Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Breezy:
Through the discussion I get the impression that you think the emergence of taxa higher than species does not follow the same mechanisms as species diversification. What then is the mechanism? Do you have any facts or observations that point to a better explanation?
"I get the impression that you think..."
As I've said: "All I've stated in regards to the micro vs macro distinction is that it is not a false dichotomy, specially not one motivated by Christian propaganda. The underlying processes are the same, but not the things affected by it."
We had an entire conversation discussing how far changes can go before they reach a limit; it doesn't make sense to have that conversation if I thought they operated by two separate mechanisms. My first post, which sparked the Sheldon rampage, stated this: "Understanding the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution is essential to the whole theory."
Breezy:
There is no bridge.
Do you think that "macroevolution" happens through spontaneous, natural processes?
aperez241 - "There is no bridge"
Again, I'm having to repeat myself at this point. I already explained what I meant by the bridge, as well as the source for the concept:
"They [Campbell's Biology] define microevolution as those changes occurring below the species level, and macroevolution as occurring above the species level. Speciation being the bridge linking the two together.."
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Breezy;
Let's make it very simple. Irrespective of the existence or not of the bridge;
Do you think that "macroevolution" happens through spontaneous, natural processes?
If you're using spontaneous in the chemistry sense, then I think the current theory does view macroevolution as possible through spontaneous and natural processes. I think any evidence for macroevolution comes almost exclusively from deductions made through the fossil record. And as I mentioned already, I think that if we ever attempt to produce macroevolutionary changes in a lab, we'll encounter obstacles and limits not seen in the fossil record.
You are nor answering my question directly, so I am going to try to clarify. From your answer, I understand that you think that after a certain degree of differentiation evolution does not happen through natural, spontaneous methods. Am I correct?
What does a direct answer look like?
I gave you more information than you requested, and referred you back to a conversation we've already had. So to summarize our previous conversation, its not that after a certain degree of differentiation, changes no longer occur; its that those changes will not produce a macroevolutionary step. Either because such a step becomes a Zeno's arrow scenario, or because those changes will increase the chances of catastrophe.
Edit:
I just saw there are different versions of Zeno's arrow. The one I'm referring to is the one where the arrow must travel half the distance between the starting point and the target, and then half of that, and half of that still, seemingly to infinity and never reaching the target.
John, do you think evolution is the cause of all speciation? If not, what other cause(s) do you think there were?
CyberLN: "what other cause(s) do you think there were?"
JHON: "magic cyb...its all came from magic.."
Oi!
Firstly that's divine magic, sunshine, and secondly stop pinching my lines.
However, kudos to you for nailing it, as Wheezy is basing his paradigm shifting but as yet unpublished "scientific" breakthrough on a creation myth from an iron age superstition. That's the bit he is keen not to mention ever.
That damn 9th commandment is really kicking his arse.
Breezy:
The direct answer can be something like:
a- " I think that Macroevolution happens through natural, spontaneous processes. It does not need the intervention of any intelligent agent "
b- "I do not think that Macroevolution happens through natural spontaneous processes. It needs the intervention of an intelligent agent"
Just say " I choose A" or "I choose B". Can you do that?
No, what difference does the intelligent agent variable make? I disagree with A for the reasons previously mentioned; and I disagree with B for the same reason: because with or without an intelligent agent, I still take issue with macroevolution.
John 61X Breezy,
An intelligent agent is not needed, so being an extra layer of fat it would be eliminated by Occam's Razor.
I'm afraid that I've lost track of your reason for rejecting macroevolution. What exactly is the issue you have with it? It follows from the fossil record, from comparative studies of DNA, from comparative studies of anatomy, from comparative studies of certain other molecules such as cytochrome c, and is strongly supported by vestigial organs, by the distribution of life on earth, by homologous structures, by a certain Jerry-rigged clumsiness in the "design" of life, and by other lines of evidence. That probably explains why it (the change of life by common descent over time) is regarded as a scientific FACT.
Occam's razor is a philosophical tool, and like all tools one should know how to use it and what it does.
In general it trades accuracy for simplicity, by arguing against the multiplication of entities. The primary example being Plato's Ethereal realm. If the idea of a dog already occurs in the mind, then explaining it by attributing the origin of such ideas to an ethereal realm just multiplies the problem rather than solve it.
So, not only are no entities being multiplied when God is brought into the equation, God itself is the simplest explanation there is. So rather than using Occam as an objection, perhaps you should object on the basis that it is too simple and too easy to use God as an explanation.
John 61X Breezy,
Occan's razor can, indeed, be viewed as an epistemological tool for good reasoning and, yes, I understand it quite well thank you.
No, John, it is not a way of trading accuracy for simplicity! Had that been the case it would be worthless! (What serious thinker wants an oversimplified answer?) Occam's Razor admonishes us to avoid the UNNECESSARY creation of unneeded assumptions. If "A," "B," and "C" adequately explain something, then Occam's Razor rejects the explanation using "A," "B," "C," and "D." Unnecessary assumptions in an argument increase its chances of being wrong.
In practice, two arguments under Occam's Razor might have somewhat different assumptions, which complicates the use of the rule. Each of the assumptions must be given an estimated weight. Clearly, a Rube Goldberg type of explanation, with lots of risky assumptions, is ruled out in favor of a shorter explanation whose steps are at least as credible. But it is possible that a more complicated explanation would be favored if a shorter, simpler explanation had a very risky assumption. That is, we place our chips on the explanation that stretches our luck the least. Occam's Razor, if properly applied, increases your odds of being right. That is the purpose of every good tool of reasoning.
It's a common error of those who don't understand Occam's Razor to think it favors the simplest argument. Simpler arguments that work just as well would be favored if the assumptions for both the long and the short arguments had about the same chance of being wrong. In that case the longer argument, with more assumptions, could be thought of as multiplying assumptions unnecessarily. Occam's Razor has no problem with complicated arguments that work and have no competition. Nor does Occam's Razor embrace a simple explanation that has a sufficiently risky component.
Perhaps I should state Occam's Razor for you as you seem to be confused.
Occam's Razor can be compared to a rule for professional gamblers (who invariably come out on top). If one theory (that fully explains the known facts) has 3 places to go wrong, and another theory (that fully explains the known facts) has 10 ways to go wrong, the assumption being that each of these potential errors have roughly the same chance of being wrong, then the best bet is the shorter explanation.
The shorter (simpler) theory wins IF: 1) it fully explains the facts; 2) its assumptions are roughly as reliable as those of the longer theory. A lot of people, apparently yourself as well, tend to forget the details and assume that Occam's Razor favors the simpler theory.
Note, first of all, that "God" is not a reliable explanation of anything! For starters, no one has proven that he even exists. That certainly makes "God" a very risky step! Secondly, since "God" can be invoked to explain everything, "God" really explains nothing.
Note also that God is not presently needed at all to explain evolution, so putting God behind the known machinery of evolution is the clearest possible case for removal by Occam's Razor.
@ Greensake,
I have followed and understood every post you have made. Masterful. Thankyou.
Old man shouts...,
With such encouragement I shall boldly charge forward, going where no green snake has gone before!
Thanks!
Greensnake,
Admittedly, you've made me question my sanity. When you say you're going to restate Occam's Razor for me, because I seem to be confused, I'm expecting more than just a repackaging of my own comment: Your Robert Barnhart quote substantiates my position: choose the simplest theory, don't multiply entities. When it states that, "Occam's Razor is the choice of the simplest theory...", it is literally contradicting your comment that, "It's a common error of those who don't understand Occam's Razor to think it favors the simplest argument."
Occam definitely predated statistics, and you're using a lot of statistical language in your explanation of Occam, such as increasing your odds of being right, or having the same chances of being wrong. As someone (me) who is about to start collaborating in research, I'm curious about your methods for predicting when a theory has 3 or 10 places to go wrong. How could you possible know this information beforehand? Plus how do you give assumptions an estimated weight? That would save me a lot of time and arguably end the necessity for research entirely.
The universe certainly doesn't care nor base reality on the number of assumptions you are making. Just as there are an infinity of mathematical equations that lead to 100, there are an infinity of possible theories that can explain the facts in question. The one with the most assumptions could be right, and the one with the least assumption could be wrong. But as scientists we choose the simplest one, because its the easiest one to work with, and typically does what we need it to do. When it fails we move on to the next one.
In conclusion, don't forget the razors origin. Occam had a very specific philosophical argument to make against Plato's idealism. Understand that first, then worry about transposing the idea into scientific terms.
John, you plainly stated that "In general [Occam's Razor] trades accuracy for simplicity, by arguing against the multiplication of entities." I could only concluded that you misunderstood the principle. A careful statement from a science dictionary was, therefore, in order. Read it! Nowhere in that statement of Occam's Razor do we find an acceptance of an oversimplified theory! The cut is between theories that ADEQUATELY explain the data! Those theories with UNNECESSARY entities added, all things being equal, are to be rejected. That is, you don't grab a simple theory just because it's simple. You are NOT trading accurate complexity for inaccurate simplicity. Wrong!
Excuse me for going beyond Ockham's time and using probability theory to explain why his principle, properly understood, is a rule of good reasoning. As for potential weaknesses, you look at your assumptions very carefully to get a grip on how many ways your theory might go wrong. Lots of assumptions, lots of potential problems! How do we weigh their odds? That comes under scientific judgment, John, something you need to cultivate if you plan on doing any serious research. In many cases it's reasonably clear which theory is hanging out on the longest, thinnest, riskiest limb.
Another thing you need to know, John, if you are going to do serious research, is that you set all supernatural presuppositions aside. Real science is strictly materialistic and will remain so unless extraordinary evidence to the contrary emerges.
Yes, John, certainty is not in the cards. The whole point of Occam's Razor is to maximize you chances of being right! There is no guarantee that Occam's Razor will give you the right answer. However, like a professional poker player, if you play the odds correctly you invariably come out a winner in the long run. That's the best that reason can do unless you are working within some mathematical system of pure logic, where certainty is possible because the premises are givens.
Yes, scientists do use simplified models (because the calculations are reasonable) to test their central ideas. Refinements are added if the central idea gets you in the right ball park. May I ask what does this have to do with Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor starts with explanations that explain all of the facts. All things being equal, it eliminates those explanations that stretch credibility by adding unneeded assumptions, that go out on a limb so to speak. Pure logic! You choose the more probable answer.
Stop blowing this historical smoke screen! Our discussion is not about resurrecting Ockham's original statement or his original intentions! This is not an historical quest! I am simply identifying a useful tool of reason, adding any necessary assumptions to make it robust, and explaining why it works and why it eliminates God as an agent for evolution.
It just sounds to me like you've never had to do research. Theories don't come with tags listing a set number of assumptions. The number of hypotheses that can be deduced from any given theory are exponential, limited only by the creativity of the researcher. Each hypothesis is an assumption about reality.
Its not a historical smoke screen. Learn the foundations, then adapt it to science.
They kind of do (sans the tags business).
I'm not sure I understand. How many assumptions does Darwinism make compared with Lamarckism, for example?
You keep evading, I have to concede you are really good and evasion. Lets clarify then: Choose one of the two to let me undestand your position.
1- I think there is an intelligent agent involved in macroevolution.
2- I do not think there is an intelligent agent involved in macroevolution.
The only thing I'm evading, are conclusions which do not represent my beliefs.
I think that if macroevolution is possible, it does not need an intelligent agent; likewise if an intelligent agent (divine, not human) exists, then it doesn't need macroevolution.
Well, that is a masterful way to stay just on the fence but it does not cover all bases. There could be an intelligent agent and macroevolution still exist if the intelligent agent just devises the basic natural laws of he universe (like starting the Big Bang) and then just let them do the job without getting involved in the day to day workings of these laws ever since.
However, I should point out that through the discussion you keep saying that almost the only evidence supporting macroevolution is the fossil record, and I cite: 'I think any evidence for macroevolution comes almost exclusively from deductions made through the fossil record." ignoring all the other sources of evidence that have been provided. To me it is hard to understand that selective attention in someone as detailed and sophisticated.
To clarify your position and understand your reticence to reason about macroevolution, can you tell me:
"Do you believe there is a divine agent that directly created the diversity of nature (or as theists say "the different kinds of animals")?
Breezy
To clarify your position and understand your reticence to reason about macroevolution, can you tell me:
"Do you believe there is a divine agent that directly created the diversity of nature (or as theists say "the different kinds of animals")?
John 61X Breezy,
Aperex241 gave you what seems to be a legitimate dichotomy that includes all possibilities. If that doesn't cover your beliefs then perhaps you having problems understanding the concepts of macroevolution or an intelligent agent! Either that or you have never given the matter any thought! The final option, of course, is that you may be unsure.
Is it the case that you are: 1) unsure; or 2) you don't understand the terms; or 3) that you have never given the matter any thought; or 4) you believe an intelligent agent was historically behind macroevolution; 5) you reject the idea that an intelligent agent was historically behind macroevolution. I suppose we could add option 6) an intelligent agent was historically behind some macroevolution. Natural processes accounted for the remainder.
Will the real John 61X Breezy please stand up?
The difference it makes is it exposes your motivation as your belief in a creation myth from a bronze age superstition. We already know this pretence that your objections are scientifically valid is nonsense, flipping on any news channel can tell us that.
Where does it say they're not part of the same process of species evolution? Also where does Campbell's say that speciation can't happen? Where does the text say that there are valid objections to species evolution through natural selection?
You're cherry picking which facts you'll accept again, based on your religious beliefs and dishonestly denying that motivation, so you accusing others of hypocrisy is hilarious.
Pages