Joined: Jan. 2008
|Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,15:20)|
|Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?|
I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation” (<a href="[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis" target="_blank">Example</a>).]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis]Example[/url]).[/URL] Again, no natural selection required.
You don’t really expect me to collect articles and books from the last 80 years or so, that describe the evidence we have for speciation? Why don’t you go look for articles about reproductive isolation or speciation at PubMed yourself?
|I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. |
If it works along with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them. In that case, it is not necessary to invoke such a being as the natural laws on its own are sufficient to explain whatever it is you are investigating. You can assume that it is there, but you can't test for it. As far as science goes, it is a superfluous addition.
|To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws. |
Well, I’m pretty certain that there’re some tests that would prove that I’m actually there and that it’s me putting stuff on the cells I’m working with. I’m a materialistic cause, AFAIK, and I haven’t violated any natural laws so far. So, what’s the point? No one denies that physical things can interact with other physical things.
But you say that your entity is supernatural, but not beyond nature? What does that even mean?
If it had some physical properties, we should find evidence of its existence. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
And as I said, if it is supernatural but works in accordance with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them.
|Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.|
Humans are not beyond the natural, even if they build houses. That doesn’t violate any laws of physics.
“when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence”
I think that chemistry and physics are fully sufficient to explain the origin of life.
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner