Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Aquagem]

When you say that all sciences deal with our origins, you ignore many other sciences, like entomology, vulcanology, meteorology, and geology, all of which can be used in a way that deals with our origins, but the science itself does not deal with it.

 

I'll give some thought to the idea of change vis a vis evolution. The question is a good one, considering that the modern definition of evolution is non-directional, and consists of change only. That is, life can evolve toward complexity (our usual idea), less complexity (like parasites), or move laterally without significant changes in complexity. This re-definition, away from the idea of directed change, is one that that has smoothed over the apparent differences that have made biological evolution unique among sciences. You may be right that this process is itself one of metaphorical adaptation, rather than an true recognition of basic similarities. On the other hand, it may represent an evolutionary event in our understanding. I don't have a strong sense of it either way yet. Thanks.

 

...other sciences, like entomology, vulcanology, meteorology, and geology, all of which can be used in a way that deals with our origins...

 

I'm not sure you stated this in the way I am taking it, but...

 

All sciences deal with ORIGINS, whether they have anything to do with OUR origins or not. Any science I've ever encountered has a powerful and fundamental temporal axis, often not recognized at their founding, but realized as the sciences have themselves evolved. Geology is like putting together a puzzle that has been split asunder by myriad events and many pieces destroyed. The history of Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe nest seamlessly together, although they bring together disparate sciences, sciences originally given unique names, but all of which have "history" as one of their major strands. Ultimately, when it comes down to us, to our own evolutionary history, we turn to all of them, including physics, chemistry, and (very significantly) thermodynamics. So I would stand by the idea that sciences are all importantly historical.

 

Here's one other way of stating this: The "historical" axis of science is Aristotle's EFFICIENT CAUSE, the temporal process of forging the chain of causation, wherever it is found (which appears to be everywhere). It is the work of science to examine the WHAT of nature (material cause) as well as the HOW (efficient cause, history). Note that this enumerates only two of the fours levels of "causation" outlined by Aristotle, apart from FORMAL and FINAL, which need their own treatment. The point I'm trying to make is that scientific history is really "natural history" in all its aspects.

 

Two examples:

 

1) Stellar evolution often begins with the coalescence of stars from gas clouds left from supernova events. 2) We think, with reason, that abiotic evolutionary events preceded the beginnings of life on Earth.

 

Neither of these involves dna or life processes, but both are evolutionary in the sense of change, mutagenesis, and unique outcomes. That brings us back to your point about metaphors (one of my very biggest interests), and gives me something to think about that I hope will clarify these ideas for me. I'm wondering if there is an important distinction between development and evolution, after all. Maybe our definitions are clouded by an unwarranted distinction between them. ???

[Tormod]

Evolution, which is a concept that traces to the seminal work of Charles Darwin, has expanded to form the fundamental basis for understanding all science.

I think that is stretching it too far. Like PG says in his response the term "evolution" is now commonplace in many settings although it means different things (although I'm willing to debate whether "stellar evolution" is not a kind of evolution and not only change - because we see stars change fundamentally into new species).

 

But I agree that from your POV all science can ultimately be said to be a way to understand the world we live in and how life fits into it, even if it does stretch the idea a bit...

 

A bit of nitpicking: Evolution does not trace back to Darwin, but back to the beginning of it all. Evolutionary theory traces back much further than Darwin. Darwin was simply the first to write a major scientific work on the process, and to understand its implications for the development of new species.

 

Dethroning humanity from the predetermined pyramid of eternal bliss is one of the most valuable of scientific findings, and possibly THE most troubling to religion. Looking at how religion treated Galileo may presage the near future, if they have their way.

I agree. I am not sure if human beings who lived 3-4,000 years ago and more thought of themselves as "higher than nature" or in any way more important than animals. And I guess there are still cultures out there who understand that human beings are only a part of the natural fauna of the Earth.

[Tormod]

I didn't notice your later reply to PG, I have to run now, will catch up later.

[Freethinker]

Dethroning humanity from the predetermined pyramid of eternal bliss is one of the most valuable of scientific findings, and possibly THE most troubling to religion. Looking at how religion treated Galileo may presage the near future, if they have their way.

Interestingly, the example you give is perhaps the BEST CASE example of how religion handles scientific findings. Galileo was allowed to LIVE. He was merely put under house arrest. Hypatia was stripped, dragged thru the streets, boiled alive and then the meat scrapped off her bones just in case.... And we heard about her anyway. THink of the ones, perhaps hundreds of people that could have increased the knowledge base of the human race if religious authority had not outright killed them for even trying! Copericus had to smuggle his works out of his Christian run country so they would not kill him while he could still get his research out. And again, he was one of the ones Christianity had not wiped out of historical reference.

 

The ID/ Creationist movement is nothing less than a continuation of this assault on reason and facts by mainly Christianity. They are not generally allowed to just outright kill the opposition any more, so they are resorting to quasi-legal process.

[Freethinker]

We talk of stellar evolution and cultural evolution but those are not the same a life's evolution. We use those words to make it more understandable to us by using familiar words as a metaphor.

 

Not all things evolve, all things change, there is a difference. A river's path may change over time, but it does not evolve.

This is the obfuscation Creationists try using against Evolution. That life did not EVOLVE it just changed over time.

 

Evolve - Etymology: Latin evolvere to unroll, from e- + volvere to roll. to produce by natural evolutionary processes, a process of change in a certain direction. (compiled from WWWebster)

 

In order to minimalize Evolution, Creationists attempt to obfuscate what Evolution is. "Change over time" is a perfect definition of Evolution, no matter what process it is applied to.

When you say that all sciences deal with our origins, you ignore many other sciences, like entomology, vulcanology, meteorology, and geology, all of which can be used in a way that deals with our origins, but the science itself does not deal with it.

entomology, vulcanology, meteorology, and geology all help to shed light on the process of the Evolution of life on Earth. Science is NOT a THING, it is a PROCESS. It is an approach to developing an understanding of the reality we exist in. As opposed to approaches such as Revelation or Classic Empiricism. As such "Science" does not "deal" with anything. It is merely one of the approaches which could be used to "deal with various subjects.

[Freethinker]

On the other hand, it may represent an evolutionary event in our understanding.

Sorry, but the seemingly unintentional usage of "Evolution" here was humorous.

[Aquagem]

Sorry, but the seemingly unintentional usage of "Evolution" here was humorous.

 

Nope -- Purely intentional! Mutation in action!

[Aquagem]

In order to minimalize Evolution, Creationists attempt to obfuscate what Evolution is. "Change over time" is a perfect definition of Evolution, no matter what process it is applied to.

 

Well stated, and precisely to the point. A metaphor coined for one situation often fits many others. A "robust" concept (like evolution) will naturally spread to many other areas and expand our horizons of understanding. Even if the new idea is ultimately shown to be wrong, we will still be "confused on a higher level, and about more important things".

 

Did I understand correctly what you meant by the quote above? I'm taking it at face value, i.e., that change over time actually is a valid definition of evolution, rather than the directional "improvement" of living things according to a predictable plan.

[Aquagem]

I think that is stretching it too far. Like PG says in his response the term "evolution" is now commonplace in many settings although it means different things (although I'm willing to debate whether "stellar evolution" is not a kind of evolution and not only change - because we see stars change fundamentally into new species).

 

(Tormod, I'm interested to know whether you think this line of inquiry is valid or useful for Hypography. I don't want to garbage up the airwaves if your sense of the value of this informative and well-designed forum lies in shorter questions with succinct answers. That said, here's how I would respond to what you and PG had to say...)

 

I've tried this about a dozen different ways, but I can't find a concise way of saying what follows. Your comment about the antiquity of evolutionary thought is a great example. I almost went back to Aristotle in my post, but decided to use Darwin because it made the discussion a lot shorter, and also because he is definitely the starting point for the idea of a mechanistic, rather than an intention-driven or divinely ordained source of evolutionary change. But by leaving out necessary background, the waters get muddy. Personally, I've always been fond of Lamarck, mainly because his model fits cultural evolution very well, as many writers have observed.

 

I have picked up the idea that evolution has become the conceptual underpinning of science from several mentions of it in literature dealing with the challenge of creationism. But, given PG's comments, I need to think about it on another level (which I really like – that's why I've joined this discussion).

 

I don’t know how deeply the Hypography contributors are familiar with the recent upsurge in study of metaphors, so what I say may or may not communicate well. But, in brief, at the base of conceptual systems of thought (myths, wordviews, scientific models, religious schemas) you will (seemingly always) find a system of interrelated metaphors that act as a map of how the world works to the person holding the view. Is the universe an organism, as Aristotle posited? A machine, as Newton did? An evolving system driven by "life force" or "intention", as Lamarck hypothesized? An organism evolving in response to environmental forces, as Darwin wrote? Is it a crucible built in six days to decide who will be saved or damned for all time, as young Earth creationists insist? All of these views are root metaphors, and all have profound implications for understanding how we got here, how we should behave in response, and the ultimate nature of universal reality (assuming there is one). Scientific models, in this sense, are mythic, as I wrote earlier.

 

In each age, as a new metaphorical picture replaces the old, a couple of regular developments attend its adoption. One of them is a new view of the universe (nature), and another is a new picture of God, that is, the kind of deity that would have made things this way. For example, Hugh Kearney wrote in The Elizabethan World Picture several decades ago that around 1600, three distinct wordviews were in competition for eminence, which he called the Organic, the Magical, and the Mechanistic. Over the following century, the mechanistic wordview prevailed, and the universe was increasingly cast in the form of a machine, with predictable motion, isolable parts, and completely determined outcomes, in accordance with Newton's "classical physics". (The Renaissance in a nutshell)

 

Given a new pair of glasses, it's natural to want to see all the old stuff through them to find out if your vision is clearer now. Given a new paradigm, the previous scientific, economic, religious, and everyday phenomena of life get another examination, and the new metaphor complex is invoked to explain the observations. As with all metaphors, the new ones fit some things well, others not so well, and in still others the connection is hard to see at all.

 

And that brings us to evolution again. Given the history of major changes in wordview, it seems natural that evolution, as a "new" paradigmatic concept, should be stretched and molded in an attempt to fit observations. From this perspective, maybe we will see in the longer run that attempting to use "evolution" as an overall integrating conceptual metaphor for the operations of nature (and, thus, the study object of science) is not the best fit. On the other hand, maybe we will realize that evolution is itself a broader concept than our particularistic use of it to describe the change process inherent in terrestrial biology. If the latter turns out to be an accurate prediction (evolution as a wider concept), then the term "evolution" and what it refers to in biology could become a metaphor itself used by other sciences, say, cosmology, to encompass the idea of irreversible, unpredictable change, wherever it is found.

[pmaust]

In a society where people of every color and religion or non-religion may reside, it is probably not a good idea to inject religion into the curriculum. However, the theory of Evolution is not without its detractors. Both religious and non-religious. We need kids who can grow up to think independently and not be afraid of originality of thought. They need to be encouraged to question things and to challenge the status quo. Progress depends on a certain amount of unreasonableness of thought and imagination. IMHO.

[Tormod]

Tormod, I'm interested to know whether you think this line of inquiry is valid or useful for Hypography.

I think your post is excellent. Keep it up!

 

I have read the entire post and think some of it could merit a new thread since it is more about the science of ideas rather then the evo/religion conflict.

 

I'll only respond to two parts since I'm a biti busy preparing yet another Xmas dinner:

 

I have picked up the idea that evolution has become the conceptual underpinning of science from several mentions of it in literature dealing with the challenge of creationism. But, given PG's comments, I need to think about it on another level (which I really like – that's why I've joined this discussion).

Oooh...I love comments like this. That's what a forum is for!

 

On the other hand, maybe we will realize that evolution is itself a broader concept than our particularistic use of it to describe the change process inherent in terrestrial biology. If the latter turns out to be an accurate prediction (evolution as a wider concept), then the term "evolution" and what it refers to in biology could become a metaphor itself used by other sciences, say, cosmology, to encompass the idea of irreversible, unpredictable change, wherever it is found.

I think we are already there. Most cosmology books I read talk about the evolution of stellar objects, the evolution of black holes, the evolution of planetary bodies, the evolution of elements...so I think "evolution" as a wider concept has come to stay.

 

The question is of course whether that has any impact at all on this discussion. What I read into it is that the use of the word evolution as a metaphor for change from simple to advanced over the ages, makes evolution appear as a fundamental trait of our universe. And that is excactly how I feel about it, too. That life came about on Earth is no longer a mystery, I feel that we pretty much know how it happened. That it then proceeded to evolve into more complex organisms was inevitable.

 

And so it is with the entire cosmos.

[Freethinker]

Did I understand correctly what you meant by the quote above? I'm taking it at face value, i.e., that change over time actually is a valid definition of evolution, rather than the directional "improvement" of living things according to a predictable plan.

Yes I am saying that evolution is "change over time". Evolution can be positive or negative. And for that matter somethhing that is positive at one point could be negative at some later point. e.g. a species that gets larger in an environment with lots of food resources may find that evolutionary change, which may have provided advantage at one point, could cause extinction later. Or "de-evolution" may provide an advantage to a specific species. e.g. Boa's have hips. Obviously they (their ancestors) had evolved to have hips and later found it advantageous to not have them.

 

"Improvement" is subjective based on long term outcome. Just as I have continually argued that intellegence is only assumed to be an advantage. But lacks any historical factual support.

[Aquagem]

What I read into it is that the use of the word evolution as a metaphor for change from simple to advanced over the ages, makes evolution appear as a fundamental trait of our universe. And that is excactly how I feel about it, too. That life came about on Earth is no longer a mystery, I feel that we pretty much know how it happened. That it then proceeded to evolve into more complex organisms was inevitable.

 

And so it is with the entire cosmos.

 

The association of evolution with the idea of change from simple to complex has its perils, in particular the idea (derived without validity) that we as a species were somehow predestined in a deterministic universe to satisfy some sort of cosmic prophecy. This predisposition, to see us as the capstone of some pyramid, was inherited from prior millennia, and is used as a facile way of trying to underscore our superiority, as a species, as a culture (western European/American) and as an expression of a god made in our image. So it's dangerous to lock evolution into this characteristic.

 

That said, IN THE EARTHLY ENVIRONMENT, it's hard to look at the fossil record, more recently coupled with paleo-ecological studies, CAT scans on animal skulls, and the huge contribution of genetics, and not be struck by what appears to be a discernible direction in the evolution of life. In the extraterrestrial environment, I don't know that we could say the same. Galaxies young and old are similar in composition and operation, and appear much more like footprints of chaos, vortices in a vacuum, productive of stars, planets, and, probably, life. But they are characterized by change of a general sort, but not of a sort that seems to be "advancing" in any way analogous to life.

 

I have a feeling that the "advance" may be one, or the distinguishing feature of life, as opposed to the rest of the phenomena we can observe in our local environment and the universe at large. That's a complete speculation, but speculations are good starting points for further study.

 

Getting away from the idea that evolution has to include the concept of ordered change, increasing complexity, and any sense of predictability may be what we need to accept to unify seemingly separate ideas of evolution as a universal principle. We can, of course, say that life on Earth as we know it is a special case of the more general principle of change, special because, on average, it does exhibit the local decrease in entropy, short-term stable identity far from thermodynamic equilibrium, etc. In this way, life stands out in bold relief against the roiling, chaotic microcosmic quantum world and the ponderous, slow macrocosmic world measured in hundreds of millions of years between major events. A painting I've wanted to do for years is a vine, growing out of Earthly soil, wrapping around a sunbeam, and pulling with it the whole of life, toward the Source. Nice idea, but beyond my current artistic abilities (and time for completion).

 

This view takes nothing away from life, but suggests caution in extrapolating from our own history to the universe as a whole. But, I must admit, it's taken me a long time to come to this point, after many years of watching the time horizon for evidence of a more universal evolution of complexity and "advance". I'm still hoping, but if our interactions with our one tiny planet and with one another are any indication, I ain't holdin' my breath!

 

Anyway, I want to return to some of the ideas I've only glossed over so far, like life maintaining "short-term stable identity far from thermodynamic equilibrium" and ideas from a couple of expansive resources on evolution that add new dimensions to the puzzle. They will have be at a later time -- you have dinners to prepare, and, unfortunately, I have to work to get paid!

 

But one thing I'd like to be able to do is include photo or other illustrations from time to time. Can I do that?

 

Thanks for the encouragement.

[Aquagem]

Yes I am saying that evolution is "change over time". Evolution can be positive or negative. And for that matter somethhing that is positive at one point could be negative at some later point. e.g. a species that gets larger in an environment with lots of food resources may find that evolutionary change, which may have provided advantage at one point, could cause extinction later.

 

Then we are on exactly the same page. If you are the resident atheist, I'll claim the resident agnostic chair. Skeptical of all, dreaming toward a lot, and ever aware that we are a really young species with a simple brain and a lot to learn. Hence, the search.

[Freethinker]

The association of evolution with the idea of change from simple to complex has its perils, in particular the idea (derived without validity) that we as a species were somehow predestined in a deterministic universe to satisfy some sort of cosmic prophecy. This predisposition, to see us as the capstone of some pyramid, was inherited from prior millennia, and is used as a facile way of trying to underscore our superiority, as a species, as a culture (western European/American) and as an expression of a god made in our image. So it's dangerous to lock evolution into this characteristic.

In general I agree. But I see a problem in the above. You seem to suggest a direct connection between "the idea of change from simple to complex" requiring an end result of "us as the capstone of some pyramid". It would be perfectly acceptable to assert "the idea of change from simple to complex" without the end result having anything to do with humans as a predicted, predestined outcome.

That said, IN THE EARTHLY ENVIRONMENT, it's hard to look at the fossil record, more recently coupled with paleo-ecological studies, CAT scans on animal skulls, and the huge contribution of genetics, and not be struck by what appears to be a discernible direction in the evolution of life. In the extraterrestrial environment, I don't know that we could say the same. Galaxies young and old are similar in composition and operation, and appear much more like footprints of chaos, vortices in a vacuum, productive of stars, planets, and, probably, life. But they are characterized by change of a general sort, but not of a sort that seems to be "advancing" in any way analogous to life.

This I disagree with. I see nothing different between "what appears to be a discernible direction in the evolution of life" on earth resulting in advanced life forms and "Galaxies young and old are similar in composition and operation" that in fact they ARE "of a sort that seems to be "advancing" in any way analogous to life. That since the activities we DO see, evolutuion of stars, galaxies, planets even, mirror those we see locally, that we can accept a high probability of the rest of the evolutionary proces, the evolution of life, would also be the same.

Getting away from the idea that evolution has to include the concept of ordered change,

I do not see anything that suggests that evolution follows anything less than an orderly change. I don't see anything in the laws of physics that would allow it to do anything but follow orderly change based on those physical laws. I had agreed that a specific evolutionary modification may not be a positive one, but that does not mean it did not follow an orderly process working within the restrictions impossed by our physical laws.

[Freethinker]

Then we are on exactly the same page. If you are the resident atheist, I'll claim the resident agnostic chair.

Oh no, not that discussion! :-)

[Aquagem]

In general I agree. But I see a problem in the above. You seem to suggest a direct connection between "the idea of change from simple to complex" requiring an end result of "us as the capstone of some pyramid". It would be perfectly acceptable to assert "the idea of change from simple to complex" without the end result having anything to do with humans as a predicted, predestined outcome. .

I associated the two only because this is the trap of naive 19th century thinking about a directed advance of evolution, remnants of the linear progression of time inherited from the past. That thinking put us at the top of God's glorious pyramid, and I could detect the bias even in the 70's at the university level. It's certainly not a necessary connection, so I'd agree with you. Much gets written without a full set of connections. But you make a good point.

 

This I disagree with. I see nothing different between "what appears to be a discernible direction in the evolution of life" on earth resulting in advanced life forms and "Galaxies young and old are similar in composition and operation" that in fact they ARE "of a sort that seems to be "advancing" in any way analogous to life. That since the activities we DO see, evolutuion of stars, galaxies, planets even, mirror those we see locally, that we can accept a high probability of the rest of the evolutionary proces, the evolution of life, would also be the same.

Hmmm... As I understand it, our most ancient images are from about a billion years after the Big Bonk, e.g., an article on black holes shaping galaxies in Discover , 1/05. But the mechanics, the shape of galaxies, their levels and types of organization, their general nature, and probably other characteristics don't seem to have undergone any meaningful change. Sure, they expand, spin, collide, and get farther apart, but (if I'm right in my description), I haven't seen anything that shows processes in galactic evolution that would be analogous to an increase in complexity, speciation, population effects, or other life enhancements characteristic of evolution in the biological realm. Maybe you can straighten me out on this. (I would expect evolutionary changes on planets that have developed living systems, like Earth. But I'm not counting that as evidence of evolutionary change in the GALACTIC structure. Needs more thought.)

 

I do not see anything that suggests that evolution follows anything less than an orderly change. I don't see anything in the laws of physics that would allow it to do anything but follow orderly change based on those physical laws. I had agreed that a specific evolutionary modification may not be a positive one, but that does not mean it did not follow an orderly process working within the restrictions impossed by our physical laws.

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. "Getting away from the idea that evolution has to include the concept of ordered change, increasing complexity, and any sense of predictability may be what we need to accept to unify seemingly separate ideas of evolution as a universal principle."

 

I agree with you about orderlinessin terms of physical laws. My reference to ordered change goes back to the first point, the old idea of evolution on rails, leading up to our production as the capstone, etc. I would espouse a model consistent with chaos theory, non-predictability due to situational complexity, non-repeating changes in response to changing environments, rather than the ordered advance I criticized above. So I don't see a disagreement here. The only reason for recapitulating these points is decrease the dissonance between universal and biological evolution that exists if (and only if) my statement of galactic NON-evolution is correct. If it isn't, and the processes are the same, delete this paragraphy altogether.

 

Have you by any chance seen Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea ? It's a really in-depth probe of the real crux of the evolutionary argument -- whether the Earth system is capable of creating and supporting the complexity and diversification of life through the mechanisms of evolution. He goes into sometimes exhaustive detail about new models (testable ones) that are pretty far beyond anything I have ever studied, most of them only a couple decades old. Also, he's a brilliantly clear writer who generates descriptive metaphors to accompany his often abstruse subject. I read about half of it in a fire lookout last summer - haven't made much headway since because it's not kind of thing you can read a few pages a day. Anyway, if you're curious, it's a good read.

 

As always, thanks for your responses. I like feeling my ideas change as they collide tectonically with those of other thoughtful people! :)