Evolution through natural selection actually indicates that eugenics or a dog-eat-dog, survivor-take-all mentality is maladaptive. Natural selection is actually about probabilities for reproductive opportunities and not about annihilating "the weak." Any attempt at eugenics is almost certainly be doomed to fail in the long term. There are numerous factors that influence adaptability, health, and success in perpetuating the species. Such a narrow approach as specified by any eugenics plan would likely result in also selecting for weaknesses that are artifacts or covariates with the specifically selected traits.
It is precisely the situation that occurs with naturally selected field crops and animals. The result are organisms that have a few overdeveloped traits but that are often vulnerable in disconcerting ways. Viruses, bacteria, and parasites often then able to evolve to exploit those weaknesses with devastating results. Without consistent outside help in the form of antibiotics and other human created countermeasures, these very narrow strains would become extinct or be incorporated into the naturally occurring collection of genes in a relatively short amount of time. Diversity is actually very adaptive and necessary for a species to have a pool of genotypes from which to select when stressed by the environment.
There is actually substantial evidence that altruism is adaptive and is likely to be selected for over the course of many generations, which is a topic for another time.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
"In Sheep's Clothing
Most people would greatly benefit by learning how to spot tactics used by manipulative people. The following is one of the best summaries I have seen of such tactics:
Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior.
Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.
Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon.
Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.
Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.
Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.
Playing the Servant Role – Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.
One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.
Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html
See also:
http://www.amazon.com/Sheeps-Clothing-Understanding-Dealing-Manipulative/dp/096516960X
Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior.
Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.
Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon.
Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.
Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.
Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.
Playing the Servant Role – Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.
One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.
Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html
See also:
http://www.amazon.com/Sheeps-Clothing-Understanding-Dealing-Manipulative/dp/096516960X
A User's Manual for the Mind
It is unfortunate that our minds do not come with a user's manual. If that were the case there would probably be a lengthy "Cautions" section that would read something like the following.
When processing information be careful to avoid the following weaknesses and traps in reasoning and argument construction:
- Card stacking:
Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm
-Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can't learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoantiquity.html
- Appeal to Wealth
The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.
In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtowealth.html
- Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn't an authority at all, or isn't an authority on the subject about which they're speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoauthority.html
- An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
- Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
- Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
- Glittering generalities
Use attractive, but vague words that make speeches and other communications sound good, but in practice say nothing in particular.
Use linguistic patterns such as alliteration, metaphor and reversals that turn your words into poetry that flows and rhymes in hypnotic patterns.
Use words that appeal to values, which often themselves are related to triggering of powerful emotions.
A common element of glittering generalities are intangible nouns that embody ideals, such as dignity, freedom, fame, integrity, justice, love and respect.
http://changingminds.org/techniques/propaganda/glittering_generalities.htm
- Stereotyping
Cast those who you want to denigrate into an unpopular stereotype. Talk about the stereotypes as 'them', downplaying their rights as humans. Describe them as threatening, unworthy, disgusting and other negative frames.
Put emphasis on the stereotype words and the associations you want link to the stereotypes.
Name their leaders. Give exaggerated and distorted examples that 'prove' the stereotype and so condemn all who follow them.
Stereotyping can also be used to cast a group of people as good, perfect and otherwise wonderful and desirable.
http://changingminds.org/techniques/propaganda/stereotyping.htm
- Argumentum verbosium
Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by the familiar quote: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
When processing information be careful to avoid the following weaknesses and traps in reasoning and argument construction:
- Card stacking:
Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm
-Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can't learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoantiquity.html
- Appeal to Wealth
The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.
In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtowealth.html
- Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn't an authority at all, or isn't an authority on the subject about which they're speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoauthority.html
- An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
- Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
- Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
- Glittering generalities
Use attractive, but vague words that make speeches and other communications sound good, but in practice say nothing in particular.
Use linguistic patterns such as alliteration, metaphor and reversals that turn your words into poetry that flows and rhymes in hypnotic patterns.
Use words that appeal to values, which often themselves are related to triggering of powerful emotions.
A common element of glittering generalities are intangible nouns that embody ideals, such as dignity, freedom, fame, integrity, justice, love and respect.
http://changingminds.org/techniques/propaganda/glittering_generalities.htm
- Stereotyping
Cast those who you want to denigrate into an unpopular stereotype. Talk about the stereotypes as 'them', downplaying their rights as humans. Describe them as threatening, unworthy, disgusting and other negative frames.
Put emphasis on the stereotype words and the associations you want link to the stereotypes.
Name their leaders. Give exaggerated and distorted examples that 'prove' the stereotype and so condemn all who follow them.
Stereotyping can also be used to cast a group of people as good, perfect and otherwise wonderful and desirable.
http://changingminds.org/techniques/propaganda/stereotyping.htm
- Argumentum verbosium
Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by the familiar quote: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
"The Daily Me" and confirmation bias
In the 1995 book "Being Digital" a method of selecting all news feeds based on personal preferences is described. This tool is referred to as "The Daily Me." I have to remind myself to go out and find opposing perspectives and to avoid only selecting materials that agree with my current views.
Uncertainty and questioning can be disconcerting but it is a state that seems to be necessary for progress. As Jacques Monod stated, "Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science." I think this goes beyond science to all aspects of life.
Uncertainty and questioning can be disconcerting but it is a state that seems to be necessary for progress. As Jacques Monod stated, "Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science." I think this goes beyond science to all aspects of life.
Blind obedience
A nation or society filled with those who blindly obey is a hazard to itself as well as those around it. The destruction of the young men of Europe through the senseless commands and blind obedience of officers and men alike in World War I is a prime example. Rather than being able to conquer the world, an army of such people often destroys itself by perpetuating and magnifying the errors of the leadership through the ranks. In the case of World War I, the moral bankruptcy found in blind obedience resulted in fiscal bankruptcy and loss of empires plus the liquidation of a large portion of an entire generation.
"No" is a word that people should be trained to use early and often. It is anathema to autocratic organizations, but training people how to think critically and ask hard questions is vital to any group's long term survival. The famine, poverty, and stunting of scientific progress found in North Korea and the former Soviet Union are prime examples of the problems with blind obedience. No one person or group is sufficiently learned and wise to control even a portion of the decisions for others.
"No" is a word that people should be trained to use early and often. It is anathema to autocratic organizations, but training people how to think critically and ask hard questions is vital to any group's long term survival. The famine, poverty, and stunting of scientific progress found in North Korea and the former Soviet Union are prime examples of the problems with blind obedience. No one person or group is sufficiently learned and wise to control even a portion of the decisions for others.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
HARK: Hypothesis After Results are Known
Generating explanations for events after the fact can result in faulty attribution and incorrectly identifying spuriously correlated events as having some meaningful connection. An example would be someone claiming divine intervention when they escape death or serious injury. In such situations it is possible to point to the events that resulted in minimizing or avoiding harm as being intentional and the result of external influence. Whether in research or in life, this is a dubious method of determining meaningful relationships between events. There are generally numerous possibilities for how the situation would unfold if it were possible to replay the events numerous times. Perhaps there is a relationship that would result in some degree of consistent repeatability. However, given the consistent patterns, or lack thereof, found in much behavioral research, it is probable that many assumed patterns would in fact not be consistently observed.
Statistically, there is also the issues caused by evaluating numerous potential relationships at one time. By nature of statistics it is probable that when evaluating numerous relationships a few will be significant by chance. When viewing events post hoc, there are serious limits on how one can tease apart these chance significant relationships from actual relationships. Amid the complexities found in real life and in more elaborate experiments, viewing these events in hindsight can result in a person focusing on the one or few significant relationships. Thereby what is merely 'noise' or error rises erroneously to the level of meaningfulness.
Statistically, there is also the issues caused by evaluating numerous potential relationships at one time. By nature of statistics it is probable that when evaluating numerous relationships a few will be significant by chance. When viewing events post hoc, there are serious limits on how one can tease apart these chance significant relationships from actual relationships. Amid the complexities found in real life and in more elaborate experiments, viewing these events in hindsight can result in a person focusing on the one or few significant relationships. Thereby what is merely 'noise' or error rises erroneously to the level of meaningfulness.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Entropy and Evolution
There is a pervasive belief among some creationists that the second law of thermodynamics negates the evolutionist claim that more ordered systems can form through self-organization. Or in more simple terms, evolution violates the law of entropy. This is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system chemical, pressure, and temperature potentials tend toward states of equilibrium. Stated more succinctly, entropy increases in a closed or isolated system. Thus, some argue it is not possible for life to evolve from inorganic to organic chemical processes and onward to increasingly more complex life forms. This argument overlooks a key component in the second law of thermodynamics. Fundamental to the law is the statement that entropy increases in a closed or isolated system. The earth is not an isolated system. There is a constant stream of energy from outside the system in the form of solar radiation. The mass of the earth itself also contains a significant amount of energy in the form of heat that provides significant amounts of geothermal energy.
The average amount of solar energy reaching the earth is in excess of 300 watts per square meter per second. The peak solar energy in direct sunlight is slightly more than 1.3 kilowatts per square meter per second. This translates into 3.2-3.8 million exajoules reaching the earth's surface every year. This is not a trivial amount of energy. Such a steady input over the course of 4.6 billion years results in a significant amount of energy that could fuel evolutionary processes.
The solar energy reaching the earth is complemented by the geothermal energy provided by radioactive decay from within the earth. It is estimated that the earth contains 12.6 x 1024 MJ of energy in the form of heat. In the process of continually releasing a portion of the original amount of energy found 4.6 billion years ago another substantial influx of energy has been provided.
We observe the second law of thermodynamics in action with the earth and sun releasing vast amounts of energy. That energy will continue to be partially and steadily introduced into the earth's biosphere. In trillions of years all that we see in the visible universe may have dissipated into a cold, dark abyss. However, in the intervening billions of years, evolutionary processes will be well fueled. These processes on the earth will be cut short in several billion years by our sun swelling into a red giant. However, the sun's continually burning of hydrogen will have assisted, through the process of entropy, billions of years of fuel for evolution.
The average amount of solar energy reaching the earth is in excess of 300 watts per square meter per second. The peak solar energy in direct sunlight is slightly more than 1.3 kilowatts per square meter per second. This translates into 3.2-3.8 million exajoules reaching the earth's surface every year. This is not a trivial amount of energy. Such a steady input over the course of 4.6 billion years results in a significant amount of energy that could fuel evolutionary processes.
The solar energy reaching the earth is complemented by the geothermal energy provided by radioactive decay from within the earth. It is estimated that the earth contains 12.6 x 1024 MJ of energy in the form of heat. In the process of continually releasing a portion of the original amount of energy found 4.6 billion years ago another substantial influx of energy has been provided.
We observe the second law of thermodynamics in action with the earth and sun releasing vast amounts of energy. That energy will continue to be partially and steadily introduced into the earth's biosphere. In trillions of years all that we see in the visible universe may have dissipated into a cold, dark abyss. However, in the intervening billions of years, evolutionary processes will be well fueled. These processes on the earth will be cut short in several billion years by our sun swelling into a red giant. However, the sun's continually burning of hydrogen will have assisted, through the process of entropy, billions of years of fuel for evolution.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Goal of Evolution
There is a common misconception that evolution has a goal or goals. Some also wonder why evolution would select imperfect solutions or not ultimately strive for perfect or perhaps optimal solutions. These issues seem to arise from a projection of our own sentient interactions with our surroundings. We are generally goal driven and often seek increasingly better solutions to problems we encounter. Humans often assume that evolution also has some factor that drives biological systems along a path of continual improvement and that there is some desired endpoint of evolution.
Changes in genotype and phenotype are quite accidental and not the result of a goal directed force. Even in the early stages of evolution, including within the realm of abiogenesis, non-goal directed processes were at work. There are limits to what can be generated by self-organization of inorganic compounds and mutations to genetic codes. However, these limitations are imposed by non-sentient physical factors such as electrical attractions between molecules. It is a structured and somewhat delimited process but not in the sense that humans experience when engaged in systems design and development.
There is arguably a rough structure to evolutionary processes and some constraints placed upon evolutionary pathways by the laws of physics. However, evolution is more of a random walk that only depends on the current state of the organism and the environment. Each succeeding state of the organism is the result of relatively limited changes in genotype. Small changes in a genotype have limited but varied effects on the phenotype. Many of these changes or extant variations in phenotype are neutral in terms of the ability to survive to successfully reproduce. Therefore, there are seeming drawbacks such as a propensity for humans to age and acquire various maladies as they age that eventually result in every person's ultimate demise. Evolutionary processes are completely blind to health issues beyond successful reproductive age such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. By the time that most people are faced with these often fatal health issues they have already reproduced and raised their children to be productive themselves. This means that there are no direct selection pressures to favor those who are less genetically predisposed to such ailments.
Evolution is not even short-sighted, it is actually completely blind to anything but the here and now. Theoretically evolution can be modeled using a semi-Markov process. However, evolution does not engage in the type of probabilistic, forward-looking hypothesis testing found in a semi-Markov process. The next steps in evolution are definitely probabilistic but it must be remembered that the reality of the world is the result of probabilistic mutations, that are the result of happenstance, at varying time spans. As humans it can be tempting when comparing the modeling methods of semi-Markov process to evolution to interject the modeler's cognitive activities into evolution. Whereas the modeler makes assumptions about probable next states evolution merely works with the results of naturally occurring probabilistic processes. The sentient modeling the non-sentient requires a different perspective than we often encounter in our daily lives. The challenge of viewing evolution as a non-sentient process can be exacerbated when one has been taught that life is the result of direction from a deity. The concepts of emergence and self-organization are foreign to many making evolution a difficult concept to grasp and accept.
Changes in genotype and phenotype are quite accidental and not the result of a goal directed force. Even in the early stages of evolution, including within the realm of abiogenesis, non-goal directed processes were at work. There are limits to what can be generated by self-organization of inorganic compounds and mutations to genetic codes. However, these limitations are imposed by non-sentient physical factors such as electrical attractions between molecules. It is a structured and somewhat delimited process but not in the sense that humans experience when engaged in systems design and development.
There is arguably a rough structure to evolutionary processes and some constraints placed upon evolutionary pathways by the laws of physics. However, evolution is more of a random walk that only depends on the current state of the organism and the environment. Each succeeding state of the organism is the result of relatively limited changes in genotype. Small changes in a genotype have limited but varied effects on the phenotype. Many of these changes or extant variations in phenotype are neutral in terms of the ability to survive to successfully reproduce. Therefore, there are seeming drawbacks such as a propensity for humans to age and acquire various maladies as they age that eventually result in every person's ultimate demise. Evolutionary processes are completely blind to health issues beyond successful reproductive age such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. By the time that most people are faced with these often fatal health issues they have already reproduced and raised their children to be productive themselves. This means that there are no direct selection pressures to favor those who are less genetically predisposed to such ailments.
Evolution is not even short-sighted, it is actually completely blind to anything but the here and now. Theoretically evolution can be modeled using a semi-Markov process. However, evolution does not engage in the type of probabilistic, forward-looking hypothesis testing found in a semi-Markov process. The next steps in evolution are definitely probabilistic but it must be remembered that the reality of the world is the result of probabilistic mutations, that are the result of happenstance, at varying time spans. As humans it can be tempting when comparing the modeling methods of semi-Markov process to evolution to interject the modeler's cognitive activities into evolution. Whereas the modeler makes assumptions about probable next states evolution merely works with the results of naturally occurring probabilistic processes. The sentient modeling the non-sentient requires a different perspective than we often encounter in our daily lives. The challenge of viewing evolution as a non-sentient process can be exacerbated when one has been taught that life is the result of direction from a deity. The concepts of emergence and self-organization are foreign to many making evolution a difficult concept to grasp and accept.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Purpose of Life
I live each day where I find myself and carry my solace with me. I do not feel a need to control my environment nor have it control me. There is no prewritten script that we ignore to our detriment.
I also do not look at life as a quest dictated by arcane and ancient mythologies. There is no grand, mysterious prize hidden from view that we must find through much hand wringing and reading of the tealeaves. There is knowledge to be gained and progress to be made. However, the vast majority of real progress made by our species has occurred at the likes of Pasteur's workbench, Edison Labs, MIT, and Johns Hopkins. Clinging too tightly to the past, listening only to one's emotions, and living in the future tends to result in events such as the trial of Galileo, rejection of medical advances, and refusing to look at mountains of scientific research.
I find enjoying each day, contributing, and being engaged is where life really is. Once upon a time, I lived my life in some nebulous future state but found that I was not living at all. Invariably when the future finally arrived with each passing second, if I bothered to notice at all, it was often not the existence my imagination had conjured. At that point, in my life I assumed that this meant I was somehow unworthy or had not acted according to the rules of the game. If only I had spent two more minutes a day in silent mediation, or read one more verse the outcome would have been so much different. What a painfully legalistic existence that. What omniscient deity would be so petty and punitive?
Attempting to control in minute detail the course of one's own life and those around us is similar to trying to grasp a wave as it crashes on the sand. We can adjust our position as the waves continue to arrive but arrive they will and in the way the local environment directs. We can hope for a different shape to the waves and grasp at them with our tiny hands. However, we will find that the water merely slips through our fingers as the waves hurry on to their destination.
I choose to walk through the waves when it is fitting and enjoy the constant rhythm of life's ocean that it has followed for billions of years. There is no imperative to stand in the way of the ocean and attempt in vain to bend it to my will. The ocean and I are fellow travelers in a complex walk sculpted by our milieu. I will live today and share the gift of each fleeting moment with my sojourning companions.
I also do not look at life as a quest dictated by arcane and ancient mythologies. There is no grand, mysterious prize hidden from view that we must find through much hand wringing and reading of the tealeaves. There is knowledge to be gained and progress to be made. However, the vast majority of real progress made by our species has occurred at the likes of Pasteur's workbench, Edison Labs, MIT, and Johns Hopkins. Clinging too tightly to the past, listening only to one's emotions, and living in the future tends to result in events such as the trial of Galileo, rejection of medical advances, and refusing to look at mountains of scientific research.
I find enjoying each day, contributing, and being engaged is where life really is. Once upon a time, I lived my life in some nebulous future state but found that I was not living at all. Invariably when the future finally arrived with each passing second, if I bothered to notice at all, it was often not the existence my imagination had conjured. At that point, in my life I assumed that this meant I was somehow unworthy or had not acted according to the rules of the game. If only I had spent two more minutes a day in silent mediation, or read one more verse the outcome would have been so much different. What a painfully legalistic existence that. What omniscient deity would be so petty and punitive?
Attempting to control in minute detail the course of one's own life and those around us is similar to trying to grasp a wave as it crashes on the sand. We can adjust our position as the waves continue to arrive but arrive they will and in the way the local environment directs. We can hope for a different shape to the waves and grasp at them with our tiny hands. However, we will find that the water merely slips through our fingers as the waves hurry on to their destination.
I choose to walk through the waves when it is fitting and enjoy the constant rhythm of life's ocean that it has followed for billions of years. There is no imperative to stand in the way of the ocean and attempt in vain to bend it to my will. The ocean and I are fellow travelers in a complex walk sculpted by our milieu. I will live today and share the gift of each fleeting moment with my sojourning companions.
Special Pleading
Special pleading is a fallacious argument in which a position or claim is given an exemption from a rule. This exemption is claimed without a valid supporting rationale.
Example: These are prayers to the god of the Bible not supplications to the gods of primitive religions. You must pray to the only true god.
Example: Things of the spirit cannot be measured using scientific methods. Things of god are inherently different from the things of this world.
Example: I know you think that the Bible does not always make sense. There are things about the Bible that you don't have the spiritual insight to understand.
Example: I know the idea that the god created the earth in six days makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.
Example: These are prayers to the god of the Bible not supplications to the gods of primitive religions. You must pray to the only true god.
Example: Things of the spirit cannot be measured using scientific methods. Things of god are inherently different from the things of this world.
Example: I know you think that the Bible does not always make sense. There are things about the Bible that you don't have the spiritual insight to understand.
Example: I know the idea that the god created the earth in six days makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.
Poisoning the Well
Poisoning the well occurs when negative or unflattering information about a person or group is preemptively introduced. The goal is to associate the target with negative concepts in the minds of the audience. Thus poisoning the well is an appeal to ridicule. The information used to poison the well can be true but irrelevant , thus constituting an ad hominem attack, or the information can be false. One example is a tendency by some with religious communities to categorized atheists as immoral and perhaps trying to deceive. Supporting anecdotal evidence is often cited or identified by the audience because of confirmation bias and a tendency to cherry pick the data that supports a preconceived notion.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Eppur si muove
After being forced to recant his heliocentric view of the solar system on bended knee, Galileo reportedly muttered "Eppur si muove" ("And yet it moves") in the act of standing up. Whether myth or reality, it is a very fitting scenario for humankind. Myths and misconceptions prevail and persist in the face of immense quantities of evidence. In spite of all the manipulating, threatening, debating, excommunicating, and vilifying, the truth remains. The fear of the truth and the often panicked defense of myth extends well beyond Galileo's time and claims. The earth does circle the sun, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, life has been evolving for billions of years, and the list goes on. Once an idea becomes embedded in a culture it is very difficult to change. This is particularly true if the idea is tied to religious claims and may contain "divine" penalties for not accepting and supporting the idea.
It is very easy to see the problems in others' myths and misconceptions. Those who adhere to a young earth creationist view typically accept that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is round rather then flat, the periodic table defines the basic atomic building blocks of our universe, and so forth. In fact many creationists would ridicule anyone who did not accept these other scientific claims.
If the past provides any insight into the future, the descendants of today's creationists will likely accept the theory of evolution. These descendants will also likely point to the failure to accept evolution as a failing of humankind. They, like us, will see clearly the fallacies in those who do not see the truth in the scientific claims they were raised to believe. Also like us, they will not see the problems, and will likely defend, any erroneous beliefs. People can, and often do, change their positions on various matters. However, changes of opinion often come after time-consuming and strenuous efforts.
Careful consideration of personally accepted positions would seem to be a useful undertaking. When new evidence is presented a logical and careful weighing with an open mind can be very difficult. The use of fallacious arguments such as appeals to emotion, antiquity, or authority are used extra caution is warranted.
It is very easy to see the problems in others' myths and misconceptions. Those who adhere to a young earth creationist view typically accept that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is round rather then flat, the periodic table defines the basic atomic building blocks of our universe, and so forth. In fact many creationists would ridicule anyone who did not accept these other scientific claims.
If the past provides any insight into the future, the descendants of today's creationists will likely accept the theory of evolution. These descendants will also likely point to the failure to accept evolution as a failing of humankind. They, like us, will see clearly the fallacies in those who do not see the truth in the scientific claims they were raised to believe. Also like us, they will not see the problems, and will likely defend, any erroneous beliefs. People can, and often do, change their positions on various matters. However, changes of opinion often come after time-consuming and strenuous efforts.
Careful consideration of personally accepted positions would seem to be a useful undertaking. When new evidence is presented a logical and careful weighing with an open mind can be very difficult. The use of fallacious arguments such as appeals to emotion, antiquity, or authority are used extra caution is warranted.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Personal Identity
The following quote reflects a problem more broad reaching than starting an investigation into the truth with a predetermined conclusion.
The fact that politicians and theologians alike were using [science] to shore up their beliefs struck Hoyle as ridiculous. As he wrote in 1956: ...'An argument is judged "right" by these people because they judge it to be based on "right" premises, not because it leads to results that accord with the facts. Indeed, if the facts should disagree with the dogma then so much worse for the facts.' - Simon Singh
Singh wrote the above regarding the scientific debates regarding the origins of the universe. For the most part the proponents of the steady state and big bang models within the sciences made no connections between their theories and religion. Various theologians and politicians were guilty of trying to bolster their positions. Incidently, the leadership of the Soviet Union was the political force to which Hoyle was referring. Because of the dogma within the suffocating political environment of the Soviet Union the behavior was much the same as dogmatic behavior within inflexible religious sects.
The problem in the political and religious cases was, of course, starting with the conclusion and selecting evidence based on the predetermined conclusion. The problem seems to be intensified when people base their identity on their belief system whether political or religious. When someone introduces themselves in a manner similar to, "Hi, I am [a member of this belief system]" they are likely to view the world in a very rigid way. They are also likely to feel personally threatened by any information that contradicts their beliefs and thus their identity.
When someone defines themselves by group membership rather than as an individual they often limit themselves to that group's views of the world. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. However, such an outlook tends to make a person look to others for many of their opinions whether they like to admit that or not. It is less common to find truly thoughtful and self-generated responses and novel, creative ideas from such people. Any group has expectations, norms, and taboos for solid evolutionary reasons. However, what worked well for our more primitive forebears (i.e. following the crowd) is not conducive to finding truth in many cases.
Advances often come from those who tend to be independent thinkers and who are willing to "go against the grain." Following tradition and accepting the way things have always been done, surprise of surprises, results in doing things the way they have always been done.
An additional problem with belief systems is they typically have forbidden areas where questions are not allowed. The way that a person can view these forbidden areas is highly defined and controlled. If all we need to do to find out what a person believes on a certain topic is ask his or her priest, pastor, rabbi, minister, imam, political officer, etc then there is often a loss of freedom of exploration. This is not always the case as someone can evaluate the evidence and arrive at the same conclusion as their group independently. However, when it comes to scientific advances belief systems have generally missed the mark by a wide margin.
The fact that politicians and theologians alike were using [science] to shore up their beliefs struck Hoyle as ridiculous. As he wrote in 1956: ...'An argument is judged "right" by these people because they judge it to be based on "right" premises, not because it leads to results that accord with the facts. Indeed, if the facts should disagree with the dogma then so much worse for the facts.' - Simon Singh
Singh wrote the above regarding the scientific debates regarding the origins of the universe. For the most part the proponents of the steady state and big bang models within the sciences made no connections between their theories and religion. Various theologians and politicians were guilty of trying to bolster their positions. Incidently, the leadership of the Soviet Union was the political force to which Hoyle was referring. Because of the dogma within the suffocating political environment of the Soviet Union the behavior was much the same as dogmatic behavior within inflexible religious sects.
The problem in the political and religious cases was, of course, starting with the conclusion and selecting evidence based on the predetermined conclusion. The problem seems to be intensified when people base their identity on their belief system whether political or religious. When someone introduces themselves in a manner similar to, "Hi, I am [a member of this belief system]" they are likely to view the world in a very rigid way. They are also likely to feel personally threatened by any information that contradicts their beliefs and thus their identity.
When someone defines themselves by group membership rather than as an individual they often limit themselves to that group's views of the world. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. However, such an outlook tends to make a person look to others for many of their opinions whether they like to admit that or not. It is less common to find truly thoughtful and self-generated responses and novel, creative ideas from such people. Any group has expectations, norms, and taboos for solid evolutionary reasons. However, what worked well for our more primitive forebears (i.e. following the crowd) is not conducive to finding truth in many cases.
Advances often come from those who tend to be independent thinkers and who are willing to "go against the grain." Following tradition and accepting the way things have always been done, surprise of surprises, results in doing things the way they have always been done.
An additional problem with belief systems is they typically have forbidden areas where questions are not allowed. The way that a person can view these forbidden areas is highly defined and controlled. If all we need to do to find out what a person believes on a certain topic is ask his or her priest, pastor, rabbi, minister, imam, political officer, etc then there is often a loss of freedom of exploration. This is not always the case as someone can evaluate the evidence and arrive at the same conclusion as their group independently. However, when it comes to scientific advances belief systems have generally missed the mark by a wide margin.
Dealing with Uncertainty
Because our universe and our societies are complex dynamical systems most things are probabilistic and not deterministic. We will never be able to predict perfectly and there are no truly optimal decisions but merely many near optimal decisions from which to choose. Exiting a worldview containing an omniscient, omnipotent god who knew the beginning to the end and emerging into the bright light of uncertainty, probabilities, and largely or completely unpredictable emergent patterns was disconcerting to say the least. The numerous interactions in any complex system including our own lives means that there are a range of possible outcomes to any action. Some outcomes are more likely than others but nothing is a given. Over time I have come to accept, feel comfortable with, and even embrace this reality. In fact the world makes much more sense when viewed through the lens of complex systems.
It is not uncommon for those with a view that there are perfect answers to struggle with decisions and over analyze possibilities. They are often so concerned about selecting "the one right path". Rather random emotions and spurious correlations often make them feel as if they are approaching the path that will lead them to success. They are oblivious to the realities that many differing paths will lead to success and that virtually any path will likely contain challenges and unpleasant surprises. After all of their hand-wringing they embark on their "one correct, god-defined path" only to find that things do not always work smoothly. When troubles ensue they are quick to blame themselves for some perceived sin or for not being righteous enough to "hear" the correct guidance. It is all a maddening exercise in futility based on fundamentally flawed premises on how the world works. If they could only let go, relax, enjoy the journey, and be willing to learn from mistakes and the "imperfections" of life. There is no such thing as perfection in the sense that there is one ideal decision for any situation. Until they accept that reality they will spend a life of recurrent frustration and unwarranted self-recrimination.
Belief and Inattentional/Change Blindness
"The term inattentional blindness was coined by Arien Mack and Irvin Rock in 1992. It was used as the title of Rock's last text published in 1998 by the MIT Press.
The best-known study demonstrating inattentional blindness was conducted by Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Christopher Chabris of Harvard University. Their study, a contemporized version of earlier studies conducted by Ulric Neisser, asked subjects to watch a short video in which two groups of people (wearing black and white t-shirts) pass a basketball around. The subjects are told to either count the number of passes made by one of the teams or to keep count of bounce passes vs. aerial passes. In different versions of the video a woman walks through the scene carrying an umbrella, or wearing a full gorilla suit. After watching the video the subjects are asked if they saw anything out of the ordinary take place. In most groups, 50% of the subjects did not report seeing the gorilla. Simons interprets this by stating that people are mistaken with regard to how important events will automatically draw their attention away from current tasks or goals. This result indicates that the relationship between what is in one's visual field and perception is based much more significantly on attention than was previously thought.
....
NASA conducted an experiment in a flight simulator in which commercial pilots were tested to see if they would notice distractions on a runway during simulated landings. Those who were trained pilots did not notice and landed directly on top of the distraction 1/4 of the time, while untrained pilots didn't know what to expect of a typical landing and thus saw the distraction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
From a perspective of beliefs it is possible that many believers are so conditioned to see the world through the lens of their beliefs that they generally do not "see" things that contradict their beliefs.
The best-known study demonstrating inattentional blindness was conducted by Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Christopher Chabris of Harvard University. Their study, a contemporized version of earlier studies conducted by Ulric Neisser, asked subjects to watch a short video in which two groups of people (wearing black and white t-shirts) pass a basketball around. The subjects are told to either count the number of passes made by one of the teams or to keep count of bounce passes vs. aerial passes. In different versions of the video a woman walks through the scene carrying an umbrella, or wearing a full gorilla suit. After watching the video the subjects are asked if they saw anything out of the ordinary take place. In most groups, 50% of the subjects did not report seeing the gorilla. Simons interprets this by stating that people are mistaken with regard to how important events will automatically draw their attention away from current tasks or goals. This result indicates that the relationship between what is in one's visual field and perception is based much more significantly on attention than was previously thought.
....
NASA conducted an experiment in a flight simulator in which commercial pilots were tested to see if they would notice distractions on a runway during simulated landings. Those who were trained pilots did not notice and landed directly on top of the distraction 1/4 of the time, while untrained pilots didn't know what to expect of a typical landing and thus saw the distraction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
From a perspective of beliefs it is possible that many believers are so conditioned to see the world through the lens of their beliefs that they generally do not "see" things that contradict their beliefs.
Religion and Evolution
Religion provides hope and help people overcome very difficult times in their lives when they may just give up and perish because of external factors or at his or her own hands. Religion often provides a tight-knit community including emotional and material support in times of want.
As humans we are not very good at determining true causal relationships. The beneficial aspects of religion are very difficult for even a very fastidious observer to parse from the erroneous. The scientific method is so new and little more than a century has passed since the advent of robust social science studies. Even with this scientific toolkit and the research findings that have amassed over the preceding decades, it is difficult for people to separate fact, fiction, logic, and their own emotions.
Religion did and does have some survival advantages. The challenge is for the believer and nonbeliever alike to determine what factors help, those that harm, and which are benign but relatively useless.
Believing Our Own Lies
The rationalizations that accompany cognitive dissonance are pervasive and persistent. Once an opinion is formed and particularly after it is shared with others it becomes very difficult to change. The typical response is to find ways to explain away inconsistencies and contradictory evidence.
"...our innate ability to believe our own lies-which are often concocted after the fact, to suit our convenience. And if we believe our own lies, there's little wonder that we so often believe the lies of others, especially if it is advantageous for us to do so or if they embody notions, however implausible, that we want to believe. Such self-deception provides a sort of social feedback that leads to bodies of myth, which in turn amplify the resulting behaviors-and on which, even more destructively, so many established beliefs and behavioral conventions are based..."
- Ian Tattersall
"...our innate ability to believe our own lies-which are often concocted after the fact, to suit our convenience. And if we believe our own lies, there's little wonder that we so often believe the lies of others, especially if it is advantageous for us to do so or if they embody notions, however implausible, that we want to believe. Such self-deception provides a sort of social feedback that leads to bodies of myth, which in turn amplify the resulting behaviors-and on which, even more destructively, so many established beliefs and behavioral conventions are based..."
- Ian Tattersall
Science and Religion
Science is the best path of which I am aware for finding truth. Religion and science once complemented each other in my search for truth. I anticipated that one day science would reach the same conclusions as religion. I now reject religion and look to science as the best way I know to find truth. However, I do not look at the findings of science as inviolable and I expect the findings to morph and change with new data.
At their core, I view science and religion as very different methods. Even if science takes the place of religion in a person's life the effects would seem to diverge significantly. Religion, at least the form typically found in the Judeo-Christian faiths, is "proud" in that it cannot be successfully challenged according to "god's" rules. Science, by the West's definition, is "humble.” It is structured to encourage constant questioning, testing, challenging, and change. Science accepts the fallibility of positions, theories, and current understanding. Religion is the antithesis.
Over-interpreting evidence
The same is done with the fleeting feelings that are used to build faith. It is not uncommon for a believer to refer to a few instances and sometimes just one instance where they had a special feeling. All of the other times when they felt nothing are overshadowed as they over-interpret the few moments of emotion.
Magical Thinking
If a person's concept of the factors that influenced the course of his or her life was radically wrong it would not generally make any difference in their ability to survive. Questions such as "Is there a god?", "Does my god want me to pray to the east or in the evening" mean absolutely nothing in terms of survival. The answers that he or she would find would be heavily influenced by identifying patterns (that do not exist) in largely random data. As time progresses the answers would be pre-determined and taught by his or her culture from childhood. In more primitive societies belief would then have a survival advantage because of the need to have the support and protection of the society.
Given our complex, multi-faceted world I used to think that magical thinking was less likely to occur. It would appear from the behavior of billions of people (including me) that magical thinking is still the norm rather than the exception. Upon further reflection, this would seem to be the most logical state. In reality, as mentioned previously, magical thinking does not have much influence on survival in real terms. There is really no evolutionary pressure to not think magically. Even in today's world reproductive opportunities are not significantly reduced by magical thinking. In fact, if a particular magical belief is predominate; magical thinking may even increase a person's opportunities to find a sexual partner or partners. Furthermore, it is becoming less likely with improved standards of living and health care that any given person will not reach an age where reproduction is a viable option.
There are also the pressures imposed by various elements in any given society. We, on this board, have observed this numerous times. Challenging religious beliefs often results in someone or many someone's engaging in very strenuous efforts to defend the challenged beliefs. The defenses expose the underlying mechanisms used to justify continued belief in what has become unbelievable. Every argument can take many specific forms but a brief sampling:
1. Appeal to antiquity: "Our faith has been around for 150 years, or 1500 years, or 2000 years, ...; therefore my beliefs are correct."
2. Appeal to authority: "These experts (followed by a list of highly educated and successful people; physicists, biologists, financiers, etc) believe; therefore our religious claims are accurate."
3. Sunk costs: "Our ancestors gave so much for our religion thus sealing their beliefs in their sacrifice; therefore my religion is correct and denying that it is god's one true way would be disrespectful to my ancestors and their sacrifice."
4. False dilemma: "Either we continue to believe in my god and my religion must continue to exert pressure on society, or society will degenerate into immorality and lawlessness."
5. Negative proof: "You cannot prove that my god does not exist ; therefore there is a good chance that my god exists."
6. Package-deal: "Because my religion has always been an integral part of my family's culture; then my religion must always be part of my culture. If I separate my beliefs from my culture my culture will no longer be viable."
The probabilistic nature of life
There is also the issue of never being able to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt. This also is difficult to incorporate into an understanding of the universe when trained in a deterministic manner. However, the way that science works is to accept the model or theory that best fits the data until a better theory comes along. The problem with creationism and intelligent design is that it refutes the theory of evolution based on the fact that not all of the pieces are explained at this point. Resorting to god as a hypothesis is a non-explanation because none of the workings of the system are addressed. It is analogous to trying to reverse engineer a car. During the process all of the pieces are catalogued, the engineering drawings are made, and the manufacturers of all of the parts are identified. At a certain point in the process it is still an unknown where the screws that hold the taillights on are made. Therefore the team throws their hands in the air, trashes all of the parts lists and engineering drawings, and declares that there is no way Ford could have manufactured the vehicle but god must have magically created the car.
Similarly evolution explains the preponderance of the evidence now available. The knowledge base will continue to grow and expand and the theory will be tweaked. However, the theory of evolution is not likely to be thrown out and adjustments to the theory do not negate the overarching concept or most of the pieces.
In summary it is necessary in my opinion to become comfortable with uncertainty, probability, and chaos theory at various levels to be able to incorporate evolution into a world view. We will never know for sure but the statistical probability of being correct increases as the theories are argued, studied, and tested.
Support for Evolution
Response: There are many intermediate species found within the fossil record. The fossil record is particularly telling because a VERY tiny percentage of organisms have been fossilized. Additionally the geological strata provide a nice smooth progression from single celled organisms roughly 3.5 billion years ago through the complex organisms today. There are no instances of any organisms grossly more complex than their predecessors merely appearing ex nihilo.
The fossil record is corroborated in terms of dating via numerous forms of radiometric dating. A wide range of dates can be tested with various forms of radioactive decay including Uranium 238-Lead 206 (4.5 billion year half life), Uranium 235-Lead 207 (704 million), Thorium 232-Lead 208 (14 billion), Rubidium 87-Strontium 87 (48.8 billion), and Potassium 40-Argon 40 (1.3 billion). All of these tests are very robust and have very tight error bars.
Then, if we look at the living world of the present, again we find no inter-mediates between living kinds.
Every species in existence is an intermediate. All species will follow what came before and will be replaced by what precedes them. That is a very elementary concept. Good examples are the many breeds of dogs that have been produced through selective pressures provided by humans. Can these breeds still reproduce? Sure, for the time being anyway. If you keep breeds separated for a long enough time genetic drift will generally make them unable to interbreed.
Living creatures prove that kinds do not change no matter how long the time span. For example, using the evolutionist's supposed ages (later I will talk a bit on this particular issue as well), there is a dragon-fly species still with us after sixty-million years. The Australian lung-fish should have evolution in its blood, but it has not changed in 220 million years. Spiders remain unchanged after 300 million years. Cockroaches and silverfish unchanged in 350 million years. "Turtles have been turtles for 250 million years of evolutionary time.
All that means is these few species the author cherry picked have not mutated significantly in the amount of time chosen. There is nothing in the workings of evolution that would indicate change MUST occur. It does tend to occur as seen from the fact that the dragonfly, lung-fish, spiders, and turtles evolved from prokaryotic cyanobacteria over the course of three billion years. Additional many other species were mutating into forms that were more appropriate for the changing ecological niches that ebb and flow with climatic changes and with the ever changing balance with other species. However with any system it should not be surprising if a few components/species remain viable and near optimal for their particular niche or their niche has not been subjected to pressures for a relatively lengthy period of time.
Turtles have an incredible skeleton. They live inside boxes; and their girdles are inside the rib cage. That should mean a lot of evolving. We should find millions of quarter-turtles, then half-turtles, and so on. But we don't. The very first turtles were perfect turtles. There is no fossil of something pre-turtle, nearly-turtle. "The hard fact is that every kind of creature living today which appears in the fossil record, appears there in form similar to its present form.
He is cherry picking the data again. The entire fossil record is a collection of simpler forms followed by small mutations over vast time spans. The first fish sans fins were followed by fish with first very subtle fins followed by more complex fins, then by fins that doubled as legs, then true legs, etc. This is evidenced by the mutations evidenced by Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Ticktaalik, Ichthyostega, and Acanthostega over the roughly 25 million year time span from 380-365mya.
This was dramatically confirmed by the Coelacanth fish. This fish, through one of its relatives, was credited as being the ancestor of amphibians, a vigorous evolutor. It was regarded as extinct for seventy million years. But in 1939, a fisherman hauled up a Coelacanth very much alive. To an evolutionist, this was just as upsetting as if a dinosaur had walked up the street. Since then, several more living Coelacanths have been caught, all of them exactly as they were when the last Coelacanth fossil was laid down seventy million mythical years ago."
This was not upsetting at all to evolutionists. In fact quite the opposite was the case. This was a very exciting finding for evolutionists. Again there is nothing within the workings of evolution and natural selection that precludes well adapted species from continuing for millions of years. Furthermore because this living fossil in the form of Coelacanth is so readily available morphological, bio-behavioral, and genetic studies can and have greatly enhanced our understanding of evolution.
Then there is another interesting law of science called The Second Law of Thermodynamics. ... "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more opposite principles than this principle of entropy (mass-energy loss) and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. (Henry M. Morris, The Twilight of Evolution., p.35).
This is a VERY old and worn out argument against evolution. The earth is not a closed system. Entropy works when you have a finite amount of energy in a system that is sealed off from all outside inputs. The earth has had a constant supply of external energy for the last 4.6 billion years in the form of the sun. It is very analogous to the continued creation of complexity in a car factory. If you close and lock the doors on the factory then yes things will begin to decay and nothing will ever come out the doors in the way of products. However, if you continually provide electricity, raw materials, and food for the workers then complex systems will be generated. It is quite possible that entropy will eventually lead to the darkening and dissipating of the matter in the universe over many trillions of years. However the big bang infused all of the matter in the universe including what is included in the stars with massive amounts of energy. Complexity can increase in the local subsystems around stars because there is a massive energy imbalance between the star and the surrounding matter.
Evolutionists will say that different layers of rock formations will show different periods of the evolutionary process, in other words, the simple becoming more complex as you get closer to the surface of the rock formations. This sounds very good and fine except that fossil remains don't always appear in that order. In fact, fossils are found in all kinds of order contrary to the evolutionary ladder. Many caves and canyons that appear to be millions of years old can indeed have been formed over a very short period of time. A simple example. Some years ago a volcanic mountain blew up and left a huge deep gorge that looked like a prehistoric canyon. Of course it wasn't as it had just been formed. So things are not always as they appear.
Small differences in a local area are taken into account by paleogeologists and paleontologists. Taking a very small difference in a localized area does not negate the findings that are rigorously compared across the planet. Also see my comments on radiometric dating above. The various forms of radiometric, stratigraphic, and paleomagnetic data fit very tightly together and provide an incredibly robust picture of the ages of the many and varied fossil finds.
There's no question that genes determine what a foetus is and what it will grow into. Here also manipulation plays a big part. We know that we can develop better breeds of cows, flowers, etc. But still a cow is always a cow; a flower is always a flower, etc. We may be able to change the colour and the size of something but the specie itself always remains true to its own kind. So here once again evolution falls flat.
That is over a VERY short period of time. Selective breeding has only been around for thousands of years whereas evolution works over hundreds of millions of years. The difference is so many orders of magnitude apart that the author's comparison falls flat. As I mentioned above, if you keep the breeds completely separated for a long enough period of time the differences will generally continue to build until interbreeding cannot occur.
So the improvements of the spontaneous type (just going back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics for one minute) hypothesised by the devotees of the current theory of evolution who suggests that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes which resulted in a higher order of off-spring survivability than the parent possessed, and also a change in the genetic makeup have not been found to support that theory.
This is only one very small cause of genetic change. There is massive amount of evidence that shows genetic changes are incredibly common and most of these changes happen because of transcription errors that randomly/accidently occur when genes are replicated within each organism. The fact that this has been happening for hundreds of millions of years is evidenced by the "junk" DNA found in every organism. Most changes that occur randomly are neither beneficial nor nefarious. Thus there are no selection pressures that would eliminate organisms that carry these random mutations.
In simple words, scientists may be able to work with genetic engineering and indeed have made wondrous advances, but that's not creating life, it's simply meddling with life that already exists. Even cloning is not creating life but is simply taking from already existing life.
This argument is what is called ignoratio elenchi or a red herring. While it is true that current genetic engineering is only altering current life forms this has nothing to do with the mechanisms that drive evolutionary change necessarily.
Because of all the millions of creatures that exist on the earth, only humans think in terms of logic, good and evil, can invent incredible devices and machinery, understands and is in a constant learning process and development, etc.
Another red herring and he is also begging the question. He is assuming that there must be an intelligent designer without providing a rationale for why that is so. Self organization and increases in complexity driven solely by the laws of physics are observed in the lab and throughout the universe on a regular basis. One example is the creation of new stellar and associated planetary systems from the remnants of previous systems.
The evolutionists say that we are related to the apes. Yet we are separated by a gulf so wide that it seems to defy all logic.
The genetic differences between Homo sapiens and the various other hominids are actually very small with our genetic code being comfortably over 95% identical. We actually share a tremendous amount of DNA with all other living organisms including things like pine trees and fruit flies.
The evidence for evolution is immense and volumes of data are added each year that provide additional support. There is no theory that fits the massive amounts of evidence better than evolution while the theory of evolution becomes more robust with every passing discovery.
Steps toward the formation of RNA
Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009)
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland
Abstract
At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means. According to one version of the 'RNA world' hypothesis this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed. In particular, although there has been some success demonstrating that 'activated' ribonucleotides can polymerize to form RNA, it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts (ribose and nucleobases). Ribose is difficult to form selectively, and the addition of nucleobases to ribose is inefficient in the case of purines and does not occur at all in the case of the canonical pyrimidines. Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules, and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models. Although inorganic phosphate is only incorporated into the nucleotides at a late stage of the sequence, its presence from the start is essential as it controls three reactions in the earlier stages by acting as a general acid/base catalyst, a nucleophilic catalyst, a pH buffer and a chemical buffer. For prebiotic reaction sequences, our results highlight the importance of working with mixed chemical systems in which reactants for a particular reaction step can also control other steps.
The Emergence of Ethical Behavior
In the book "Emergence" Steven Johnson writes:
"We're naturally predisposed to think in terms of pacemakers, whether we're talking about fungi, political systems, or our own bodies. Our actions seem governed for the most part by the pacemaker cells in our brains, and for millennia we've built elaborate pacemaker cells into our social organizations, whether they come in the forms of kings, dictators, or city councilmen. Much of the world around us can be explained in terms of command systems and hierarchies..."It amazes me how difficult it is for people to think in terms of collective phenomenon..."
The same inability to understand seems to exist in the minds of many people living within hierarchical religions and societies. How, they wonder, can people not descend into debauchery, criminal actions, and anti-social behavior without the guidance of religion or a strict set of laws? It is anathema to them that people can actually cooperate and show compassion on a daily basis without someone standing over them to keep them in line.
The questioner fails to see the regression issue with this concept. If it takes an authority figure to keep a person living ethically then who keeps the leaders in check? If they point to a god or divine being, who keeps god or the divine being in check? If civil and productive behavior cannot arise from within then all societies would have descended into chaos long ago. Indeed, they never would have been able to organize into a meaningful, cooperative entity.
Even something as simple as slime mold is able to organize and work cooperatively without frequent readings from the Bible, Torah, or Koran. The slime mold also does not need to attend regular services at their local church, synagogue, or mosque in order to keep from going rogue. Perhaps there is something in the complexity of humans that renders us in need of constant guidance. However, where is the evidence of such a need?
“...many human beings prefer certainty…
Many religious texts are filled with an unbelievable number of rules. These rules range from the macro to the micro and can cover any aspect of life. For example if one were to follow all of the rules in the Bible, the follower's world would be devoid of decision-making and the associated risks for many things.
The result would seem to be people who are not accustomed to the responsibilities of being free and are severely weakened. Among those in the Abrahamic faiths, many believers do not take a literal view of their canonized scriptures. Thus they are not burdened with the micromanaged lives of the more fundamentalist among their ranks. Fundamentalist and literalistic lifestyles are similar to strapping a person to a board and not allowing them to exercise his or her muscles. The muscles are never allowed to develop and the person would end up being weak, uncoordinated, and physically unskilled.
The punitive god of these belief systems creates a following that views freedom and mistakes as a negative. The believers point at this danger of "sinning" or making errors as a reason to remain strapped to the board. They are afraid to stand up, learn to walk, and develop coordination. While learning to walk children stumble and fall. This is essential for growth and not something to avoid. Fundamentalists have been conditioned to believe that even some simple mistakes can be catastrophic and should be avoided at all cost.
Moving the Goalposts and the Bible
Similar efforts have been undertaken with the Bible. This varies from person to person but similarly it has generally moved from the inviolable word of god, to an accurate historical account, to a collection of myths mixed in with a bit of history. Attempts to hang onto the tattered remnants of false hopes and beliefs even though those beliefs have no resemblance to the original position of any given individual.
Even though the original premise utterly collapsed years ago people still hang onto the tattered remnants of belief. This is based on the goalpost that now only requires the Bible (or Koran if you prefer) to be a morality tale. So even though the apologists are trying to prove a very different hypothesis than they were years ago the quest is somehow still valid. I would argue that the game ended the first time the goalposts moved. What has actually happened over the last several decades is the equivalent of not only moving the goalposts down the field but planting it in a different country and using it for a different game.
The Multiverse
The concept of the multiverse extends to the possibility of an infinite number of universes constantly popping into an out of existence. Some of them have laws of physics allowing them to survive for various lengths of time and others disappear almost instantly because of instabilities.
Is there a possibility that we are a universe, inside of a universe, inside of a universe, etc? Definitely. It is also possible that there is a larger something that provides structure or direction to it all.
Our understanding is definitely limited by the abilities of our senses, our manufactured sensors, and the limits of our abstract thought. We only perceive and process a portion of what is around us. For our senses much of the electromagnetic spectrum is beyond our ability to detect. For our manufactured sensors whatever constitutes dark energy and dark matter is beyond our capabilities for example. We are able to infer that dark energy and dark matter exist by the influence they have on what we can detect. It is possible there is infinitely more out there that our senses and sensors cannot and potentially never will be able to detect. For instance if there are other universes, realities, objects, etc. that are governed by laws of physics not congruent with our own known universe’s laws, then left to our own devices we will remain forever unenlightened about these other entities. There may be many other things around us, inside of us, or outside of our universe that are either older or younger than our 13.5 billion year universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)