rich... >------ >As I mentioned in a previous article this level of predictivity does not >satisfy some people. But that's not any level of predictivity at all! Rich, `predict' derives from Latin prae {before} + dicere {say, tell} and roughly means `to tell what will happen BEFORE it happens'. Evolution may be many things: *A word that denotes certain inferred (pre)historical events *A collection of phenomena that we are just now beginning to understand *An concept that explains processes seen today (and in the past) *A metaphysical principle used to help scientists derive hard `predictive' theories ...but it is NOT PREDICTIVE! SMASH CAUSALITY!!! -michael
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/25/85)
> > [Rich Rosen] > >As I mentioned in a previous article this level of predictivity does not > >satisfy some people. > > But that's not any level of predictivity at all! > > Rich, to tell what will happen BEFORE it happens'. > > Evolution may be many things: > [...] > ...but it is NOT PREDICTIVE! > -michael Causality shards or no, the theory of evolution *is* predictive. The usual example of this is to "predict" that isolation from predators causes prey species to lose expensive defensive adaptations. This prediction can be tested whenever a new, isolated, predator-free environment is discovered. There are, of course, other predictive features, but this is one of the most striking and clear cut. Note that this is predictive on the level of "rocks fall", not on the level of precise calculation of the *rate* of fall (and/or the point of impact). I assume that this is the "level of predictivity" that Rich is talking about. (By the way, whatever happened to the every-ten-day-reminder about the lack of creationist explainations for this phenomenon? Was Dan's reply (the only one I know of) considered to satisfy the "termination requirement"?) -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/26/85)
>>[Paul] sarcastically calls the position that "the fittest organisms >> will survive" profound because it doesn't "say anything". >>... >>What natural selection and evolution "predict" >>is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the >>organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those >>circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the >>offspring that follow into the next period. [Rich] > I'm believe Paul's sarcasm was quite on target, Rich. > You say that the organisms to survive will be the `best suited' ones. > Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do > you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the > hell do you mean by `best suited'? [ELLIS] Best suited for survival. No, not ONLY the best ones will survive, best those best ones will most likely dominate the "gene pool" in the subsequent generations. Right, it's a tautology!!! What's amazing is that Paul is completely baffled by a tautology: those that are best suited to survive are the ones that do (barring unforeseen circumstances like tumultuous upheavals: but even then, those that survive the upheaval clearly were better "suited" for it). What this theory lacks is a "thing" that "determines" "best-suitedness" (like a god). Circumstances perform that function. > " organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited > " for those circumstances > ..except as `well suited' == `likely to survive'. Now compare this to > your own description of creationist thought: > " They prefer an explanation that just says "God did it" because > " that's what they want. Not because there's any basis to it. > " Just because that's what they want. > Since tautologies have a basis in any consistent universe, they are > unfalsifiable metaphysics, and little different from the ideas of your > opponents. Except one set of tautologies introduces a "god" just because the proponents like the idea of a god in charge of things. The other set doesn't add in any extraneous presumption like that. So simple, even a ... (But alas, no) >>As I mentioned in a previous article this level of predictivity does not >>satisfy some people. > But that's not any level of predictivity at all! > Rich, `predict' derives from Latin prae {before} + dicere {say, tell} > and roughly means `to tell what will happen BEFORE it happens'. Sorry. You're the one who's out to smash causality. This should please you to no end! :-) The fact remains that we live in a universe with so many variables, predictivity is nearly impossible on a grand scale. To say that "in x,000,000 years there will be this type of species", and to say so accurately, would require that you know every tumultuous circumstance of the next x,000,000 years, every not-so-tumultuous event that would impact such changes cascadingly ("For want of a nail..."), etc. As Charles Poirier pointed out in the free will discussion in another newsgroup, free will seems to be the notion where people claim "themselves" as the force of will behind something whereas they only think that because of their inability to examine ALL the controlling factors of cause involved. (In a way, a corollary to what Richard Carnes attributed to Freud regarding freedom.) The same thing is happening here. > Evolution may be many things: ...but it is NOT PREDICTIVE! Did I say it was, in the way that you describe? What I said was that some people are unsatisfied with that degree of predictivity, so they choose another system that "says it all". > SMASH CAUSALITY!!! Yeah, smash this... :-) I would think a lack of predictivity would be pleasing to someone out to smash causality. Perhaps a re-reading of the paragraph above is in order... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/30/85)
.......... > Rich, `predict' derives from Latin prae {before} + dicere {say, tell} > and roughly means `to tell what will happen BEFORE it happens'. >-michael In this instance, 'predict' can also mean, to predict results of an experiment BEFORE we know what the answer actually is, which allows us to test theories via methods like 'if a is true, then that would imply that b is true [given] so if we can determine experimentally that b is true, we have added to the credibility of the truth of a, and if we can determine experimentally that b is FALSE, then we may then have proven a to also be false'. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd