Hi Alberto,

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of
> entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a
> bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product  of more emergent
> levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic
> level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are
> aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an
> higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria .

Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not
convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for
my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded
complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo
model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this
sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting
stuff but no unbounded complexification.

One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this:
evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of
the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently
contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that
evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It
is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we
haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point.
This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this
hypothesis.

> What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. That
> is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of
> adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a lot.

Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a
species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure
of adaption.

Telmo.

>
> 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013  chris peck <chris_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
>> >>>> >> research program".
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no
>> >>> > reason
>> >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to
>> >>> > be
>> >>> > concerned in the slightest.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with
>> >> their
>> >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a
>> >> philosopher;
>> >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name.
>> >>
>> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he
>> >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would
>> >> rather eat
>> >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took
>> >> this
>> >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The
>> >> Origin
>> >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess
>> >> philosophers
>> >> are just slow learners
>> >>
>> >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he
>> >>> > followed
>> >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or
>> >> should
>> >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction?
>> >>
>> >>> > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the
>> >>> > fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological.
>> >>> > ie.
>> >>> > 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the
>> >>> > fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more
>> >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is
>> >> less
>> >> fit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Darwin knew nothing about genes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of
>> > winning
>> > genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is
>> > about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about
>> > hereditary
>> > supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit'
>> > genes
>> > 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success
>> > through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit.
>>
>> Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees
>> that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that
>> neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain
>> the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to
>> misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like
>> "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an
>> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to