Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Profundity
Message-ID: <1316@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 19:22:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1316
Posted: Thu Jul 25 19:22:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 02:01:42 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 75
Keywords: Designer Genes

>>[Paul] sarcastically calls the position that "the fittest organisms
>> will survive" profound because it doesn't "say anything".
>>...
>>What natural selection and evolution "predict"
>>is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the
>>organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those
>>circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the 
>>offspring that follow into the next period. [Rich]

>     I'm believe Paul's sarcasm was quite on target, Rich. 
>     You say that the organisms to survive will be the `best suited' ones.   
>     Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do
>     you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the
>     hell do you mean by `best suited'? [ELLIS]

Best suited for survival.  No, not ONLY the best ones will survive, best those
best ones will most likely dominate the "gene pool" in the subsequent
generations.  Right, it's a tautology!!!  What's amazing is that Paul is
completely baffled by a tautology:  those that are best suited to survive
are the ones that do (barring unforeseen circumstances like tumultuous
upheavals:  but even then, those that survive the upheaval clearly were
better "suited" for it).  What this theory lacks is a "thing" that
"determines" "best-suitedness" (like a god).  Circumstances perform that
function.

> 	   " organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited
> 	   " for those circumstances
>     ..except as `well suited' == `likely to survive'. Now compare this to 
>     your own description of creationist thought:
> 	   " They prefer an explanation that just says "God did it" because
> 	   " that's what they want. Not because there's any basis to it.
> 	   " Just because that's what they want.
>     Since tautologies have a basis in any consistent universe, they are
>     unfalsifiable metaphysics, and little different from the ideas of your
>     opponents.

Except one set of tautologies introduces a "god" just because the proponents
like the idea of a god in charge of things.  The other set doesn't add in
any extraneous presumption like that.  So simple, even a ...  (But alas, no)

>>As I mentioned in a previous article this level of predictivity does not
>>satisfy some people. 

>     But that's not any level of predictivity at all!
>     Rich, `predict' derives from Latin prae {before} + dicere {say, tell}
>     and roughly means `to tell what will happen BEFORE it happens'.

Sorry.  You're the one who's out to smash causality.  This should please
you to no end!  :-)  The fact remains that we live in a universe with so
many variables, predictivity is nearly impossible on a grand scale.  To
say that "in x,000,000 years there will be this type of species", and to
say so accurately, would require that you know every tumultuous circumstance
of the next x,000,000 years, every not-so-tumultuous event that would impact
such changes cascadingly ("For want of a nail..."), etc.  As Charles Poirier
pointed out in the free will discussion in another newsgroup, free will seems
to be the notion where people claim "themselves" as the force of will behind
something whereas they only think that because of their inability to examine
ALL the controlling factors of cause involved.  (In a way, a corollary to
what Richard Carnes attributed to Freud regarding freedom.)  The same thing
is happening here.

>     Evolution may be many things:    ...but it is NOT PREDICTIVE! 

Did I say it was, in the way that you describe?  What I said was that some
people are unsatisfied with that degree of predictivity, so they choose
another system that "says it all".

>     SMASH CAUSALITY!!!

Yeah, smash this...  :-)  I would think a lack of predictivity would be
pleasing to someone out to smash causality.  Perhaps a re-reading of the
paragraph above is in order...
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr