Re: Is Evolution a Law like the 'Laws' of physics?


Mike wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > I recently came across the following interesting essay by Watson:
> > > http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-watson18sep18,0,529081.htmlstory?coll=cl-bookreview
> > >
> > > I found its conclusion rather provocative:
> > > 'Let us not beat about the bush - the common assumption that evolution
> > > through natural selection is a "theory" in the same way as string theory is
> > > a theory is wrong. Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as
> > > well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the
> > > laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by
> > > those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and
> > > believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by
> > > revelation. '
> >
> > Look up practically any book by the late Stephen Jay Gould. He discusses
> > two different concepts that both are commonly called "evolution":
> >
> > The _FACT_ of evolution (his emphasis) is indisputable. Living things
> > quite clearly evolve, species emerge from other species in a rich and
> > varied bush of descent from one another. This is indeed as well
> > established as the law of gravitation (etc.).
>
> Is it really a fact? Is it maybe something equivalent to the concept of
> motion?

Studied your essay (below) Mike, very informative,
so I'll add (IMHO) a few brief comments.

Evolution is NOT a Law, it's a coincidence,
where the biologics of O2 based life coincides
with a natural enviroment to provide sufficient
fertilizer to make better *weeds*.

Evolution is a function of Effective Intelligence,
for example, Mesopotamia stagnated, and declined
in the last 3000 years, so time is no guarantee of
evolution.

((1st hand we saw ontario & canada decline rapidly
in it's EI, one cannot assume a civilization evolves
toward improvement, unless a system has a system to
do that, and that system itself must evolve, otherwise
the're emulating ant hills, aka entrenched government,
that is the primary reason for the decline of once
great civilizations. England is pretty much dead
brain wise due to monarchy worship, but I think
Russia (who contain a huge body of IQ) will evolve
to eclipse the West )).

Ken S. Tucker

PS: When the Sun goes Nova evolution on Earth
stops, and it will be hard to measure.














> To be able to make such an assertion, you must first resolve the old
> dillema about the levels of reality, argued by Leibniz, Newton,
> Berkeley and many others. Leibniz proposed a three level reality for
> example. This is complicated issue and some answers are suprisingly
> superficial, not even touching the surface. Are you just taling about
> the world of phenomena? How is this world related to the substance
> level? Is there a substance level? How it is related to the world of
> phenomena? Furthermore, is there a higher "monadic" level as Leibniz
> proposed, which goes back to Eleatic philosophy in which there is only
> One, there is no time, no qualitative change or distraction, no motion
> and no void, it is a plenum according to him.
>
> To make a long story short, you must first prove that the phenomena is
> all that exists, when you are talking about a law of nature. If you are
> talking about an empirical principle, then yes, evolution is a fact.
> But then you must answer another question: are these phenomena
> attributed to evolution just cognitive, or mental perturbations, or
> real in a metaphysical sense.
>
> To conclude, we cannot even assert that what we call evolution is even
> an empirical fact. Epistemologically, how do you justify this belief?
>
>
> >
> > The theory of evolution via natural selection. This is a theory and is
> > under active investigation.
>
> That is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory makes testable
> predictions. As such, and given the paradox of material implication
> (look it up), every hypothesis, true or false, implies a true fact.
> Theere is no way to investigate this hypothesis in any way, it is also
> not falsifiable, it is plain dogma, a belief, not different than a
> belief in the existence of God.
>
> > There is room for dissent in the details of
> > how the fact of evolution occurs (and has occured in the past). There is
> > little or no doubt that natural selection, as enunciated by Darwin and
> > many others, is a major component of this, but there remain issues of
> > whether it is primarily gradual, or happens in "spurts". Gould, of
> > course, is one of the authors of "punctuated equilibrium", and argues
> > that most of the time species change gradually or not at all
> > (equilibrium), but there are short spurts of rapid change (punctuations)
> > in which most new species emerge.
>
> There is an infinite regression of causes, if you start that way.
> Natural selections may just play a minimal role in a system that is
> controlled by higher rules. All that is pure speculation.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > [I am not an epert here, and must rely on the writings of
> > experts I have read and enjoyed. Gould is an amazing author
> > IMHO, and should be required reading for everyone. With a
> > few exceptions his books are collections of columns he
> > wrote over >25 years. These collections are quite accessible
> > to the non-expert, and are great reading.]
> >
> > Watson is clearly discussing the first meaning.
> >
> >
> > > As an emergent property of complex systems I would not give evolution the
> > > status of a 'law' - even assuming the use of the word law is justified for
> > > any scientific theory.
> >
> > First you must separate the two meanings of "evolution". You are
> > discussing the second, Watson the first.
>
> There are no two meanings, This is a red herring used by Evolutionists
> in an effort to ground first the notion of evolution on empirical
> evidence and then attempt to raise it to the status of a physical law.
> The main issue is whether the notion of 'evolution' is well-founded. It
> is rather not. By claiming that some species were exterminated by
> natural selection and claiming this is empirical evidence of evolution,
> that is a profound call to the problem of induction.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >
> >
> > Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: this is the time to pray
    ... Do You Believe that Evolution is True? ... The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. ... It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is ... The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >>>Second Law of Thermodynamics. ... >>>Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). ... > evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, ... In the chapter on Natural Selection, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Defeating Darwin in 4 easy steps
    ... when spoken with a little rhythm: First Law, Second Law, Fossils and ... Before we even start, we ought to notice that, if evolution is true, ... ToE but life itself has developed into something highly organized. ... of atoms, there is no reason to think that any of them are true? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Evolution a Law like the Laws of physics?
    ... Evolution is a law that is as ... species emerge from other species in a rich and ... > The theory of evolution via natural selection. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)