True Nature of Evolution

[bytesplicer]

'Evolution is the result of change - it is not a cause in any sense.'

Never in dispute. As far as I understand, natural selection is the 'cause' that results in evolution (change). And energy interactions are the cause that results in natural selection. Just to be clear, energy here is an abstraction that encompasses the physical processes involved (biological), something eating something, or something dying as a result of some other process, as well as the processes ongoing in the organisms involved.

The teleological/teleonomical argument applies to energy also, as I said before, thinking of energy as an actual 'stuff', or the cause of anything, is, strictly speaking, incorrect. It is very difficult to choose your language correctly, which I guess can lead to misunderstandings in both directions. Having said all this, the phenomenon we observe, or rather the measurements we make, correspond with the energy laws. At no point have I ever ascribed purpose to this. There's no evidence either way for such a conclusion.

In other words, the 'process' we describe as evolution is, at the end of the day, a specific and circumstantial abstraction of the 'process' we describe as physics. Both describe what we see in nature, neither can be said to 'exist' in their own right, but the fact we are describing something we are actually observing makes it difficult to separate. All the measurements and abstractions we make (evolution, physics etc) with regard to the real world ultimately converge at the energy abstraction. Once you're there, there's no where else to go, and you end up in a loop, looking for further relationships where none exist. This is where it becomes easy for some people to attach a religious relationship, and will always be easy, as long as all new science we do continues to converge semantically with energy.

[Joseph]

But as evolution has to have its variations ready before the environment makes them "adaptations" then there is no teleology possible and only plays the game of the religious.

Yes, but adaptation happens for the good of the organism. In this sense we can speak of final causes.

Food includes minerals.

But when bivalve clams use Ca from seawater to deposit their shells, they are not eating it. This is trivial here.

I really do not think you can know as much as you think you can. But speculating justifies their research grants don't it. By definition you cannot possibly know the non sedimentary nutrients that were available but not taken up by the fossil. And as 90% of fossils materials are wholly replaced by other minerals that rather leads you to a dead end.

I won't counter these misconceptions in this thread as they are far off-topic and I don't feel like wasting my time. There are fine textbooks of paleontology I can point you if you are so inclined. The fossil record is far from perfect, but as our tools and sampling get better we are learning that its not as bad as everyone once thought.

[Joseph]

Bytesplicer -

do you think it is conceivable to construct a theory of biological information that does not rely on measurement but that objectively exists? I hope there is such a possibility.

[chaz wyman]

But as evolution has to have its variations ready before the environment makes them "adaptations" then there is no teleology possible and only plays the game of the religious.

Yes, but adaptation happens for the good of the organism. In this sense we can speak of final causes.

I disagree. Final causes is an Aristotelian concept and implies purpose and design.

Food includes minerals.

But when bivalve clams use Ca from seawater to deposit their shells, they are not eating it. This is trivial here.

I really do not think you can know as much as you think you can. But speculating justifies their research grants don't it. By definition you cannot possibly know the non sedimentary nutrients that were available but not taken up by the fossil. And as 90% of fossils materials are wholly replaced by other minerals that rather leads you to a dead end.

I won't counter these misconceptions in this thread as they are far off-topic and I don't feel like wasting my time. There are fine textbooks of paleontology I can point you if you are so inclined. The fossil record is far from perfect, but as our tools and sampling get better we are learning that its not as bad as everyone once thought.

There are no misconceptions here. Much of the research into palaeontology is self justifying and fraught to circular arguments, as well as being of only esoteric value.

[chaz wyman]

Thank you Joseph. I was waiting for someone to step in and bang our heads together, trapped in the argument as we both were.

On your point about steering away from energy and toward information. One of the main points I've been trying to make is that energy is information. There's no physical basis for energy, only measurement relating cause and effect between interacting things. Sure, we can see things happening, and we ascribe it to energy, but all we can deal in, scientifically at least, is the measurements/information. Energy is a concept, dealing only in number, but exact in how it matches what we observe.

Chaz. I honestly don't have in mind a theory that will explain everything, in fact what I'm saying suggests that there can be no theory of everything, at least with the way we currently think and do science.

I thought we were done. I'm not sure you have a theory.


What I'm saying is that energy accounts for all physical phenomenon.

This reminds me of Miss Elsie ZIp, whose theory states that all brontosauruses are thin and the front get much much fatter in the middle and then then thin at the end. "This is my theory. It is mine and no one else's. I invented it, it's mine."


At the same time, the relational nature of it ...

What is "it". The use of this word often indicates a certain lack of coherence.


... shows why we reach points in our thinking where things get recursive or circular. Saying 'energy is a part of everything' misses the point. Energy describes the relationships we see between 'everything', how things happen and what the results are, an 'exchange rate' between phenomenon.

Energy cannot describe. I'm sure we have crossed this path before.


But it...

There is that word again!

... doesn't (and can't) say what the universe is made of or why. Information is a better way to say it, as I mentioned earlier and as Joseph just mentioned.
It's natural to think of energy as a 'stuff', but it's not, or rather we can't yet tell whether it has a physical basis or whether our energy based mathematics just happens to match what we see. On this basis, it shows the questions science can and can't answer, and why.

[Joseph]

We don't have to become Aristotelians to accept teleonomy—I sure ain't. My conception of final causes is non-essentialist and purely immanent—Spinozist for sure. To me teleonomy is one of the most plain facts of biology—even Jacques Monod, that consummate existentialist, recognized this. Don't tell me you're stuck in the 20th century!

As for purpose and design; yes, I think there is purpose immanent in the universe. Nothing theistic about this. Definitely biocentric. And design, it is clear that organisms are well (or good-enough) designed to survive and thrive. No intelligent designer here, just the universe.

There are no misconceptions here. Much of the research into palaeontology is self justifying and fraught to circular arguments, as well as being of only esoteric value.

Well congratulations, you have introduced to me a form of strange-belief I had not before heard of! I have seen this sort of cynicism directed towards climate-scientists (what with Rush Limbaugh and all), but never towards paleontologists!

I have to side with chaz though in terms of this energy business. When bytesplicer says "energy accounts for all physical phenomenon," I can only interpret this as unnecessarily reductionist. How do you propose that energy is relevant to natural selection, other than that NS may select for increased efficiency/power? NS is the perfect example of top-down causation, and I think it would be perverse to explain it away in terms of energy transfers.

[bytesplicer]

Bytesplicer -

do you think it is conceivable to construct a theory of biological information that does not rely on measurement but that objectively exists? I hope there is such a possibility.

it's hard to see how, but that doesn't preclude the possibility. seems that measurement would have to come into it somewhere. that's the relational argument, perhaps there are other ways of thinking that can go beyond this, and I'd like to think of that as a possibility too. do you have or know of such a theory?

chaz. yes, the word 'it' does lose its meaning when taken out of context like that, clearly the word relates to 'energy' in the preceding sentence. Perhaps you should go through your own posts and look to your use of the word, and account for your own coherence before knocking mine. Once more, you are simply resorting to word play in lieu of an actual argument or discussion. I know you can do better.

Energy isn't my theory, I didn't invent it, but I do think 'its' philosophical importance has been overlooked. All I'm doing is thinking about 'it', and talking about 'it', and using 'it' as a principle when pondering physical systems, which I did in answering the original post, before you dragged the thread off topic.

[bytesplicer]

I have to side with chaz though in terms of this energy business. When bytesplicer says "energy accounts for all physical phenomenon," I can only interpret this as unnecessarily reductionist. How do you propose that energy is relevant to natural selection, other than that NS may select for increased efficiency/power? NS is the perfect example of top-down causation, and I think it would be perverse to explain it away in terms of energy transfers.

To see why I say this, think about NS in terms of what is necessary for it to happen as a process. Does it happen without life? Does it happen without interacting molecules and atoms? NS comes down to the survival of the organism, based around its traits relative to the environment. The traits themselves are determined by how the organism is built, which ultimately comes down to energy interactions. Whether you're looking at the scale of all -life, a species, organism, sub-organism or the environment, energy comes into play. It is neither holistic or reductionist, but both depending on the scale you are observing. Looking at it another way, an energy transfer at the molecular level can determine if the organism lives or dies, is this not NS? Whether it is a bite, a virus or excessive heat, whatever the scenario, NS comes down to transfers of energy, with selection occurring based upon how well a particular molecular composite remains stable and (in the case of life) reproductively viable upon exposure to the energy in question.

[chaz wyman]

I have to side with chaz though in terms of this energy business. When bytesplicer says "energy accounts for all physical phenomenon," I can only interpret this as unnecessarily reductionist. How do you propose that energy is relevant to natural selection, other than that NS may select for increased efficiency/power? NS is the perfect example of top-down causation, and I think it would be perverse to explain it away in terms of energy transfers.

To see why I say this, think about NS in terms of what is necessary for it to happen as a process. Does it happen without life? Does it happen without interacting molecules and atoms? NS comes down to the survival of the organism, based around its traits relative to the environment. The traits themselves are determined by how the organism is built, which ultimately comes down to energy interactions. Whether you're looking at the scale of all -life, a species, organism, sub-organism or the environment, energy comes into play. It is neither holistic or reductionist, but both depending on the scale you are observing. Looking at it another way, an energy transfer at the molecular level can determine if the organism lives or dies, is this not NS? Whether it is a bite, a virus or excessive heat, whatever the scenario, NS comes down to transfers of energy, with selection occurring based upon how well a particular molecular composite remains stable and (in the case of life) reproductively viable upon exposure to the energy in question.

"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing" Popper

[bytesplicer]

"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing" Popper

In other words, the 'process' we describe as evolution is, at the end of the day, a specific and circumstantial abstraction of the 'process' we describe as physics. Both describe what we see in nature, neither can be said to 'exist' in their own right, but the fact we are describing something we are actually observing makes it difficult to separate. All the measurements and abstractions we make (evolution, physics etc) with regard to the real world ultimately converge at the energy abstraction. Once you're there, there's no where else to go, and you end up in a loop, looking for further relationships where none exist. This is where it becomes easy for some people to attach a religious relationship, and will always be easy, as long as all new science we do continues to converge semantically with energy.

[chaz wyman]

"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing" Popper

In other words, the 'process' we describe as evolution is, at the end of the day, a specific and circumstantial abstraction of the 'process' we describe as physics. Both describe what we see in nature, neither can be said to 'exist' in their own right, but the fact we are describing something we are actually observing makes it difficult to separate. All the measurements and abstractions we make (evolution, physics etc) with regard to the real world ultimately converge at the energy abstraction. Once you're there, there's no where else to go, and you end up in a loop, looking for further relationships where none exist. This is where it becomes easy for some people to attach a religious relationship, and will always be easy, as long as all new science we do continues to converge semantically with energy.

Of course everything boils down to matter in motion, and energy. The boiling down does not describe it, help us to understand or provide information that shows what is going on in a pragmatic way.
It is like putting a gourmet meal into a blender and using a colourimeter to judge it on Master Chef.
It's all down to particularities in the end.
I thought we were done here?

[bytesplicer]

Of course everything boils down to matter in motion, and energy.

Does it? Says who? The physical reality we can observe and measure does. Is that everything?

The boiling down does not describe it, help us to understand or provide information that shows what is going on in a pragmatic way.

Why do I need to do this? This is a philosophy forum, how much of what we discuss here is pragmatic? Does an understanding of how screwed our way of thinking is count as pragmatic? How is it that, despite all our advances, someone with only marginal knowledge but strong belief can argue reality with a well-educated scientist and come off even? Do you think science is winning this argument? I'm pointing at the reason why it isn't, and why it can't. Even if energy isn't the ultimate physical description, when (or if) we do arrive at an ultimate physical description it will be just like energy, an internally consistent relational mechanism that explains the whole and the parts but that cannot explain its own origin. We have a mechanism like this already, the concept of energy. It tells me that we need to look at other ways of exploring our universe, and other ways of thinking.

Finally, in my original post, I described the process of evolution from a different perspective. At least one person found this interesting and useful. You yourself have gone from calling what I say 'mystical idiotic nonsense' and are now just saying it's not practical, or that I've misspelled or misused particular words.





It is like putting a gourmet meal into a blender and using a colourimeter to judge it on Master Chef.
It's all down to particularities in the end.

Is it? Says who? What about the particularity of how the universe works as a whole? Why is science attempting to unify everything if only the particulars are important?

Going back to your gourmet meal. What makes a gourmet meal? Is it the carrots? The peas? Is it how well the meat is cooked? Is it the sauce? The presentation? The smell? No, it is the whole. The parts contribute, but it is how they all work together that makes or breaks the meal. I can know everything about carrots, and still be unable to prepare a gourmet meal. There may be no end to detail, and if so, no real understanding lies that way either. The greatest understanding (but still not complete) comes from studying the whole and the parts together. Understanding energy more fully is the only pragmatic way to tackle this, in my opinion.



I thought we were done here?

Hmmmmm.

[chaz wyman]

Of course everything boils down to matter in motion, and energy.

Does it? Says who? The physical reality we can observe and measure does. Is that everything?

The boiling down does not describe it, help us to understand or provide information that shows what is going on in a pragmatic way.

Why do I need to do this? This is a philosophy forum, how much of what we discuss here is pragmatic? Does an understanding of how screwed our way of thinking is count as pragmatic? How is it that, despite all our advances, someone with only marginal knowledge but strong belief can argue reality with a well-educated scientist and come off even? Do you think science is winning this argument? I'm pointing at the reason why it isn't, and why it can't. Even if energy isn't the ultimate physical description, when (or if) we do arrive at an ultimate physical description it will be just like energy, an internally consistent relational mechanism that explains the whole and the parts but that cannot explain its own origin. We have a mechanism like this already, the concept of energy. It tells me that we need to look at other ways of exploring our universe, and other ways of thinking.

Finally, in my original post, I described the process of evolution from a different perspective. At least one person found this interesting and useful. You yourself have gone from calling what I say 'mystical idiotic nonsense' and are now just saying it's not practical, or that I've misspelled or misused particular words.





It is like putting a gourmet meal into a blender and using a colourimeter to judge it on Master Chef.
It's all down to particularities in the end.

Is it? Says who? What about the particularity of how the universe works as a whole? Why is science attempting to unify everything if only the particulars are important?

Going back to your gourmet meal. What makes a gourmet meal? Is it the carrots? The peas? Is it how well the meat is cooked? Is it the sauce? The presentation? The smell? No, it is the whole. The parts contribute, but it is how they all work together that makes or breaks the meal. I can know everything about carrots, and still be unable to prepare a gourmet meal. There may be no end to detail, and if so, no real understanding lies that way either. The greatest understanding (but still not complete) comes from studying the whole and the parts together. Understanding energy more fully is the only pragmatic way to tackle this, in my opinion.



You are just contradicting yourself. You are trying to say everything there is about the meal by how hot the oven was when it was cooked. Bizarre!

I thought we were done here?

Hmmmmm.


Yes we are done here!
It is simple - evolution has nothing to do with energy interactions. It has everything to do with how species survive and reproduce in given environments. Reducing it to energy totally misses the point.
I am unsubscribing this topic.
Nice talking to you.




[/color]

[bytesplicer]

Hmmm, see if I can drag you back in

First, I wasn't contradicting myself, energy is about the whole and the parts, as I've said in almost every post! You were actually contradicting yourself first by focusing on the gourmet meal (the whole) being unnecessarily 'reduced', then insisting it was about the particulars (the parts).

I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that energy interactions have nothing to do with evolution. Sure, I could understand if you claimed only indirect influence, but nothing at all, come on. As for 'reducing it to energy', well, I think any area of study is best approached from different angles and scales.

Despite our little tussle here, and your gruff countenance, I respect your opinion and knowledge, and have enjoyed many of your other posts, when you're not being unnecessarily rude. You've made some good points and I will take them on board in my thinking.

Cheers!

[chaz wyman]

Hmmm, see if I can drag you back in


Okay last word.. Of course energy has something to do with evolution! I've already said it is part of everything. But then the fact that I enjoyed walking the dog has something to do with energy, but you can't understand anything about why I enjoyed it because of it. It does not provide you with an insight into it.
So for now I'll say cherrio, and look forward to seeing your posts elsewhere.


First, I wasn't contradicting myself, energy is about the whole and the parts, as I've said in almost every post! You were actually contradicting yourself first by focusing on the gourmet meal (the whole) being unnecessarily 'reduced', then insisting it was about the particulars (the parts).

I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that energy interactions have nothing to do with evolution. Sure, I could understand if you claimed only indirect influence, but nothing at all, come on. As for 'reducing it to energy', well, I think any area of study is best approached from different angles and scales.

Despite our little tussle here, and your gruff countenance, I respect your opinion and knowledge, and have enjoyed many of your other posts, when you're not being unnecessarily rude. You've made some good points and I will take them on board in my thinking.

Cheers!