Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer

[Graybeard]

For Consideration:

From the Counterbalance Interactive Library .... Francisco Ayala

• Francisco J. Ayala is the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. He is a member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. He has been President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

• He advances three propositions.

• The first is that Darwin's most significant intellectual contribution is that he brought the origin and diversity of organisms into the realm of science.
  • The Copernican Revolution consisted in a commitment to the postulate that the universe is governed by natural laws that account for natural phenomena. Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by extending that commitment to the living world.
• The second proposition is that natural selection is a creative process that can account for the appearance of genuine novelty.
  • How natural selection creates is shown with a simple example and clarified with two analogies, artistic creation and the "typing monkeys," with which it shares important similarities and differences. The creative power of natural selection arises from a distinctive interaction between chance and necessity, or between random and deterministic processes.
• The third proposition is that teleological explanations are necessary in order to give a full account of the attributes of living organisms, whereas they are neither necessary nor appropriate in the explanation of natural inanimate phenomena.
  • I give a definition of teleology and clarify the matter by distinguishing between internal and external teleology, and between bounded and unbounded teleology. The human eye, so obviously constituted for seeing but resulting from a natural process, is an example of internal (or natural) teleology. A knife has external (or artificial) teleology, because it has been purposefully designed by an external agent. The development of an egg into a chicken is an example of bounded (or necessary) teleology, whereas the evolutionary origin of the mammals is a case of unbounded (or contingent) teleology, because there was nothing in the make up of the first living cells that necessitated the eventual appearance of mammals.
• I conclude that Darwin's theory of evolution and explanation of design does not include or exclude considerations of divine action in the world any more than astronomy, geology, physics, or chemistry do.

The full Papers can be found here: CLICK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the third proposition, Ayala states that ... 'teleological explanations are necessary in order to give a full account of the attributes of living organisms .... but not inanimate phenomena'

My question is:

Is this really true .... or are teleological explanations only necessary for human concepts to be placated ?

Is a 'Full Account' being given by the first two propositions ... however unsatisfactory it may seem ?

What do you think ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, nice post presentation. Now imo, due to the fact we are human, all three are not totally necessary, yet still necessary for a full explanation, to a large audience, becuase to have universal validity, no areas of comprehensive abilities can be overlooked, or one is only explaining to a select group, and this solves nothing, yet creates greater discrepancies between groups of understanders. In today's world of excessive information and knowledge capacities, all are learning new linkages of all the diverse fields of study, even the religious, so presentations of any knowledge, are more becoming a presentation of satisfying almost all knowledge fields, to be accepted of having true validity, in any. I think the old ways of presenting narrow areas of knowledge states is dying away, and a more inclusive presentation of any knowledge is becoming ever more necessary, with every passing day. What we are trying to accomplish, here at ToeQuest, is becoming the norm for much of the academic community, also, with all the new complexities and known inter-connections between all the seemed different fields of study. This doesn't mean we have to explain everything, just the fact, we must explain our ideas to everyone who's interested...

So, for these reasons, and imo, all three areas of knowledge are not totally necessary, yet still necessary, to explain the present state of evolutionary biology, or 'Design Without A Designer', as you have titled it. This is what a ToE is all about__complete explanation__not partial. Teleology is just simply another tool for explaining these diverse veiws to a larger audience...

Here's a link to a short clip from an article interview with Francisco Ayala: Link

And from your article link:
The Compatiblity of Teological and Causal Explanations

Teleological explanations are fully compatible with (efficient) causal explanations. It is possible, at least in principle, to give a causal account of the various physical and chemical processes in the development of an egg into a chicken, or of the physicochemical, neural, and muscular interactions involved in the functioning of the eye. (I use the "in principle" clause to imply that any component of the process can be elucidated as a causal process if it is investigated in sufficient detail and in depth; but not all steps in almost any developmental process have been so investigated, with the possible exception of the flatworm Caenorhabditis elegans. The development of Drosophila fruitflies has also become known in much detail, even if not yet completely.) It is also possible in principle to describe the causal processes by which one genetic variant becomes eventually established in a population by natural selection. But these causal explanations do not make it unnecessary to provide teleological explanations where appropriate. Both teleological and causal explanations are called for in such cases.

Paley's claim that the design of living beings evinces the existence of a Designer was shown to be erroneous by Darwin's discovery of the process of natural selection, just as the pre-Copernican explanation for the motions of celestial bodies (and the argument for the existence of God based on the unmoved mover) was shown to be erroneous by the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. There is no more reason to consider anti-Christian Darwin's theory of evolution and explanation of design than to consider anti-Christian Newton's laws of motion. Divine action in the Universe must be sought in ways other than those that postulate it as the means to account for gaps in the scientific account of the workings of the Universe.

The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions have jointly brought all natural objects and processes as subjects of scientific investigation. Is there any important missing link in the scientific account of natural phenomena? I believe there is, namely, the origin of the universe. The creation or origin of the universe involves a transition from nothing into being. But a transition can only be scientifically investigated if we have some knowledge about the states or entities on both sides of the boundary. Nothingness, however, is not a subject for scientific investigation or understanding. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, the origin of the universe will remain forever a mystery.

[leskey]

Hi, Greg.

Let me preface any statements here with the fact that I'm about to depart to the US to enjoy a little extra snow and will be off-line for a couple of weeks...so, I won't be deliberately ignoring any posts in this thread if I'm unable to catch up on my return.

That said, it's unlikely I can add much here, anyhow. By way of explanation, I'm not religious in any sense that certain ToE Quest antagonists would like to paint - so the strident efforts to expunge the 'spiritualists' roll off me like water off a duck's back. In fact, it wasn't until I renewed an interest in science that I began to consider certain elements of various religious teachings in a new light.

After reading a few books that lend credence to the notion of intelligent design, I came to the realization that there is no grounds for either religion or science to discredit one another, except on moral grounds - yes, both of them. That's when the penny dropped and I began to see things in a whole new light. I guess if it's appropriate, I could elaborate on that...although, just about everything I've ever posted at ToE Quest follows these lines...

At the present time, I've come to re-evaluate the relgious teachings of my early childhood. This will never mean that I will worship a manipulative, controlling, old, bearded guy in the sky (there's no such thing...except for those with their feet firmly planted on the ground...even at ToE Quest - lol!)...it just means that IMO, there may be more to certain information that has been preserved for millennia.

Admittedly, there's a lot of amusement observing the ridiculousness of the hypocracy and prejudices when science meets religion .

[Graybeard]

Greg, nice post presentation. Now imo, due to the fact we are human, all three are not totally necessary, yet still necessary for a full explanation, to a large audience, becuase to have universal validity, no areas of comprehensive abilities can be overlooked, or one is only explaining to a select group, and this solves nothing, yet creates greater discrepancies between groups of understanders. .....................................

Thanks Lloyd ....... and a nice considered reply and thanks for the Link. I do agree with you .... (tho in other threads recently it may not have been apparent ... lol) ..... that it is most probably necessary to bring telelogical debate to the greater audience so that the boundaries of multiple disciplines may be accessed and crossed/joined.

A certain moderator (pesky-leskey) has pointed out to me that in our recent ripostes you asked me a specific question that I singly failed to answer. I feel that I had answered it in earlier posts but .......

Your question was (I think) please explain why I believe that function follows form ... and not the reverse.

One of the many examples you chose to show that form follows function was that an Architect must first conceive of a building and then build it. In other words design and purpose are apparent along with the use of free will ?

Hope I have you right so far. I admit that at the macro level, for modern humans, this is apparent and readily perceived ... but at the level of Natural Selection I believe it to be the reverse.

So where do they meet and swap positions ??

I'm not sure, but I believe that they don't ... just our perception of the situation does, because we are a 'macro' unification of cells ..... In this thread, in future posts, I am going to attempt to answer this question from the Natural Selection point of view.

Function follows Form:
First an objective event occurs, purposeless, randomly .... if it is beneficial it performs a function .... if it is not beneficial it is deselected (not the same as devolution) .... if it is neither then it can hang on in the population until it becomes one or the other.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Hi, Greg.

Let me preface any statements here with the fact that I'm about to depart to the US to enjoy a little extra snow and will be off-line for a couple of weeks...so, I won't be deliberately ignoring any posts in this thread if I'm unable to catch up on my return.

probably gunna join up with Lloyd and gang up on me ..... rotflmao

That said, it's unlikely I can add much here, anyhow. By way of explanation, I'm not religious in any sense that certain ToE Quest antagonists would like to paint - so the strident efforts to expunge the 'spiritualists' roll off me like water off a duck's back. In fact, it wasn't until I renewed an interest in science that I began to consider certain elements of various religious teachings in a new light.

After reading a few books that lend credence to the notion of intelligent design, I came to the realization that there is no grounds for either religion or science to discredit one another, except on moral grounds - yes, both of them. That's when the penny dropped and I began to see things in a whole new light. I guess if it's appropriate, I could elaborate on that...although, just about everything I've ever posted at ToE Quest follows these lines...

At the present time, I've come to re-evaluate the relgious teachings of my early childhood. This will never mean that I will worship a manipulative, controlling, old, bearded guy in the sky (there's no such thing...except for those with their feet firmly planted on the ground...even at ToE Quest - lol!)...it just means that IMO, there may be more to certain information that has been preserved for millennia.

Admittedly, there's a lot of amusement observing the ridiculousness of the hypocracy and prejudices when science meets religion .

Hopefully in this thread we can keep it beneficial rather than acrimonious .... there will be no attempt to 'expunge' the Spirit in the Sky .. ... nor discrimination

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, you may have missed the post where I stated the fact that my formula of function and form could be turned around, as it's a universal formula, and most universal formulas can be turned around, so here it is in both forms/functions/functions/forms states:

G = åf/f * Õf = åUF
G = åF/F * ÕF = åUf

Imo, what has to be decided is how either of these formulas work, in relation to evolutionary biology__in conjunction with all the other known sciences, which also involves chemistry and electromagnetic waves and fields. These formulas are only preliminary ideas, to make it easier to see the greater picture, since they may add to the science and math conclusions of. What we truly need, imo, is more complete conceptual paths of all the information we work with, and this is why I've always used so much philosophy, as philosophical ideas are required to link the yet incomplete scientific ideas. It's needed because there's simply no other language that's worked for millenea to fill the gaps of scientific knowledge with concepts that most bridge these incomplete gaps. Just as an example, we can't really use psychology, as it doesn't have a long enough, or continuous history of development, alongside science__Only philosophy's many scientific fields do this. It's not that philosophy is all so important, it's just that it's the only historical concept language and tool which totally works with science__to fill science's many incompleteness gaps, in our languages of relaying information to each other, and then to the outside world...

The questions we need to decide are about the objective concepts of science, and in this thread, the complete and incomplete concepts of evolutionary biology. These gaps are still many, and since all 'thought' scientific objectivity depends on concepts, this happens to be dealt with best by philosophy's many scientific systems, such as teleology, epistemology, ontology and mereology__since we all know there are too many gaps in the scientific languages__otherwise. Philosophy can simply be the gap-filler in our languages of delving deeper into the concepts and physical facts of science, without becoming bogged down in overly-prolonged linguistic debates...

Philosophy is just another 'tool' in the investigations...

Function follows Form:
First an objective event occurs, purposeless, randomly .... if it is beneficial it performs a function .... if it is not beneficial it is deselected (not the same as devolution) .... if it is neither then it can hang on in the population until it becomes one or the other.

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

First, actually eternally first, the nature of the ground-state of FS, capability, or whatever we wish to call it, having emerging properties of movement and recombination of actual waves and particles as being called forms, which could be said not to be intentionally minded, as in how we humans intend forms to become functional, but, still, as forms functioning according to their inherent possibilities and combining into higher structures, such as stars and then molecules and so forth, unto cells and life forms which then function in various ways according to the earthly environment.

Since the human was not first, the human is not really the bottom basis of intending form to serve a function, but only from that human level onward.

Does FS work? Sure. Is it right or wrong or the best or the worst way possible? Who knows.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Quick and the Dead
On the Last Mundi
(or was it Tuesday)

Graybeard headed for
The waterless Mundi regions,
Where the winds and the sands
Sculpted and streaked the rocks,
And where the Knights Templar
Of the armor plates
Would be at a disadvantage…

There he waited and looked up
At the sharp white stars.

Soon his pursuers might arrive,
For he had let it out
That this was his destination.
However, all was never as it seemed.

On the Last Mundi, or was it Tuesday,
Greg (Graybeard’s alter ego) was walking
Along the windswept plain of the Mundi
On his way back to his camp at the large rock,
Returning from a hike in the mountains.

It had been a good day with nature;
He already felt a bit primeval.

It was almost dusk
And so the stars of home
Would soon shine above and beyond.

It was good to get away to see and learn
What more that life was all about.

What’s that!

A mad rabid dog ran out from the shadows,
Heading crazily but swiftly toward Graybeard…

How did he know all this?
Of what is a human made?

Would an acute fear response
Give him a good shot at staying alive?
Should he confront or avoid?

In this case he would have to
Try to avoid by flight
And then perhaps confront by fight,
Which is really more like freeze,
Flight, fight, or fright.

We are actually hardwired to flee first.
If overtaken, we must defend,
Although a trancelike passive state
Of being filled with fear is also possible.

Within seconds, Graybeard was primed;
His pupils were dilated
And his respiration had sped up.

He stopped producing saliva
And sweat poured out.
His blood rushed away from his stomach
To soak his brain and muscles
In nutrients and oxygen,
Energizing him for what was ahead.

He froze, watched and listened
But for a second.
Light waves flashing off of the dog’s teeth
Had passed through his eyes
That could now see all the better.

Electric signals entered his brain
And the visual information
Routed to the opposite sides,
This depth perception helping him
To better locate and keep track
Of the oncoming and insane assailant.

The sound waves of
The dog’s growling and barking
Crashed against the tympanic membranes
Of his ears and were on into his brain
As sounds to be processed.

All this as well in a second or two.

Within milliseconds,
Neurotransmitters chemically
Ferried electric signals
From one neuron to the next,
Spreading the news of the dog
To a quick response unit
Born of ancient times.

The sensory information had funneled
Deeper into the brain for further analysis.

Graybeard’s vast network of neurons
Lit up like a Christmas tree.
The ultimate decision would be made
By the amygdala—the “fear” center.

Would there just be cause
For a temporary alertness
Or should there be
A full-fledged fear response?

The dog was going wild;
There were no trees to climb;
There was little chance for escape, but….

The amygdala sent a siren sounding
Through Graybeard’s brain,
Having cued the locus ceruleus
In the brain stem to release gobs
Of the neurotransmitter nor-epinephrine.

Twin brain structures
At the bottom of the head,
The cerebellum,
Considered various attempts
To escape or of self-defense.

All of Graybeard’s ancestors
Had now arisen to heed the threat.

The brain stem had sent
An all points bulletin,
This constricting his blood vessels
And inhibiting all ordinary
Parasympathetic nervous activity.

His throat tightened
In case a scream was necessary.
His body was preparing for the worst.

This danger was
What his formerly safe life
Had come down to.
To stare death in the face
Was to live twice.

The dog was fifty yards away
And bearing down upon him,
Its nature having gone wilder than wild.

The spinal cord had aided the cascade
Of the acute fear response
To all the corners of Graybeard’s body,
Activating the peripheral nervous system
Of his arms and legs, among other senses,
To attend to stimuli
Of the new and dangerous environment.

Graybeard threw a few stones;
No effect. Some more; nothing;
They could not halt
The foaming rabid beast.

The flight signal had reached his muscles,
Their fibers already contracted
To increase his running ability.
Heart and legs racing,
He ran and then looked back
To see the savage dog gaining on him…

He threw a larger stone;
It even hit the dog,
But there was no overall effect.

Graybeard reflected on
All his years on ToeQuest,
Wishing that he had said “boloney”
a few more times.

The crossroads all went nowhere.
The signposts pointed to oblivion.

The vicious dog was almost upon him,
So he stopped and waited
And planned for the fight,
Having but a second.

He wished that he
Had brought a weapon along.
There was not even a stick
Or a branch lying about.

He recalled his bevy of girlfriends,
But for the one he had given Austin,
For she was not much of a scientist.

Eternity called out Greg’s name.
But this was a wrong number,
For he was now totally
Graybeard the magnificent.

The foaming dog leapt for Graybeard;
Even one bite wold be fatal.
Graybeard’s sturdy hiking boot
Caught the dog in the throat
As he jumped toward a vital area,
Stunning the dog
And sending him to the ground.

Just as the dog was about to recover,
Graybeard dropped a knee
Into his head and crushed it,
The poor creature’s brains
Splattering all over the ground.

Greg’s body and mind still swirled
With the rapid firings
Of the acute fear response,
But he eventually calmed down.

There was a sour taste
In his mouth—
His salivary glands
Were turning back on,
A good sign that his life
Was returning to normal.

He walked back to camp
And drank the beer
That his glands had further requested.

Greg wondered how ninja Graybeard
Had accomplished the kill, then thought,
“Thank you, evolution and natural selection!
You made me what I am today.”

Another dog arrived, a tame one.
Greg talked to it like a friend.

(Mikal: Note that this is what
The brain can do all by itself.)


Mundi Memories

Graybeard walked to the mountain and back,
Sitting safe on some lone rock for the lack
Of any other seat to pick but that of his own;
Wherewhence he slept, thinking he was all alone.

As there he lay asleep so peacefully in repose,
Some dogs wandered by and licked his nose.
And while he turned untossed, a kangaroo
Of boundless flight, hopped over him, too.

The Great Equalizer stalks all creatures made,
Lying ever just ‘round the corner in the shade,
Taking both human and the beetle as one,
After their lives are spent from rolling some dung.

[Graybeard]

Austin ...... you are inimitable and incorrigible .... I enjoyed it ... rotflmao.

Please note that no where in that story did I exercise free will (I don't tink I did anyway) ..... Also, did you adapt Kurt Vonneguts description of the guard dog attack in 'Breakfast of Champions' ..... ??

thanks bud ... greg

[Graybeard]

Greg, you may have missed the post where I stated the fact that my formula of function and form could be turned around, as it's a universal formula, and most universal formulas can be turned around, so here it is in both forms/functions/functions/forms states:

G = åf/f * Õf = åUF
G = åF/F * ÕF = åUf

I didn't miss this ... in fact I thought I thanked it and asked you about it ?

I don't fully understand the formulas .... ??

Imo, what has to be decided is how either of these formulas work, in relation to evolutionary biology__in conjunction with all the other known sciences, which also involves chemistry and electromagnetic waves and fields.

These formulas are only preliminary ideas, to make it easier to see the greater picture, since they may add to the science and math conclusions of. What we truly need, imo, is more complete conceptual paths of all the information we work with, and this is why I've always used so much philosophy, as philosophical ideas are required to link the yet incomplete scientific ideas.

Yes ... I am going to agree with this. I see it in purely practical pragmatic terms ... but I also see that to others this is unintelligible ... so if it takes philosophy to render the physical, then I am willing to try.

It's needed because there's simply no other language that's worked for millenea to fill the gaps of scientific knowledge with concepts that most bridge these incomplete gaps. Just as an example, we can't really use psychology, as it doesn't have a long enough, or continuous history of development, alongside science__Only philosophy's many scientific fields do this. It's not that philosophy is all so important, it's just that it's the only historical concept language and tool which totally works with science__to fill science's many incompleteness gaps, in our languages of relaying information to each other, and then to the outside world...

Yes .... Agreed ....

The questions we need to decide are about the objective concepts of science, and in this thread, the complete and incomplete concepts of evolutionary biology. These gaps are still many, and since all 'thought' scientific objectivity depends on concepts, this happens to be dealt with best by philosophy's many scientific systems, such as teleology, epistemology, ontology and mereology__since we all know there are too many gaps in the scientific languages__otherwise. Philosophy can simply be the gap-filler in our languages of delving deeper into the concepts and physical facts of science, without becoming bogged down in overly-prolonged linguistic debates...

Philosophy is just another 'tool' in the investigations...

Yes ... still in agreement .... please note that ... ummm ... if I am not so good at using the 'tool' .. then it does not mean that I am being offensive.

I'll state up front that my reasoning for arguing that Function follows Form will be to question the tenets:

That we have free will and choice .... (eg: Austin's dog gave me no free will)

That Architects (a term for all designers) are restricted by the laws of physics, and are not free to design by choice.

and to show that 'Forms' exist in all populations awaiting their turn to serve a Function.

cool bananas ... greg