h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Complete Description of Evolution - A26761610
Author: wallyn4bz - U9625532

This is a beginning. It is not carved in stone.

Hi there, I'm Mr. Dreadful one of the Scouts of this parish!

Unfortunately as it is pretty much an opinion piece rather than established fact this Entry is currently unsuitable for the Edited Guide. Don't despair though, we are always looking for new factual Entries about Life, The Universe and Everything.

In the meantime check out the Writing-Guidelines and enjoy your stay!

This is good! It is a very good summary of the Universe. But I feel it is too long to make a readable Entry in h2g2. Perhaps it could be divided into sections, each one a self-contained Entry.

It does lapse into personal opinion in a few places, such as when you say that Man is not an animal in the biological sense. That's clearly wrong. Most scientists believe that Man is an animal, albeit a very special one.

And you've perhaps inadvertently introduced "purpose" into the Universe, when you appear to be trying to show there is none. You mention the purpose of Evolution, when evolution has no purpose. You mention scientists beieveing that either Nature or God created a lightning strike to start the process of life, when scientists believe it was neither Nature nor God. Many, if not most, would deny the existence of either.

I think there is the makings of a good series of Entries in this article, but it will require a bit of work and lot of listening to what other people have to say about it. If you just say "that's my theory and that's the end of it", then this will never be published in the Guide.

This is the kind of feedback I was looking for. I realise that most people are not familiar with the systems approach to analysing known facts. There is not a single fact in the article that is not founded on known and accepted scientific knowledge. Therefore, if you find that it seems like an opinion then there must be a problem with my logical reasoning. This is something I must ferret out. Be careful, though, you said that I denied that nature or science caused a lightning strike to begin the assembly of living molecules. What I said was that that it might have helped, in fact it might have been necessary for the event to happen, that is a scientific or religious question, not a philosophical one. The event represented a step change in the direction of evolution. The emergence of non-living things was always a result of external events acting on the constituents of the entity. With the advent of this new step change there is a vast change in the number of possible future variety through the use of the internal programs. Thus, living entities are not in the same class of existence as non-living. It is the same for man. Man has 3 forces that do not affect ordinary living things. The first is creativity because man can create possible future variety in his mind. The second is choice. Not the ability to choose, but the inability to not choose. Therefore he is forced to create. The third force is responsibility. Not everything that can be brought into being should be. For non-living things there is entropy. for living things there is species competition. In both of these cases the results are determined by events outside the control of the entities themselves. Since man must choose, to abstain from choosing being just another choice, he is ultimately rsponsible for the actions of his choice. This puts him into another class of existence from animals.
If you prefer not to have this in your system I will retract it. If you feel I should split up I will do that. I am a retired philosopher and no longer havve access to librarys or academic milleau, I am relegated to being an old man living in the high plains of Texas with the cows and jack rabbits. I miss the interaction with bright minds most of whome never agreed with me anyway.
wallyn4bz

A large part of my reasoning for it being an opinion piece came from your own post here: F8170084?thread=4568205

He's wrong, though. It's not a new and unique approach. It is pretty much a description of the standard understanding of the evolution of the universe. As such, it may have a place in this guide as an overview.

Wally, I never said you denied the lightning started life. You say in your article that scientist believe either "Nature" or "God" caused the lightning. But scientists do not believe in "Nature", and whether they believe in God or not, they don't think he caused the lightning to strike at that point.

When you said that "You say in your article that scientist believe either "Nature" or "God" caused the lightning. But scientists do not believe in "Nature", and whether they believe in God or not, they don't think he caused the lightning to strike at that point." you sent me scurring back to my article because the word "believe" is not in my lexicon. My problem with he present scientific description of evolution is that they state that the major driving force of evolution is natural selection. That would require that evolution would begin with many organisms and through natural selection reduce that number to a smaller number that are better fit. However, the evidence is that life began with a few amino acids and has grown throughout the millenia and is still growing in number.

My background is in the philosophy of science. My thesis for my MA in philosophy, "Science as Paradigmatic Complexity" was published in the International Journal of General Systems back in 1984. What is new and original is the approach that highlights something already extant in the scientific view but that has been generally ignored.

I consider this article only the beginning and I hope to generate a conversation that will explore the implications of the role of role of man as a source for further evolution and the role of entropy at this level of complexity as the responsibility placed on man for what he creates.
Wallyn4bz

When you said that I introduced "purpose" into the universe you triggered a problem I recognized. In an earlier draft I even stated that the purpose of evolution is to provide the oportunity for anything that is possible to have an oportunity to exist. That would be like saying the the purpose of entropy is to cool off the universe. Both statements would be wrong.The development of higher levels of complexity are simply the natural result of a system far from equilibrium with an excess of energy.

<>

You've understood that incorrectly. All natural selection requires is that there is variation among offspring, and that not all offspring reproduce. The offspring who *do* reproduce pass on their characteristics to future generations, and the process begins again. Over time, this is what generates diversity, it most certainly doesn't constrain it.

You just have to look at the wealth of information on the Burgess Shales to see that evolution is not necessarily invariably reductive in its progress. There was a huge explosion in the number of species at that time, not least because creatures started to evolve eyes and were suddenly a lot more aware of the world around them.

Also, I think there is a misunderstanding of the significance of entropy. The Second Law states that the entropy of a closed system must increase over time. However, it *doesn't* state that it must decrease everywhere within that system, just that the total entropy must increase. Life is an example of the decrease of entropy within its own system (the organism) while increasing entropy a good deal quicker in the world around it.

All the same, you've provoked a very interesting discussion, so much more stimulating than the usual crap posted about evolution by the creationist troll army.

You are correct, of course, but you still require a broad base of entities and where did they come from. I do not have a problem with natural selection, only with the idea that it, the separating out of the less desirable, is the major impetus of evolution. The major power of evolution is the creation of the variety on which natural selection will operate.
Wallyn4bz

Wally, the "theory of natural selection" also includes the concept that something creates the variety, although in Darwin's time they didn't know the cause for the variety. We do now, of course.

The explosion of species is still going on. There are more species in the world when I had breakfast this morning that there was when I crawled into bed last night. I chose to put my article on site because I am sure that my fellow followers of Douglas Adams have the immagination and the wit to develop inteesting conversations, given a challenging subject of course.
wallyn4bz

Exactly. And that is what this is all about, the creation of variety. The important point is that living things can create more variety than non-living things and man can create more variety than animals.
wallyn4bz

>>Man can create more variety than animals

Only by exposing himself to dangerous radiation!

I must admit when I saw the words "Texas" and "Evolution" I groaned , but this is not what I was expecting.

It is well-written and technically correct from what I can see, but I also think there is a continuous thread of personal opinion in there that makes it unsuitable. To elaborate, your argument is littered with statements like:

>>Since man ... he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his choice. This puts him into another class of existence from animals.<<
>>With the advent of man, we have something we call mind.<<
>>the most sophisticated animal on our planet<<

Personally, I see this as anthropocentric arrogance. There is, as far as I know, no reason to believe that man is qualitively different from other mammals (for example), just a bit cleverer, and even then only on average. Lots of studies have looked for behaviour thought to be uniquely human in animals and found it. Equally there are plenty of humans that behave entirely predictably and do not appear responsible for their actions.

>>but it is only man who can see in a stone something.. <<

So what if only humans carve statues? It's only part and parcel of the overall struggle to better ourselves in order to find a good mate. It's just very elaborate peacock feathers.

>>the highest level of physical evolution probes the world around him<<

Why do you think that homo sapiens is the final achievement of evolution? I often watch my cat and wish that I'd evolved to be as fast, stealthy, dextrous and spatially-aware as she is. Then I look at yobs in the street trying to impress their mates and I wonder what abilities they have, with the possible exception of language, that my cat doesn't. In many respects, humans are miles behind. And lots of species are evolving far faster than we are.

>>Unlike other animals whose precursors spread before their emergence, there is only one species of man. <<

Umm, is that not just 'cos we killed off all the others?

>>From this we can conclude that the primary purpose of evolution is the creation of variety.<<

Why should evolution have a purpose? I think you make the mistake of arbitrarily choosing your conclusion and then writing an argument to support it.

>>Finally, biologically speaking, Man is not an animal. Man is not determined by biology. He is determined by the whole being. By what he has made of himself as well as what he has inherited through biology. <<

This conclusion is pure opinion based on entirely subjective definitions. You draw an imaginary cut off between humans and everything else, where in reality there isn't one.

Now I understand the point you're trying to make - we are indeed the only species capable of contemplating and probing the universe outside our personal immediate vicinity, but you couldn't have said the same thing ten thousand years ago, even though modern humans were plentiful. You can't say it about all current humans either. I see that ability as a factor of the combined wisdom of human civilisation, which itself relies in part on the individual's greater ability to reason and record. Your average individual human can't probe the universe any more than an individual termite can build a mound.

The section on mind is taken directly from "Complexity and a Pragmatic Theory of Knowledge" which I published in the International Journal of General Systems in 1985. It is not subjective personal opinion nor is it arrogance. It has been peer reviewed and accepted.
From the emergence of the first sub-atomic particles after the big bang the progress of evolution has been to increase the variety of existing things in the universe. The development of living organisms gave evolution more a powerful tool for creating. The emergence of man added 2 more. First creativity and second responsibility. The creative abilities of man increase the amount of possible variety. Responsibility plays the role of entropy by restraining the variety that will be successful. Though man might create something detrimental or even evil, if he thinks he is avoiding responsibility he is kidding himself.

By the way, bower birds appear to have a highly developed artistic sense. The males create beautiful artwork which has absolutely no purpose other than to look nice, because the females appreciate good art.

>>It is not subjective personal opinion nor is it arrogance.<<

It may not be subjective to a philosopher, but it is to a scientist.

>>From the emergence of the first sub-atomic particles after the big bang the progress of evolution has been to increase the variety of existing things in the universe.<<

No problem with that bit.

>>The development of living organisms gave evolution more a powerful tool for creating. <<

Or that bit.

>>The emergence of man added 2 more. First creativity and second responsibility. The creative abilities of man increase the amount of possible variety.<<

Don't agree with that bit. Beavers create. Why isn't the creative ability of beavers considered a milestone in evolution?

Chimps are punished by their peers for bad behaviour and learn to take responsibility for their actions. Why don't you consider the emergence of complex social groupings among mammals to be the turning point? Why just specifically humans?

Yes bower birds perform ritual dances to attract females but that is just a little more involved than other birds songs. It is not an activity of creation because it is just an enactment of what has been programmed into them.