The Evolution and Spirituality Thread

We were having a discussion in the Christian thread about evolutionary ideas, and it really wasn't on topic, so I started a new thread.....

I think evolution of some variety is a given, here. Punctuated equilibrium or otherwise, it makes sense. How do we mingle this with spirituality, though? As an atheist, I suppose, I do not know where to begin the discussion.

Cosmology is about what we believe about how we came to be here. The way we live our lives is connected to our personal cosmology. One of the points I'm making is that the absolute confidence with which many hold their current cosmology is misplaced.

I have issues with your use of the word 'cosmology'.

Negoba wrote: We were having a discussion in the Christian thread about evolutionary ideas, and it really wasn't on topic, so I started a new thread.....   I would like to start by saying that I believe that genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium govern speciation much more than we're led to believe. The basic picture we're given is that evolution is a continual process where better adapted individuals give rise to more dominant species by virtue of random genetic changes over time. "Evolution by natural selection."   I dislike this term and would propose "Speciation characterised by punctuated equilibrium governed primarily by genetic drift"   That is, the species we see on this planet are a system characterized by long periods of equilibrium and rapid periods of change governed by changes in system conditions. The change in these conditions is often caused by cataclysmic events that no members have any "fitness" to survive and who remains is primarily a matter of random chance. The characteristics of these survivors is the primary determinant of what the next equilibrium will look like. With no competition, these groups rapidly expand and the how they initially interact with their environment finishes the process.   This correlates to initial conditions in a mathematical system with many many possible equilibrium conditions.

I like very much how you disabuse the history channel surfers of their glib 'natural selection' myth here. However, when you refer to cataclysmic events capable of engendering such a change, you must be referring to a species primordial calendar ? (i.e. system upheavals from several million years ago)
You need to clarify primarily a matter of random chance i.e. are you advocating your proffered mathematical model to support his ? Regardless, it appeals to an atheist.
More importantly, at least I'm confident there's no danger of any creationist hogwash seeping through the cracks in your very robust reasoning. (but don't hold your breath, an evangelist armed with a Venn diagram may appear over the horizon any time now)

Good post.

ExittheLemming wrote: Negoba wrote: We were having a discussion in the Christian thread about evolutionary ideas, and it really wasn't on topic, so I started a new thread.....   I would like to start by saying that I believe that genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium govern speciation much more than we're led to believe. The basic picture we're given is that evolution is a continual process where better adapted individuals give rise to more dominant species by virtue of random genetic changes over time. "Evolution by natural selection."   I dislike this term and would propose "Speciation characterised by punctuated equilibrium governed primarily by genetic drift"   That is, the species we see on this planet are a system characterized by long periods of equilibrium and rapid periods of change governed by changes in system conditions. The change in these conditions is often caused by cataclysmic events that no members have any "fitness" to survive and who remains is primarily a matter of random chance. The characteristics of these survivors is the primary determinant of what the next equilibrium will look like. With no competition, these groups rapidly expand and the how they initially interact with their environment finishes the process.   This correlates to initial conditions in a mathematical system with many many possible equilibrium conditions.   I like very much how you disabuse the history channel surfers of their glib 'natural selection' myth here. However, when you refer to cataclysmic events capable of engendering such a change, you must be referring to a species primordial calendar ? (i.e. system upheavals from several million years ago) You need to clarify primarily a matter of random chance i.e. are you advocating your proffered mathematical model to support his ? Regardless, it appeals to an atheist. More importantly, at least I'm confident there's no danger of any creationist hogwash seeping through the cracks in your very robust reasoning. (but don't hold your breath, an evangelist armed with a Venn diagram may appear over the horizon any time now) Good post.

ExittheLemming wrote: Thanks for the info (this is an area I knew squat about) What's particularly interesting about the Holocene extinction you describe, is that it is the only one to date where the presence of that primordial soup of an acquired taste (mankind) has had a significant contributing effect. I was amazed and shocked to learn that between 20,000 and 2 million species are believed to have become extinct in the 20th century alone.  However, having recently perused the 'Political Discussion' thread, it seems both the Dodo and woolly Mammoth continue to thrive and prosper in 2009.

Edited by Dean - September 21 2009 at 04:00

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,^[14] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,^[15] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.^[1] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."^[10]

The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

Richard Dawkins dedicated a chapter in The Blind Watchmaker to correcting, in his view, the wide confusion surrounding the theory of punctuated equilibrium. His first, and main point, is to argue that phyletic gradualism in the sense of uniformity of rates—what he refers to as "constant speedism"—is a "caricature of Darwinism"^[16] and "does not really exist."^[17] His second argument, which follows from the first, is that once this caricature is dismissed, we are left with only one logical alternative, which Dawkins calls "variable speedism." Variable speedism may be distinguished in one of two ways: "discrete variable speedism" and "continuously variable speedism." Eldredge and Gould, believing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists," and "in this respect they are genuinely radical."^[18] They believe that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists," on the other hand believe that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis."^[19] Dawkins therefore commits himself here to an empirical claim about the geological record,^[20] and it is this particular claim that Eldredge and Gould have aimed to overturn.

Another pervasive misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium was that it invoked large-scale mutations, the sort invoked by Richard Goldschmidt in The Material Basis of Evolution.^[21] According to Dawkins, punctuated equilibrium "has no connection with macromutation and true saltation,^[22] but rather "followed from long accepted conventional Darwinism," namely Mayrian allopatric speciation.^[23]

we shouldn't really allow large chunks of wiki text here - there are copyright issues - relevant snippets and links are best

Dean wrote: we shouldn't really allow large chunks of wiki text here - there are copyright issues - relevant snippets and links are best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Copyright

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts.