Well it's 'complicated', no pun intended. A basic way of putting evolution is an arms race. Where an animal out survives it's competition. Of course this can mean anything, from ability to run or hide or out reproduce from the species that prey on them to having the best teeth, or strongest arms or etc. to out compete other species they prey on. Typically this means more complex features, but it's not always true, I agree. There is even a theory now that multicell life (eukaryote) did not 'evolve' from single cell life (prokaryote). The way things are going soon we will have a theory that nothing evolves except for those things we say do. (joke...somewhat)

Hiraghm, I see you have a conservative viewpoint which has merits, yes I agree contracts and commitments are important tho' not being a conservative I see the story differently.
We may differ on whether a contract agreed on false assumptions is valid. In this case, Hank was naive, Lillian was a gold digger who mislead about intentions. If I take the position of judge, which I do, there was no contract.
"for better for worse," but for who, or for what? The words are for the couple not the individual. It got worse, but not for them both as a couple, one person inflicted humiliation on the other, made no contribution but only took. To argue otherwise is to say that allowing unexpected degradation to oneself is part of that contract. A conservative may say ok, I do not.
Sex in marriage- an implicit part of that contract, a contract to be legal does not have to be written. I understand that in the Catholic church withdrawal is grounds for annulment, the wider society and law would concur.
Some religions have a stricter view than that, is it the Mormons? There is no divorce, no annulment and no remarriage, ever. I take your second sentence as almost supporting that view short of recognizing death as ending the contract.
A contract can be between unequal persons, say one rich, one poor. There again assumptions are needed as to what each must do to fulfill their bargain. In this story, Hank may not have performed well, but he could, (he was rejected as a man in all that means). Lilian would not fulfill expectations except in trivia. Therefore contract void.
In AS, Rand gives us another example of a marriage that failed. Cheryl Brooks entered with fine intentions and views but unfortunately with limited information. James Taggert had no intentions, no views, a complete contradiction of Rand's view of romantic love. Should Cheryl have held on despite being misled? Was it her fault as she did not think hard enough before signing? Should she have accepted the role of a dish-rag? What she actually did after the real James was revealed was a tragedy as she again did not think it thru. A more logical even if not stronger person would have torn up that worthless contract.

there is no fundamental tenet of evolution that says life evolves from simple to more complex. The less complex can many times thrive and the more complex go away.

Not a problem.

Thank you for the link!

Another issue I have is if life evolves from simple to more complex life, why do we still have single celled prokaryotes in existence? They should have died off for the more complex and thus the 'stronger' life forms that arose after it. Another oddity of 'evolution' why is it some species of animals show no signs of evolution?

Look here for seven species that have not changed for millions of years, (Exclaimer, I do not endorse pop-sci or anything they say, but this information is factual)
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...

Hello Wonky,
We are on the same page. You may be interested in her perspective on who could be an "objectivist." If my recollection is correct she claimed that we are all students except of course for herself... :)
A is A. Contradictions can not exist!
Thank you!

Hey O.A.,
You make a good point. Rand, herself, studied many philosophies that she never would have claimed to have lived by. The primacy of existence was not her idea, nor were the basic axioms, but they certainly became the foundation of her philosophy.

I hadn't really considered whether I am a student of Objectivism, an Objectivist, or, if possible, both. I'm fairly certain that "omniscience" cannot exist without contradicting Objectivist principles - hope I didn't imply that I thought her to be omniscient.

I do agree with Rand, however, that "a philosophy should be fully integrated from the ground up and free of any contradictions".

Thanks for your comments!

Hello Wonky,
Quite right. That was my understanding of Rand's position. However she was not the only philosopher worth study. She was brilliant but not omniscient. Each of us have our own philosophy, i.e. understanding of the world. I am a student of Objectivism. I am not an Objectivist.
Regards,
O.A.

Funny, I always thought Jesus just went around telling parables, bashing Jewish traditions, and getting credit for a few miracles, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John took it from there. Did Jesus really demand some kind of self-sacrifice from anyone other than his disciples?

Romantic loyalty? If you know her biography she subjected her husband and the wife of her principal follower to their adultery. While I agree with her philosophy for the most part, her principle of selfishness, when extended to her personal life, was decadent.

One must assess the issue of Jesus' "sacrifice" within the framework of the Christian worldview, on its own terms, not from the worldview of Objectivism. Gaining eternal life is not exactly self-sacrifice. Yes, it is predicated on the assumption of a life beyond this one, and one gets there on the coattails of a savior figure. But that is not all that different than the Objectivist scenario where weaker people enjoy prosperity on the basis of what greater individuals make available to them based on their achievements. Galt is a savior figure, and Rand herself claims that the great individual is the Fountainhead of human progress, fulfillment, etc. and that the Great Individual is the Great Benefactor. As for "sacrifice," the crucifixion (in the Christian worldview) is undertaken voluntarily by Christ as a tactic serving the greater strategy of victory in the ultimate spiritual warfare. (It is hard to understand the crucifixion as a "sacrifice" in the wake of the Resurrection, at least as Rand defines "sacrifice" as a setting aside of a higher value for a lower value or something worthless. That does not fit the Christian story.

As far as Dagny's romantic experiences are concerned, I can see her in love with Francisco or Rearden, but Galt is (in my estimate anyway) not even a character. He is much too abstract. Eddie Willers is a more interesting character than John Galt. In fact, he may be the most interesting and intriguing character in the whole story.

1. The sexual relationship had ended.
2. She sneered at his work on which she lived.
3. The partnership implied by marriage had barely existed,
take this as grounds for annulment rather than divorce perhaps.
Marriage is a contact, in romantic love, where it is two way, what is offered and exchanged is recognition of values and support for if not active participation in each others chosen life efforts. In this Hank, a straightforward man, made a bad choice, Lilian was simply an exploiter. Old school readers of AS would expect to read how Hank (and Francisco) land on their feet and find women worthy. But AS is the story of the lead woman, not surprisingly.
In AS, compare this with the marriage of Ragnar and (sorry forgot the name). She may not have taken part in or planned the raids or even approve. She would have given support to Ragnar and certainly would not have sneered. Ragnar's values were admired/loved. Lilian only loved Hank's money. There was no marriage. Clearly annulment is applicable.

To me, your entire 3 paragraphs are more than slightly bizarre. Don't know why you bother to read Ayn Rand; clearly many of the values of ... so much, are lost to you. I suppose we must all be running around like "instinctive" animals (and that's giving animals a bad name) seeking predatory and pathological conquests.... wow. If you're very young in today's culture, that may be sadly semi-understandable. If you're much older, from my perspective, a great deal of deep and authentic living has been missed. For me, this is not an area of debate; it's clearly a philosophical and experiential journey we've each taken, with widely divergent experiences (and expectations) from that journey.... I wish you well.

I apologize khalling. I think I'm too eager for a paradigm shift. Looks like Mike has the right of it:
"It is not the ONLY mechanism for genetic change, however. We now know of EPIGENETICS."

Odd, I still have issues with relativity and quantum physics, but for some reason I want to believe in willful evolution... Doesn't bode well for my status as an Objectivist.

Duh... Maybe I should have read that article a bit more closely before posting it... I'll have to search for something more relevant.

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

Maybe I'm a quack, but while I certainly don't subscribe to creationism or intelligent design, evolution seems to occur too fast to simply be the product of random mutation.

You're right though, in that it has little to do with philosophy. I don't think that makes it nonsense though.

My knowledge of Darwin's theories amounts to about two days of a drive-by introduction in one of my college courses.

But one example mentioned has always 'stuck' in my memory:

Darwin concluded that there were once sighted fish living in the absolute darkness of cave pools.

Every so often, a fish would be born sightless (a mutation?), and that fish would have his other senses sharpened by comparison. This fish had a better chance of finding food, etc. He would mate, and eventually even more 'blind' fish would be born. Same thing...the 'blind' fish had the greatest chance of survival.

At some point, all you will find are sightless fish living in dark caves.

Survival of the fittest.

Made sense sitting in the classroom.

(Try not to beat me to death with what I just posted, although that could make me the best survivor!)

"On facts. hmmm. you and I are going to disagree. I feel it coming...;) "

On that I can agree on...

From what we understand up to now, evolution is purely based on genetics, in other words the best genetic codes get passed on because they provide the give the life-form the best chance at survival. It's often based on reproduction and passing on of traits but can also be by environmental changes, chemicals like teratogens, or radiations that cause pyridine cross-links etc. Adaptations usually fall under things such as epigenetics and chromosomal changes but can also be genetic, depending on the circumstance. I can tell you this, and most don't like it, but there really is no theory of 'evolution' sure their is some context that things change but truly evolve, from simply lifeforms to more complex lifeforms there has been no evidence of from a genetic point of view. For example the Daphnia pulex, or the water flea has the most genes, about 31,000. We humans have only about 23, 000 genes. Does it mean it is a more complex life form or more advanced? Also there is no sound mechanism of adding genetic material to an organism that could actually be used 'constructively' by that organism. There are many, many holes yet to fill in about 'evolution'. I can go on for a long time discussing this as well as 'confirmation bias' in the sciences. But I'll stop for now.

ugh. I have a friend who subscribes to this nonsense. He continually brings out reams of "documentation" until I'm overwhelmed and unimpressed. Alot of the material I have been "fed" is Brit or Australian in origin. not to implicate a nation, just it's of interest

Good book called "The Wisdom of Your Cells: How Your Beliefs Control Your Biology" by Bruce Lipton.

Do it wonky!