That story does not explain why the surviving rabbit was able to run faster. It explains why it survived which is a trivial observation. — Andrew4Handel
Now that is abject nonsense. Value is a human construct. — Bradskii
I was a good runner back in the day. My son is better. My daughter not as good. If foxes were chasing the three of us, my daughter and her slightly slower genes would be removed from the gene pool. — Bradskii
Did you forget my quote from Darwin himself earlier and if not how does it not invoke value and how do terms like "advantageous" and "fittest" not invoke value judgments? — Andrew4Handel
That's dangerously close to the old 'why are there still monkeys?' question. — Bradskii
But the question is how did you come to have the trait of being a good runner? How can something be selected for if it does into already exist. — Andrew4Handel
Fair point. I guess the question I’m angling towards is that of whether evolution is directional in nature - whether it tends towards (for instance) creatures with higher degrees of intelligence. I understand that the mainstream view is ‘definitely not’. But then you can ask whether it is a question that is in scope for biology or science at all. What evidence could there be for either the affirmative or negative? It would seem to me to be more a matter of the starting assumptions. — Wayfarer
That story does not explain why the surviving rabbit was able to run faster. It explains why it survived which is a trivial observation. — Andrew4Handel
But is seems what needs to happen is for the long legs to evolve somehow by genetic mutation alone , already exist and then be selected which means the key process is the beneficial mutation and why that happened. — Andrew4Handel
The capacity for legs to evolve would require preexisting emergent properties available in biochemistry which would not be explained by evolution it self. — Andrew4Handel
For example how would a polar bear survive in the North pole if it did not already have lots of body fat and White fur etc. It is not going to be competing against green and red and thin bears. — Andrew4Handel
No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. — Bradskii
I don't see what the relevance of the "selection" process is for explaining an organisms traits. — Andrew4Handel
Is your standard of truth divorced from morality or ethics?
If something is a fact it is a fact. — Andrew4Handel
I do believe science has an ethical dimension. We don't randomly shoot babies to see what the results will be or as Frankie Boyle put it see how many pastilles it takes to choke a Kestrel. — Andrew4Handel
But what has it got to do with our future decisions? As I say you can't get an ought from an is.... but you may induce depression in someone by belittling their status and belief values to prove our evolutionary status. I had this experience when I spent years battling anxiety and depression and arguing on atheist forums looking for a more hopeful prognosis on existence. — Andrew4Handel
I'm not sure what that means. What would be a specific aspect of biology that is not derivable from chemistry? — punos
I think this is absolutely true. There is bottom-up causation, and there is top-down causation which makes things more complex than just bottom-up, but that doesn't preclude derivability. — punos
No, selection happens at all levels. All that is needed for selection to occur are things that can interact or affect and be affected by other things in an environment or space. The selection process emerges out of complex interactions, and the probability distribution of all the possible interactions determines what gets selected. That is what selection is in general at any level, biological or otherwise. — punos
Ahem. — Wayfarer
Survival of the fittest was introduced by Herbert Spencer in an essay on the principle of natural selection - Darwin later approved and adopted it (I think it was even in later editions of his book). — Wayfarer
If I add heat to the water, it is heated and the water molecule increase in kinetic energy. Since it is confined by air pressure, it's pressure increases (PV=NRT) and it's entropy decreases.
— T Clark
I googled it, what I find is the opposite: — Wayfarer
I do sometimes ponder why evolution didn't simply come to an end with blue-green algae. Heaven knows they proven their ability to survive for near a billion years. — Wayfarer
But the question is how did you come to have the trait of being a good runner? How can something be selected for if it does into already exist. — Andrew4Handel
If you used all of your knowledge of chemistry, you could not predict the basic scientific principles of biology, e.g. the structure and behavior of a single-celled organism. This is true even though every process that takes place in the cell would proceed consistent with the principles of chemistry. — T Clark
If you're saying that biological processes are predictable from chemical processes, I think the consensus is that you're wrong. — T Clark
I guess the question I’m angling towards is that of whether evolution is directional in nature — Wayfarer
No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. — Bradskii
This is just a temporary state of affairs due to our limited but growing knowledge of these processes. On the specific issue you mention about the structure and behavior of cells; Michael Levin is at the cutting edge of that research, and we will soon know how that all happens. — punos
Consensus is not the criteria in science, that's called democracy and it's a whole different thing. Consensus is fickle and changes with the times as ignorance and knowledge ebbs and flows. — punos
As we're into video show-and-tell, here's a presentation by Robert Lanza on 'biocentrism'. I'm not sure how he is regarded in the mainstream - I suspect not highly - but I find his attitude philosophically superior to your common or garden varieties of materialism. — Wayfarer
I don't see what it has to do with the subject we were discussing - how to predict biological phenomena from chemical principles. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.