From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:55:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B169037B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094A343E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89MtNGd059519; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89MtM3q059516; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7D1D4A.D8B25193@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909153440.V59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who > > > > survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, > > > > whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of > > > > the survivors." > > > > > > "The survival of those best suited to survive", actually. > > > > It is still a triviality. Of course those "best suited to survive" will > > survive. > > I never claimed it was profound, only that it worked... Similarly, you could say "gravity causes objects to fall because gravity has the property of making objects fall." While true, it is completely uninteresting. It "works" *because* of the fact that it is true by definition. > > I don't really have a problem with adaptation, per se when limited > > to within species. What really strikes me as absurd though, is > > the idea that chance mutations can give rise to new functionality, > > for that functionality is not functional until everything is plugged > > in and working. > > As long as it's not harmful, it's not selected against, and it > hangs around. Alternately, there could be some other environmental > pressure, which is not pervasive, but is instead periodic. The > fact that viruses emerge in waves, rather than being a steady > background noise, is indicative of this mechanism. Why should it hang around? It's like the million monkeys argument. In order for the million monkeys argument to work, somebody would have to do the selecting, meaning there is more involved than just a million monkeys typing on keyboards. > > What possible purpose could a partially evolved > > sex organ have, for instance? > > I think that you are begging the question; the survival value > of gametogenesis is fairly indisputable. Who's disputing it? I'm asking how in the world it climbed Mt. Improbability. > The real question is > not gameteogenesis, per se, which could easily have occurred > as a result of a mutation, but internalization of gametogenesis > into the organism to such an extent that specialization of organs > occurred. Yeah, an understatement to say the least! 8-) > The second and third search results in the search reference I > gave you go into this idea in more detail than I'm willing to > go into myself, in this forum (the significance of the search > was not my ability to do a search, it was in my selection of > specific terms, and their ordering and grouping, to answer an > earlier question of yours). Ah, what irony! 8-) > > > > > The answer is that nature is not anthropomorphised (or personified) > > > by having the power to select, so long as it does not exhibit will > > > in the process. > > > > But does this not present a difficulty? With no will to do the > > selecting, "the power to select" is completely unintelligible. > > You keep saying that it's unintelligible, but literally many > thousands of scientists don't find it to be unintelligible. Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be unintelligible. > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible. > Why don't they say > the same thing? The answer has to lie in the fact that you > and they don't share some fundamental assumptions. Now you're getting the point... Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message