Morphological Parameters in Evolution

[REASON]

This is great, but the question remains. Is there anything inevitable in the morphology of a species that insures it will develop the capabilities we have?

 

I don't think so.

 

We are strictly the result of an immeasurable number of circumstances, the variation of which could have just as easily sent us down a similar path of development as the rest of the great apes.

[Eclogite]

[Yea he's attempting to test me in the ye ole your a creationist argument, boring:sleep2:

I think you have quite misunderstood me. You are arguing, I believe, for the inevitability of the emergence of particular biological morphologies. You see this as being a reflection of attractors as in chaos theory. (If I have misunderstood you, please do clarify.)

On this basis, and contrary say to Gould's view on 'replaying the tape of life', the outcome is predicated by the initial conditions. This, at the very least imposes a direction upon evolution. Direction is only a miniscule step from purpose and teleology. (Indeed it is rather closer to the latter than to the former.)

It has long disturbed me that we have rejected teleological explanations because of their association with creationists, or at best because they are said to be unecessary. This leaves unexplained why a handful of elementary particles, four fundamental forces and a smattering of Universal constants, should lead to the complexities of stars and galaxies, planetary systems, carbon based life forms of increasing intricacy, consciousness and whatever may be next in the sequence.

I find the Weak Anthropic Principle to be something of a cop out as an explanation of these emergent properties. I do not believe teleological explanations should be discarded automatically, or simply by appeal to Occam's razor.

Your speculation fits into this framework and I would maintain, inevitably, has a teleological colouration to it. I see that as a characteristic, neither a defect, nor a benfit.

[Thunderbird]

=CraigD;206633]To be sure I understand your statements, I’ll paraphrase:

By allowing us to engineer – from artifacts as simple as wood-heated huts to ones as advanced as nuclear-electric centrally heated, insulated modern homes, as well as “high-intensity” agriculture - our brains allow us to obtain much more energy than they consume, or would need to spend in physical effort without these abilities.

Correct?

 

 

 

Yes, well put, from the harnessing of fire on.

[Thunderbird]

This is great, but the question remains. Is there anything inevitable in the morphology of a species that insures it will develop the capabilities we have?

 

I don't think so.

 

We are strictly the result of an immeasurable number of circumstances, the variation of which could have just as easily sent us down a similar path of development as the rest of the great apes.

 

 

Eclogite ;On this basis, and contrary say to Gould's view on 'replaying the tape of life', the outcome is predicated by the initial conditions. This, at the very least imposes a direction upon evolution. Direction is only a miniscule step from purpose and teleology. (Indeed it is rather closer to the latter than to the former.)

 

 

 

 

 

The question is not about where you start but where your going. This is the point I think some of you are missing. The physical terrestrial conditions will decide what forms will be successful...and there are limited number of optimum body plans for those conditions.

 

If you could start evolution over would the story be different, sure, but the creatures characters would look very similar, Why? because the thermodynamic engines would always move in the direction of optimum efficiency.

 

This limiter would be especially narrow when life came onto land, unlike the weightless environment of water were one can drift around, or wait for something to drift by. Dry land would require locomotion, In order to achive a foot hold, the ratio of energy expended to energy gained becomes paramount.

 

 

This fundamental law of physics is also often stated as the law of increasing entropy. Entropy refers to the amount of energy that cannot be converted into mechanical work. "Disorder" and "randomness" are close synonyms. High entropy refers to a state of great disorder. Thus the second law of thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe."

 

 

The genetic sampling and natural selection will always by attrition trend toward energetic efficiency. This is the reason evolutions arrow moves away from entropy and not toward it. Turning the Second law on its head! This is no easy task, the margins of error, and ratio to energy expended to gained are so tight the end resulting forms would be come archetypal forms that would recur time and time again.

[Thunderbird]

It has long disturbed me that we have rejected teleological explanations because of their association with creationists, or at best because they are said to be unecessary. This leaves unexplained why a handful of elementary particles, four fundamental forces and a smattering of Universal constants, should lead to the complexities of stars and galaxies, planetary systems, carbon based life forms of increasing intricacy, consciousness and whatever may be next in the sequence.

I find the Weak Anthropic Principle to be something of a cop out as an explanation of these emergent properties. I do not believe teleological explanations should be discarded automatically, or simply by appeal to Occam's razor.

Your speculation fits into this framework and I would maintain, inevitably, has a teleological colouration to it. I see that as a characteristic, neither a defect, nor a benfit.

 

This reminds me of a stimulating conversation I had the other day sitting with friends around the fire place. The conversation started with why Hindus held the cow as sacred. It may be worth starting thread, so give me some time and I will start a new thread some were. I apologize for dismissing your question out of hand and I think that a new thread may be stimulating, but please no god stuff I'm a Presbyterian and we like keeping our religion, state and science separate.:doh:Well science and state works together.:lol:

[REASON]

.....but please no god stuff I'm a Presbyterian and we like keeping our religion, state and science separate.

 

You obviously didn't get what he was saying.

[Thunderbird]

You obviously didn't get what he was saying.

 

Yes, you are correct that's why I will start a new thread so we can discus it.:lol: It is a very complicated subject.

[Thunderbird]

Yes, you are correct that's why I will start a new thread so we can discus it.:lol: It is a very complicated subject.

 

You obviously didn't get what he was saying.

 

Yes, you are correct that's why I will start a new thread so we can discus it.:evil: It is a very complicated subject.

 

 

It did sound to me like he is agreeing with me about some of the things I had posted earlier in the thread about the periodic table, but I am not sure.

I tend to shy away from labeling {teleology} if I can try to explain certain phenomenon on an ongoing way it keeps me learning, its my fault not Eclogite if there was a miscommunication I have reaction to being labeled is all.

[Eclogite]

It did sound to me like he is agreeing with me about some of the things I had posted earlier in the thread about the periodic table, but I am not sure.

I tend to shy away from labeling {teleology} if I can try to explain certain phenomenon on an ongoing way it keeps me learning, its my fault not Eclogite if there was a miscommunication I have reaction to being labeled is all.

I don't think I've read the entire thread carefully. I shall do so. Any delay due to departure to other side of world, not to deliberate attempt to ignore you.:lol:

[REASON]

My interpretation of Eclogite's post is that he was suggesting that teleology may not be referring to God, but rather related to what you are asserting as inherent in the physics of morphology. He is giving some credence to what you are saying, to a point I imagine, and suggesting that teleological concepts should not be so easily dismissed as only Intelligent Design or God related, which is exactly what you did.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Eclo.

[Thunderbird]

My interpretation of Ecoglite's post is that he was suggesting that teleology may not be referring to God, but rather related to what you are asserting as inherent in the physics of morphology. He is giving some credence to what you are saying, to a point I imagine, and suggesting that teleological concepts should not be so easily dismissed as only Intelligent Design or God related, which is exactly what you did.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Eco.

 

I do not think your wrong, or him either, and I agree, now the question is how do you use this view point to construct a scientific model.

[Thunderbird]

Ecoglite, Here is link to the new thread;

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/14122-teleological-view-cows-ice-cream-memory.html

 

 

A Teleological view of Cows, Ice cream, and Memory.

[Galapagos]

Am I the only person reminded of Dale Russel's dinosauroid by the quotations in the original post in this thread?

 

Also, I was first reminded of David Icke when reading this, no offense to the author.

[Thunderbird]

Am I the only person reminded of Dale Russel's dinosauroid by the quotations in the original post in this thread?

 

Also, I was first reminded of David Icke when reading this, no offense to the author.

 

Sorry, who are Dale Russel and David Icke?

[Eclogite]

Reason, your interpretation of my thinking is accurate.

 

I do not think your wrong, or him either, and I agree, now the question is how do you use this view point to construct a scientific model.

I wouldn't even go that far. I believe it merely behoves us to look a little more closely, carefully and openly at many aspects of science that at present seem to be closed down because of a fear of teleology. Now such closer inspection may reveal our current conventional stance is a valid one, or it may lead us to Aristotle's First Cause. I shall make furthe robservations within the new thread opened by Thunderbird. I see it has already taken some interesting turns.