Wowbagger was wrong. There are huge parts of biology that can be explained quite well without any evolutionary thought, period. You could shoe-horn an evolutionary explanation into anything biological, but that wouldn't be good science.
Yes, of course you could explain stuff without using evolution. My point was that
adding evolution to an explanation helps us discover more about it!
For example,
We could describe genes in purely Mendelian ways, using terms such as "recessive" and "dominant" characteristics. However, when we apply Evolution by Natural Selection, we can explore precisely why one characteristic is dominant over the other. And, we can then apply that to make more
precise predictions in population dynamics, than Mendel alone.
Scientists are not out to shoehorn evolution into every nook and cranny, for no reason. They apply evolution to problems, because it is a useful framework for making new discoveries.
Evolution does not necessarily need to replace other discoveries, no more so than Relativity "replaced" Gravity. Various models work at various levels. As long as there is no contradiction, they can all be team players in the quest for scientific discoveries!
I have three human physiology text books on my shelf; none list evolution in the index. I have a plant physiology text, it lists two entries under evolution.
I think you discovered a new form of fallacy: Argument from What Happens to be On My Bookshelf.
For some reason, I get the sense that the paper you linked to supports my arguments, not yours.
From the "Results and Discussion" section of the abstract:
What do these results suggest about cultural evolution? First and foremost, they support interpreting cultural change from an evolutionary perspective by demonstrating a theoretically based pattern (i.e., that characters tested against the environment evolve at a different rate) that could be used to understand or predict cultural change in other instances. This finding does not mean that cultural change comes about through genetic evolution. It simply means that despite the different ways in which cultural traits are transmitted, predictable evolutionary mechanisms may contribute to resulting patterns of change.
Sounds like a case for...
memes!!
Evolution can explain aspects of culture! Though, we realized a long time ago, it is not all necessarily genetic evolution. It is still Darwinian, in the sense of memetics.
Random does not mean uncaused? And I can't think of anything a layman would call random that is uncaused. So I am not sure what you're getting at.
My usage of the term random, in that context, meant "completely unpredictable", and therefore "causes can not be deduced, and are therefore irrelevant".
It is a usage I have seen many a creationist try to assert, as an argument against Evolution, as if Evolution was really that random.
Evolution is neither Random Chance nor Intelligent Design. It is a natural algorithm, and one that is ultimately inevitable to pop up in the Universe.
That isn't so. There is nothing theoretically determistic about the theory of evolution. Some models create highly determistic results when the model uses simplified fitness scapes, and relatively stong environmental bias towards certain genes. (The blind watchmaker youtube video, occasionally linked to on this forum, has a 100% bias on the best timekeeper).
I would respond by saying there is a difference between the models, and the nature of reality. Our models could be deterministic or not. But, unless demonstrated otherwise, there is little (if any) reason to go off assuming something is not ultimately deterministic in nature, even if we can never quite get at it.
In theory you can model evolution many different ways, but if you want to reflect the reality the model will not be deterministic.
You have to demonstrate, to the same degree Heisenberg did, that something is not deterministic, before most of science will give up on something not being deterministic.
That complex systems randomness is a product of ignorance is untrue. One can know the precise state of every particle in a system, and still not be able to predict the system state at a later time. If the system is sufficiently complex, the variation in your expected output is actually incredibly high. The fundamental unpredictability of such a system is not a product of ignorance.
Perhaps we should start a thread on Chaos Theory to discuss this, further.
You should rephrase this. Some theoretical models of evolution are deterministic.
Duly noted.
Is a computer a "complex system"?
In the sense of mathematical complexity, of the type Wowbagger is implying? No.
dako, I was referring to complex
adaptive systems,
not systems that are merely complicated.
Computer hardware* is
not adaptive. Most software in common usage, is not, either. But, some software can simulate the characteristics of complex adaptive systems, such as certain adaptive AI algorithms.
(*conventional hardware, that is. Not counting any of that fancy self-healing stuff they got going in the labs.)
The education of others is not my reason for being here. I'm here for some community. This is the only forum that I participate in.
Mocking people who come here with innocent misunderstandings of science, just to score points with your community buddies, is not really my idea of community building.
Granted, some posters,
who prove to be trolls and troublemakers, deserve some mockery. But, you should
not start out of the gate assuming everyone with an innocently naïve question regarding science is going to be one.
Your question disqualifies you from the long answer...
I disagree with this tactic. If you don't want to respond to someone, then don't respond. Telling them they don't deserve a response is counter-productive.
The question was a bait... I chose not to bite.
First of all, how do you know?
Second of all, even if it was: Providing a good, solid answer could "ping" him if he reads it. Sometimes it happens: If you "ping" people the right way, they could be inspired to rethink aspects of their beliefs. (I do not claim to be so great at pinging people, myself, yet. Though, I am trying to improve my skills.)
Third of all: Lurkers could visit the page, and learn something from your posts, even if the original poster does not. Leaving questions unanswered, or rudely answered, might give the mistaken impression, to some, that it can not be answered.
You can apply Darwin's theories to a system without that system being subjected to it...
Er, wha?
Perhaps that needs to be rephrased? How is that different from saying "You can apply gravity to a system, without that system being subjected to it"?
If aspects of evolutionary theory (even if it is not specifically genes) could explain the development of airplanes, then how are airplanes not subjected to evolution?
They, (almost like worker ants), help provide services to other humans, that ultimately aid in their survival, without placing the burden of having too many newborns to handle, in the society.
Surely, this is not too difficult for a bright, enthusiastic fellow, like you, to comprehend?
