Community Messageboard: My best guess by Bramhodoulos

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

My best guess Bramhodoulos Send a noteboard - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM

I think the issue the author has is that what he is defining NS as is not NS. What I can gather about the author's views is that he seems to think NS needs to present a clear choice for each of its “decisions” before it is made. Since we do not know everything about everything yet it is impossible to make the predictions this author seems to be requiring. It may be possible in the future to do exactly what the author wants, but just because we can’t currently does not invalidate NS as a theory nor would it if we can't make predictions because it would require us to know the future (know when mutations happen and how they affect a species). Additionally large amount of what we know about science is gathered in this form. We see something, we make a prediction, we see if it is right, and we then refine and retest. It is through this process that we come to know something.

Ultimately the author also seems to be searching for a unifying theory of nature; something that we can put variables into and gets some sort of predictable result out of. While there may be a unifying theory for physics there is not one for biology. Life and biology are variable by nature and NS does not try to be a unifying theory; NS intent is to be a mechanism for evoltuion.

My best guess about the authors intention is not to deny NS in and of itself, but to change the definition of NS so that it is nothing more than an observation. Though maybe he'd like to change the naming (not sure into what).

The thing is that when NS is an observation and only an observation, it can no longer be an explanation for many features we observe in nature. Things that are specific to a species and help it to survive are then only maintained by NS, but not caused to develop by NS.
Maybe not everything, but many things.

You may be wondering where this author stands, well, he appears to have his own subvariant of ID, but he doesn't want to start with the bible (I havn't found any quotes from the bible and only 2 short quotes from (fellow?) creationists).
How he explains for many a feature is interesting, but should not really matter for this discussion though.

As for a unifying theory for all of nature, today, tomorrow in in a thousand years. Well, I think we can all agree that we don't know nearly enough, but the point is that NS (and taken one step further: evolution or darwinism) does claim to be just such a theory, while he sees many philosophical and practical (a lot of mathematical) problems with that theory and even though we are not at the end of the tunnel, he does claim it is a dead end.

Even if we do not take the road he proposes and even if all the other challenges surrounding evolution can be resolved, I'm still having trouble getting my head around NS, no matter how hard I try. It's basically to simple a concept to grasp for my too confused mind perhaps.

Reply to message

Natural selection Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM 1400 Views

selection for suitability LadyLorraine - 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM 1036 Views

Thanks for your responce

Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM 1166 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: Joel - 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM 1122 Views

Just a question Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM 1123 Views

Yes it can ßelals Girl - 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM 954 Views

But how? Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM 1175 Views

Okay, I think I see what you're saying ßelals Girl - 08/08/2011 05:30:43 PM 968 Views

Close Bramhodoulos - 08/08/2011 05:41:46 PM 1220 Views

Re: Just a question Joel - 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM 1218 Views

I'm not sure I understand you Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM 1116 Views

All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies. Joel - 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM 1169 Views

Then it is still a tautology Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM 1169 Views

You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations. Joel - 06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM 1225 Views

Maybe... Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM 1079 Views

I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions. Joel - 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM 1162 Views

we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM 1187 Views

As I understand it Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM 1025 Views

Better... Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM 1024 Views

Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 10:13:51 PM 1144 Views

Re: Actually Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 10:37:33 PM 1287 Views

Re: Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 11:38:52 PM 1192 Views

Oeh Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:54:19 PM 1038 Views

Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"? Joel - 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM 1149 Views

yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM* LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM 479 Views

No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway. Joel - 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM 1063 Views

Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM 1118 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:08:25 PM 1110 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 07/08/2011 12:46:23 AM 1084 Views

The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify... jh - 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM 1136 Views

The questions go deeper Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM 1158 Views

Re: The questions go deeper jh - 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM 1136 Views

I think I know why you don't understand my question. Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM 1178 Views

How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?

*NM* Isaac - 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM 490 Views

100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool

*NM* Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM 525 Views

TalkOrigins addresses this at length. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2011 11:14:52 PM 1197 Views

Not very much, but interesting none the less Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM 1209 Views

Re: Natural selection Night Walker - 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM 1137 Views

Thanks a lot Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM 1258 Views

2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM 1008 Views

Re: 2 things Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM 1221 Views

Re: 2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM 1070 Views

My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM 1144 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM 1033 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM 1204 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 07:02:27 PM 1062 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 09:09:57 PM 1159 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="219842">
<quote id="219840">I think the issue the author has is that what he is defining NS as is not NS.  What I can gather about the author's views is that he seems to think NS needs to present a clear choice for each of its “decisions” before it is made.  Since we do not know everything about everything yet it is impossible to make the predictions this author seems to be requiring.  It may be possible in the future to do exactly what the author wants, but just because we can’t currently does not invalidate NS as a theory nor would it if we can't make predictions because it would require us to know the future (know when mutations happen and how they affect a species).  Additionally large amount of what we know about science is gathered in this form.  We see something, we make a prediction, we see if it is right, and we then refine and retest.  It is through this process that we come to know something.

Ultimately the author also seems to be searching for a unifying theory of nature; something that we can put variables into and gets some sort of predictable result out of.  While there may be a unifying theory for physics there is not one for biology.  Life and biology are variable by nature and NS does not try to be a unifying theory; NS intent is to be a mechanism for evoltuion.</quote>

The thing is that when NS is an observation and only an observation, it can no longer be an explanation for many features we observe in nature. Things that are specific to a species and help it to survive are then only <i>maintained</i> by NS, but not <i>caused to develop</i> by NS.
Maybe not everything, but many things.

You may be wondering where this author stands, well, he appears to have his own subvariant of ID, but he doesn't want to start with the bible (I havn't found any quotes from the bible and only 2 short quotes from (fellow?) creationists).
How he explains for many a feature is interesting, but should not really matter for this discussion though.

As for a unifying theory for all of nature, today, tomorrow in in a thousand years. Well, I think we can all agree that we don't know nearly enough, but the point is that NS (and taken one step further: evolution or darwinism) does claim to be just such a theory, while he sees many philosophical and practical (a lot of mathematical) problems with that theory and even though we are not at the end of the tunnel, he does claim it is a dead end.

Even if we do not take the road he proposes and even if all the other challenges surrounding evolution can be resolved, I'm still having trouble getting my head around NS, no matter how hard I try. It's basically to simple a concept to grasp for my too confused mind perhaps.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password