This is my third comment to you, regarding evolutionary byproducts

But in any case, I think you are doing it
[using archaic definitions]. When I asked you to define "good," you defined it as an evolutionary byproduct... which, obviously, assumes that the good is only an evolutionary byproduct.

You might think, Joe, as some do, that each result of
evolutionary change is only a byproduct, as a kind of snide synonym for random chance, ignoring the driving force of adaptive selection. That is not the correct use of that word, however, in the context of evolutionary biology.

A little background on evolutionary byproducts might be
helpful to start. In evolutionary biology, a spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic (a gene expressed in a species) is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection.

A spandrel might occur because a gene that was selected for lies very close to the spandrel gene on DNA and so the latter 'came along for the ride.' A spandrel might also occur because the expressed gene causes several effects*, not all of which are adaptively selected. That is, a gene might have one effect in brain cells and another effect in intestinal cells. The intestinal effect might be very positive while the brain effect might be modestly negative. There are some other ways a spandrel can occur.

Another important aspect of a spandrel is that it may have
originally been present as a byproduct but, later during evolution, that feature might gain a selective value. (This is one type of exaptive adaptation.)

I did not say "good" or "morality"* is a spandrel; quite the opposite. I believe they have been adaptively selected. We need to recognize and be motivated to do what is good for us, for survival. We need to recognize and be motivated to do what is good for attached others and our community (morality) in order to be social.

What is an example of a spandrel?

Religion, is widely viewed, in the cognitive science of religion, as a spandrel, an evolutionary byproduct. But it may have "subsequently [been] co-opted for adaptive purposes."

Perhaps you were intending to say that if our innate sense (recognition and drive) of 'good' and 'morality' is a product of evolution, then it is just a product of evolution. But whether or not these are part of some ultimate plan for the universe, they are still essential to who we are and how we can be together as humans.

________

* I discussed "morality" in evolutionary terms in
this thread, in this thread, in this thread, in this thread, this thread, and in this thread.

I described morality from a biological/evolutionary/neuroscientific POV, in line with the views of Patricia
Churchland, the pioneer of neurophilosophy.

Paul, your attention is yours to give or not.

It is a matter of perfect indifference to me.

But I am happy to respond, when the points raised provide an opportunity to bring our differences into sharper relief.

************

"A) The logical interchangeability of abstract coordinate systems. (from Earth, it looks like the Sun is moving, from the Sun, the inverse appears true -- neither is an illogical starting point for plotting space travel)"

>> But it cannot be simultaneously true that A orbits B and B orbits A. To propose this as a metaphysical truth is a form of mental illness. To propose it as a scientific bootstrap is simultaneously to propose that science cannot arrive at metaphysical truth, which is a lesson this civilization is presently beginning, at long last, to recover.

"B) Your explanation of the physics behind the Earths movement around the sun."

>> There is no such absolute motion, as far as present-consensus physical science is concerned. Science asserts only relative motion, so the introduction of a preferred frame is simply a matter of convenience of calculation, or metaphysical preference.

Metaphysically, one must be orbiting the other.

Theologically, the Scriptures tell us that it is the Sun that is moving. This is a unanimous consensus of the Fathers, and was considered a matter of crucial importance for the defense of the dogma of the inerrancy of the Scriptures by Saints and Popes of the Tridentine Church.

Nothing that they stated then has failed to stand the test of time, either as a matter of science, or as a matter of the consequences to the Faith of allowing a scientific hypothesis to be accepted as if it were of superior reliability to the Scriptures.

"C) Your understanding of privilege frames of reference."

>> All experiments are consistent with Earth as the absolute frame of reference. In order to make experiments consistent with a motion of the Earth, science of the gaps in the form of the Theories of Relativity are required; that is, space which is nothing must bend and stretch, time must flow at different rates, lengths must shrink, etc.

"I suppose since you decided to go off on two other tangents, we're going to have to ask you to explain:
D) Why you bring up the copernican principle in reference to A."

>> Because, obviously, the Copernican Principle depends upon the *assumption* that Earth does not present us with a preferred frame. We now know this to be false, as a matter of direct, repeated, exhaustively confirmed scientific observation, as in the link I shared above, and as in others I will share below.

"E) What anisotropies in the CMB have to do with the copernican principle OR A."

>> The CMB anisotropies are aligned with the ecliptic and equinoxes of Earth. This is of course in violation of the Copernican Principle.

See:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2459v1.pdf

Excerpt:

"Note that the normals cluster together on the sky, implying that quadropole plane and the three octopole planes are nearly aligned. Moreover, the normals are near the ecliptic plane, implying that not only are these four planes aligned
but the are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Furthermore the normals are near the dipole, meaning that the planes are not just aligned and perpendicular to the ecliptic
but oriented perpendicular to Solar System’s motion through the Universe."

"F) Why you believe that the theory of general or special relativity means that the universe must be isotropic."

>> The FLRW solution to the Einstein Field equations- that is, standard best-buy cosmology- is completely dependent upon assumed isotropy *and homogeneity*; that is, the generalized Copernican Principle, known as the "cosmological principle", for the excellent reason that all of cosmology is predicated upon this assumption, which has been observationally falsified.

"What I find predictable in all this is that you keep using physics terms willy nilly without grasping them, hoping that a scattergun approach will shock your audience into silence."

>> What I find predictable is that you are much better at assertion than you are at demonstration.

"Of course there are now, and have been, hundreds and thousands of bright scientists working furiously to unravel the mysteries which separate our understandings of Gravitation and Quantum Dynamics....I doubt that we're getting any close because Rick DeLano keeps shouting MMX."

>> To the contrary. The question of the Copernican Principle is now at the very top of the list of challenges to the cosmologists. I just interviewed a half dozen of the best in the world for my film, and when you come see it and listen to them, you will be in a position to mitigate your present tendency to use physics terms willy nilly without grasping them, hoping that a scattergun approach will shock your audience into silence.

Joe Heschmeyer, this is my second reply, also to part of your comment. There will be (at least) one more comment after this one, regarding 'good' and 'morality' and 'evolutionary byproduct.'

You've accused me (and the Joe who responded to you above) of stacking the debate by using archaic definitions of terms.

I never accused you of 'stacking the debate', which is trying to win a debate by unfair initial conditions. That's a straw man, Joe.

(Plus, since joeclark77 wasn't part of the debate, how could he have 'stacked the debate'?)

I've complained inter alia about your writing being abstruse, especially the parts describing God as indescribable, and using archaic wording regarding Aquinas' views. I did say you were deliberately obtuse regarding Steven's proposal that "agony is bad." I did make note at least one logical fallacy in this article – an equivocation fallacy wrt 'law.' (There were others, but they were less egregious than those in your previous 'Question of Evil' article.) I also pointed out definitional flaws in your water/liquid/wet analogy. I noted several points where you seemed to be engaging in presupposition or "____anything awesome____ therefore God exists" or faulty/circular reasoning. I responded to your complaint that we were 'blithely dismiss[ing] all metaphysics and ontology because [we] don't understand it' by noting that we disagree about their importance plus subscribe to a different metaphysics, and also this is not a philosophy exam. I also complained that you treat atheists as objects of, alternately, derision and pity.

There were likely other things, but this list seems at least representative.

My main point, however, is this: If part of your goal is to evangelize to atheists (as is the underlying goal of Strange Notions), and if what I've read in this debate and, especially, your previous article reflects how you will continue to write here, despite the massive comment thrashing negative feedback you've received each time,then you're gonna have a bad time.

My apologies, Rick, you failed to respond to my comment, so I was unaware that you had continued to contribute to our discussion. In the future, if you want my attention, reply to me directly.

Also, I'm waiting for you to walk me through the no-doubt fascinating connections between:
A) The logical interchangeability of abstract coordinate systems. (from Earth, it looks like the Sun is moving, from the Sun, the inverse appears true -- neither is an illogical starting point for plotting space travel)
B) Your explanation of the physics behind the Earths movement around the sun.
C) Your understanding of privilege frames of reference.

I suppose since you decided to go off on two other tangents, we're going to have to ask you to explain:
D) Why you bring up the copernican principle in reference to A.
E) What anisotropies in the CMB have to do with the copernican principle OR A.
F) Why you believe that the theory of general or special relativity means that the universe must be isotropic.

What I find predictable in all this is that you keep using physics terms willy nilly without grasping them, hoping that a scattergun approach will shock your audience into silence.

Of course there are now, and have been, hundreds and thousands of bright scientists working furiously to unravel the mysteries which separate our understandings of Gravitation and Quantum Dynamics....I doubt that we're getting any close because Rick DeLano keeps shouting MMX.

Paul, thanks for the save!

Now you're just making stuff up. Sheesh! I'm going to assume that you got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Maybe we'll start again tomorrow.

Geena, let me shorten it for you. We said "Y" and you said "You're saying X". That's called a straw-man. You have also insisted, in almost every comment I've seen you post on this blog, that you won't even have a conversation with anyone who doesn't attach, as an appendix, a brand new proof of P, Q, and R, to every comment. I don't know what the latin name for that fallacy is, but it's simply atrocious manners.

Discussing a posited origin of morality or a proposed grounds for morality is discussing morality.

I don't want to discuss morality with you

Then this is your lucky day.

So, as I said at first, Newton dies with MMX. Einstein proposes to eliminate absolute space, and postulates relativity with isotropy/homogeneity as the large-scale expression of the principle of Relativity (covariance).

As is predictably the case in science, the universe declines to cooperate with the postulate and so, here we are about to learn something new.

That something new will require us to revisit the MMX, since Relativity cannot explain its results.