Darwin’s innovation – displaced?
Hello Rabbi Michi,
In one of the lessons on faith (around 21), you explained the difference between Lamarck’s theory and Darwin’s, in that Lamarck’s theory does talk about development, but about purposeful development for the sake of something predetermined, and the main innovation of Darwin’s theory is the possibility of development in a blind and undirected manner.
In light of the following argument later in your lesson, “The Evidence from the Laws,” (according to which, since the evolutionary process is completely deterministic, once the Big Bang occurred, everything could be predicted in advance), can it be said that you are essentially claiming that Darwin’s central “innovation” is incorrect (except that the practical description, how it made the noise, is apparently correct)?
PS – I happened to see yesterday on Wikipedia that tonight is your birthday. I wish you all the best and much success, and thank you for the excellent material you make available.
Thanks..to be honest, I didn’t notice. 🙂
Darwin defined a mechanism and he is correct. Theological interpretations have nothing to do with science.
According to what you say, it follows that in this regard that the process is purposeful and works to complete itself, there is no difference between Lamarck and Darwin, and the difference between them is in the question of the form in which this is done. Am I right?
There is a big difference. According to Lamarck, in principle, the next steps can be predicted. According to Darwin, not.
How can the Lamarck method predict the next steps?
I said that in principle it is possible to predict, but not practically. With Lamarck there is a predetermined goal and with Darwin there is no predetermined goal. Chance dictates the course and the (temporary) destination.
Oh, I see. So what is the predetermined goal according to Lamarck?
An improvement that is probably defined based on the environment. Search for material about Lemarc on the web.
But according to your words in the ”Argument from the Laws”, in which you explain that since Darwin's process is deterministic, then at the moment of the Big Bang everything can be predicted in advance, in principle of course, up to the current stage where I am writing you the question here on the site.
According to this, then with Darwin too everything can be predicted in advance, and there is really no random “chance” that dictates the circumstances
I asked, of course, whether, after the above, there was still a difference between Darwin and Lamarck regarding the future prediction of evolution, apart from the description of how evolution actually takes place.
For Darwin, it is a causal prediction, not a purposeful one. If I knew all the circumstances at any given moment, I could of course know the entire past and future. But no one knows that. For Lamarck, prediction is by purpose. If you know the purpose, you can predict what will happen. For example, according to Lamarck, an animal whose food is high in a tree will develop a long neck. You can predict this in advance. For Darwin, it depends on luck. If a mutation with a long neck emerges, it will survive, but it may not emerge as such. It is true that if I knew all the circumstances, I could also know if such a mutation would emerge, but this is prediction in a completely different sense and is also theoretical. In practice, this is treated as a random occurrence, not a deterministic one.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
