Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on March 19, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
-
Hi everyone,
The Triune system is one of the most famous and well accepted ways of classifying the brain and its evolutionary development.
The human brain is said to consist of three systems... The Reptilian system, the Limbic system and the Neo Cortex.
The Reptilian system is responsible for aggression, dominance, territorial behavior. The Limbic system is said to be responsible for emotion, reproductive and parental behavior. The Neo Cortex is said to be responsible for language, planning abstract thinking and so on.
In evolutionary terms the first one is said to have evolved in reptiles and the second in early mammals and the Neo Cortex in higher mammals and more so in humans.
Of course, this division is not accepted today in such a clear cut manner as in earlier decades, because many organisms have been found to be exceptions to these stages of development. Also, in humans, all the three systems function in an integrated manner as one unit.
Regardless of this, the Triune system is still regarded as one of the most representative models in relation to brain development and functioning.
IMO...the Triune system shows that advanced brain development in higher mammals did not happen merely as an extension of the earlier ones but appears to have developed as separate systems with separate structures.....with a step up at each level.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
IMO...the Triune system shows that advanced brain development in higher mammals did not happen merely as an extension of the earlier ones but appears to have developed as separate systems with separate structures.....with a step up at each level.
The triune brain was proposed in the 1960's. Research has moved on since then and it's no longer regarded as a particularly accurate model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain#Status_of_the_model
-
The triune brain was proposed in the 1960's. Research has moved on since then and it's no longer regarded as a particularly accurate model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain#Status_of_the_model
Yes...I agree....but from the same site....
"It continues to hold public interest because of its simplicity. While technically inaccurate as an explanation for brain activity, it remains one of very few approximations of the truth we have to work with: the "neocortex" represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modeling and simulation; the "limbic brain" refers to those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviors, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviors and affects that arose during the age of the mammals; and the "reptilian brain" refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behavior and other "reptile" behaviors."
-
Yes...I agree....but from the same site....
"It continues to hold public interest because of its simplicity. While technically inaccurate as an explanation for brain activity ..."
And that's the point where you should have stopped.
If you're bothered in any way about accuracy, at any rate.
-
I seem to remember reading that an octopus has nine brains. Must be awfully confusing for the poor thing. I wonder if it has free wills ....
-
I seem to remember reading that an octopus has nine brains. Must be awfully confusing for the poor thing. I wonder if it has free wills ....
Octopus should read ''antitheism'' and nine should read ''nein''.
-
IMO...the Triune system shows that advanced brain development in higher mammals did not happen merely as an extension of the earlier ones but appears to have developed as separate systems with separate structures.....with a step up at each level.
Entirely novel selection pressures at particular points in time would likely have elicited corresponding novel cortical structures, added like a new dollop of ice cream to what was there before. The brain is good at that, we have even seen how new cortex can be conscripted/grown in taxi drivers during the course of an individual's working life.
-
Entirely novel selection pressures at particular points in time would likely have elicited corresponding novel cortical structures, added like a new dollop of ice cream to what was there before. The brain is good at that, we have even seen how new cortex can be conscripted/grown in taxi drivers during the course of an individual's working life.
You give lot of credit to the brain. As though it knew what was required of it and created itself.
The usual 'explanation' of millions of random variations and NS....I suppose. ::)
The brain is pliable...of course. But that only shows that the brain isn't responsible for its own creation and modifications. There are other mechanisms that are responsible for it.....besides some sort of a communication with the environment. Epigenetics must play a part somewhere!
Personally, I believe that evolution is directed and that all these modifications and structural changes (like all other emergent properties) are clearly 'hardware' modifications meant to accommodate higher mental functions.
-
Personally, I believe that evolution is directed and that all these modifications and structural changes (like all other emergent properties) are clearly 'hardware' modifications meant to accommodate higher mental functions.
Evolution isn't directed, so you are wrong.
-
Personally, I believe that evolution is directed
Why?
-
Personally, I believe that evolution is directed and that all these modifications and structural changes (like all other emergent properties) are clearly 'hardware' modifications meant to accommodate higher mental functions.
What's your justification for that ?
-
It's directed by events.
Some things do direct it, change mainly.
IMO.
-
I don't think that is what people mean by 'directed'. In the context of evolution, at least, 'directed', implies intentionality, some unseen intelligent guiding hand, not just random events.
-
From bacteria to humans is definitely'directed' evolution for me. It cannot be entirely due to random variation. There are several species in bacteria itself to account for random variation and survival instinct...if those are the only basis for change.
All the emergent properties required to account for increasing complexity would run into millions or billions. Every emergent property that leads from bacteria to humans is a step up in the right 'direction'.
Read together with the Anthropic Principle.....humans simply had to happen. The Triune system is only one such example.
-
::)
-
From bacteria to humans is definitely'directed' evolution for me. It cannot be entirely due to random variation. There are several species in bacteria itself to account for random variation and survival instinct...if those are the only basis for change.
All the emergent properties required to account for increasing complexity would run into millions or billions. Every emergent property that leads from bacteria to humans is a step up in the right 'direction'.
Read together with the Anthropic Principle.....humans simply had to happen. The Triune system is only one such example.
Clearly just as clueless about evolution as you are about physics...
-
Yup.
-
Thanks for keeping your views short...both of you. Much obliged! :)
-
Thanks for keeping your views short...both of you. Much obliged! :)
An example for you to emulate, perchance.
-
Thanks for keeping your views short...both of you. Much obliged! :)
Sorry, but the problem is that you clearly haven't looked into the basics.
From bacteria to humans is definitely'directed' evolution for me.
It either is or it isn't - it can't be just for you.
Probably, strictly speaking, humans didn't evolve from bacteria anyway.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_04
It cannot be entirely due to random variation.
Nobody who knows about the subject would claim was. It's random variation with natural selection.
There are several species in bacteria itself to account for random variation and survival instinct...if those are the only basis for change.
Natural selection isn't "survival instinct". You give no basis for the assertion that there are enough species of bacteria to account for undirected evolution. How would you even begin to make such a calculation?
After that it's down hill all the way. Seems nothing more than faith and personal incredulity.
-
Oh God...now you've gone and elaborated!
Natural selection is not survival instinct....but it is driven by the survival instinct. Otherwise there is no reason why anything should at all survive in a changing environment. Just die out and ....finish! Why should life continue at all? That itself is a clear objective and shows a direction & goal.
-
Natural selection is not survival instinct....but it is driven by the survival instinct.
No it isn't.
Seriously, get a clue.
Otherwise there is no reason why anything should at all survive in a changing environment. Just die out and ....finish! Why should life continue at all? That itself is a clear objective and shows a direction & goal.
No it doesn't. You're embarrassing yourself.
-
Otherwise there is no reason why anything should at all survive in a changing environment. Just die out and ....finish! Why should life continue at all? That itself is a clear objective and shows a direction & goal.
That is what you'd like to be the case: but it isn't the case.
-
Otherwise there is no reason why anything should at all survive in a changing environment. Just die out and ....finish! Why should life continue at all? That itself is a clear objective and shows a direction & goal.
It doesn't, it really, really doesn't.
I give up - start here:-
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
-
Why is the survival instinct being denied here?!! LOL! Cynicism is becoming a habit guys. Not healthy. :D
-
Why is the survival instinct being denied here?!! LOL!
It isn't. The survival instinct as a driver of evolutionary change is being denied, as per your earlier assertion.
Cynicism is becoming a habit guys. Not healthy. :D
Unfiltered credulity is no replacement.
-
I know most of you do not like the idea of the survival instinct being a driving force of evolution....though you cannot possibly deny its existence. The idea of the Survival instinct driving evolution gives life an objective and a purpose and an inner driving force, which materialists find disconcerting. They are unable to fit it in their world view.
They prefer having everything as chancy as possible with as many random events as possible and are more comfortable with that idea of the world. :D There are less chances of a guiding Intelligence that way. LOL!
Problem is that without the survival instinct (and the procreative instinct) no organism would survive and reproduce.....and evolution would not happen at all. Why you people are denying this fundamental force that pushes evolution is truly bewildering!
Take the in built survival instinct, the procreation instinct and the parental instinct in all organisms. Add epigenetics and neoLamarckism. Also add Anthropic principles of fine tuning and of consciousness participating in the development of the universe.
Further take rising complexity and millions of emergent properties and step ups.....and you have a very good case for directed evolution! No contest! :D
-
I know most of you do not like the idea of the survival instinct being a driving force of evolution....though you cannot possibly deny its existence.
It's got nothing to do with what any of us like.
The problem is you've got it backwards; the survival instinct doesn't drive evolution, evolution produces what we call a survival instinct (in those organisms that can sensibly be said to have instincts, i.e. complex animals).
-
Sriram,
Natural selection is the main process by which evolution proceeds.
The survival instinct is not natural selection, it is a product of natural selection in some species. One could give a whole range of attributes which aid survival, none of which could be classed as survival instincts but all of which are the result of natural selection.
-
Dear Some Kind of Stranger,
Sorry can you flesh that out a bit for me, I kind of agree with Sriram here, this need to survive, to procreate is in every living thing, even a flower which I am told does not think has this need to adapt and survive.
Plant life is very interesting, it uses so many different ways of ensuring that it survives, taste, smell, colour, height.
Everything wants to procreate, what is that? even the smallest microbe wants to go on, to survive.
Gonnagle.
-
I know most of you do not like the idea of the survival instinct being a driving force of evolution....
It has nothing to do with what we like and everything to do with the fact that you're embarrassingly, howlingly wrong.
though you cannot possibly deny its existence.
Nobody is doing so. What's being explained to you with far more patience than you deserve is that you're wrong because you have it backwards - evolution by natural selection produces a survival instinct and not vice versa as you have it for some bizarre reason.
Problem is that without the survival instinct (and the procreative instinct) no organism would survive and reproduce.....and evolution would not happen at all.
Utter horseshit. Why do you people always choose to spout off on subjects you patently know nothing about?
Why you people are denying this fundamental force that pushes evolution is truly bewildering!
Because it doesn't drive evolution and you are a clueless clown.
-
Dear Some Kind of Stranger,
Sorry can you flesh that out a bit for me, I kind of agree with Sriram here, this need to survive, to procreate is in every living thing, even a flower which I am told does not think has this need to adapt and survive.
Plant life is very interesting, it uses so many different ways of ensuring that it survives, taste, smell, colour, height.
Everything wants to procreate, what is that? even the smallest microbe wants to go on, to survive.
Gonnagle.
Sriram has it back to front, Stranger has it right. The will to survive is a product of evolution. A will to survive cannot come out of nowhere it is something honed by natural selection, just as much as the peacock's tail or the squirrel's habit of burying nuts in the ground or the instinct to eat when you are hungry.
-
Dear Torridon,
So the very first life on earth had no survival instinct?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Torridon,
So the very first life on earth had no survival instinct?
Gonnagle.
How could it? A survival instinct is a property of a brain at a certain level of complexity.
-
Dear Shaker,
The need to survive needs a complex brain, if you say so old chap, not saying you are wrong but it does not sound right to me.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Torridon,
So the very first life on earth had no survival instinct?
Gonnagle.
Does a bacterium or a viral pathogen have a will to survive ? Emotional states like hope, or fear, or determination only emerge at vertebrate levels of complexity. At the simplest end of biology, life is basically complex chemistry just doing what complex chemistry does, it is about proton gradients across membranes as mandated by thermodynamic law and the conservation of energy.
-
Sriram has it back to front, Stranger has it right. The will to survive is a product of evolution. A will to survive cannot come out of nowhere it is something honed by natural selection, just as much as the peacock's tail or the squirrel's habit of burying nuts in the ground or the instinct to eat when you are hungry.
torridon,
Refer to your comment highlighted by me above.
That is the crux of the issue. The fact that you don't know where the instinct can come from and therefore you believe it has to arise due to NS.
In fact, not just the atheists here but scientists world over have the same problem. A conscious and compelling need to avoid and circumvent any suggestion of a inherent Intelligence or mystical guidance. For this purpose they will go to any lengths to come up with convoluted and even ridiculous explanations for phenomena.
Take the first RNA molecule that formed on earth. It began to replicate and make copies of itself. THIS is the foundation of the survival instinct and the procreation instinct. Every other organism on earth has a survival instinct and a procreation instinct and in somewhat higher organisms, a parental instinct. This is the basic programming of all DNA.
To say that Natural Selection produces the survival instinct is absurd. For one thing, Natural Selection is not a process.....unless people want to think of Nature in mystical terms of having a Will and a conscious selection process (I can go with that btw!).
NS (as described by scientists) is just a metaphor that describes how organisms best suited for a specific environment manage to survive better than others and reproduce thereby passing on their traits to future generations....while other organisms die out. This process cannot produce a survival instinct for heavens sake! A survival instinct is a basic requirement for organisms to survive and reproduce in spite of environmental pressures.....and that instinct is present in DNA replication itself.
Some years ago scientists spoke of the survival instinct as though it is a compelling enough reason for evolution without the need for God or anything...fine, so far so good.......but other people started asking questions about how and why this survival instinct came about. Oh...oh..now what to do!? So scientists had to hurriedly come up with some convoluted idea of NS being responsible for the survival instinct. LOL!
Anyway, it is clear to me that organisms are meant to survive and procreate. There is also a clear push towards complexity and higher mental functions. Seen with the other theories I have mentioned about....a direction and purpose to evolution is evident.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
The need to survive needs a complex brain, if you say so old chap, not saying you are wrong but it does not sound right to me.
Think of artificial selection (pigeons were a favourite of Darwin) whether an pigeon gets to pass it's genes on is entirely up to the human breeder. It has nothing to do with any instincts it has - it's just how random variations from the previous generation moved it closer or further away from the 'ideal' that is being breed for.
OK?
Now, get rid of the intelligent breeder and replace it with the environment and you have natural selection. The environment has no ideal in mind, 'cos it doesn't have a mind to put one in. Nevertheless, some random variations will do better than others. If the environment changes, then the variations that do better will be different too.
It is that process that often favours behaviours that we label 'survival instinct' in organisms that are complicated enough to actually have instincts. Not the other way around.
The very first replicating systems (life is too hard to define) would probably have been nothing but complicated chemical reactions. You can manufacture an RNA molecule, that given the right environment, will just make copies of itself. Once you have replication with variation (i.e. not perfect replication) natural selection can get going.
Do you think something as simple as an RNA molecule has any instincts...?
-
Take the first RNA molecule that formed on earth. It began to replicate and make copies of itself. THIS is the foundation of the survival instinct and the procreation instinct.
Molecules with instincts - I give up.
::)
-
torridon,
Refer to your comment highlighted by me above.
That is the crux of the issue. The fact that you don't know where the instinct can come from and therefore you believe it has to arise due to NS.
In fact, not just the atheists here but scientists world over have the same problem. A conscious and compelling need to avoid and circumvent any suggestion of a inherent Intelligence or mystical guidance. For this purpose they will go to any lengths to come up with convoluted and even ridiculous explanations for phenomena.
Take the first RNA molecule that formed on earth. It began to replicate and make copies of itself. THIS is the foundation of the survival instinct and the procreation instinct. Every other organism on earth has a survival instinct and a procreation instinct and in somewhat higher organisms, a parental instinct. This is the basic programming of all DNA.
To say that Natural Selection produces the survival instinct is absurd. For one thing, Natural Selection is not a process.....unless people want to think of Nature in mystical terms of having a Will and a conscious selection process (I can go with that btw!).
NS (as described by scientists) is just a metaphor that describes how organisms best suited for a specific environment manage to survive better than others and reproduce thereby passing on their traits to future generations....while other organisms die out. This process cannot produce a survival instinct for heavens sake! A survival instinct is a basic requirement for organisms to survive and reproduce in spite of environmental pressures.....and that instinct is present in DNA replication itself.
Some years ago scientists spoke of the survival instinct as though it is a compelling enough reason for evolution without the need for God or anything...fine, so far so good.......but other people started asking questions about how and why this survival instinct came about. Oh...oh..now what to do!? So scientists had to hurriedly come up with some convoluted idea of NS being responsible for the survival instinct. LOL!
Anyway, it is clear to me that organisms are meant to survive and procreate. There is also a clear push towards complexity and higher mental functions. Seen with the other theories I have mentioned about....a direction and purpose to evolution is evident.
Cheers.
Sriram
Hmm so much wrong in there, its hard to know where to start.
Just to take the last para briefly, there is no 'guidance' to evolution; people who think so are merely projecting their personal prejudices on top of the science; go find any basic textbook on biology, you will not find any mention of 'guidance', why, because it isn't there, that is merely something in your perception colouring the way you see things.
Natural Selection is not a metaphor, it is an actuality, an inevitability; it boils down to simple logic and probability - fitter arrangements of things are more likely to persist than less fit ones. Nothing esoteric or mystical about it. Natural selection produces all the diversity of life forms, that includes behaviours as well as physiologies.
I'd agree complex emotional states in higher vertebrates like hope and fear probably have some primitive precursors if we were able to easily reduce them to simpler models. We can deconstruct complex bodies into primitive components - I am made of a billion billion carbon atoms for instance - so what would we get to if we similarly deconstruct complex emotional states. This is what you were getting at I think, but we need to be careful with the language and make it clear that self replicating molecules for instance don't have higher emotions, that would be bizarre, but at their level, they are simply enacting the deterministic laws of nature at a simple level and this is what fundamentally what gives rise to more complex states in more complex creatures.
-
Hmm so much wrong in there, its hard to know where to start.
Just to take the last para briefly, there is no 'guidance' to evolution; people who think so are merely projecting their personal prejudices on top of the science; go find any basic textbook on biology, you will not find any mention of 'guidance', why, because it isn't there, that is merely something in your perception colouring the way you see things.
Natural Selection is not a metaphor, it is an actuality, an inevitability; it boils down to simple logic and probability - fitter arrangements of things are more likely to persist than less fit ones. Nothing esoteric or mystical about it. Natural selection produces all the diversity of life forms, that includes behaviours as well as physiologies.
I'd agree complex emotional states in higher vertebrates like hope and fear probably have some primitive precursors if we were able to easily reduce them to simpler models. We can deconstruct complex bodies into primitive components - I am made of a billion billion carbon atoms for instance - so what would we get to if we similarly deconstruct complex emotional states. This is what you were getting at I think, but we need to be careful with the language and make it clear that self replicating molecules for instance don't have higher emotions, that would be bizarre, but at their level, they are simply enacting the deterministic laws of nature at a simple level and this is what fundamentally what gives rise to more complex states in more complex creatures.
Asserting that there is no 'guidance' is no use. I have given enough reasons to say why guidance is there. You are merely attributing it all to random gene variation and a metaphoric process of NS.
Natural Selection cannot be a process because there are no specific laws governing it. It is just 'whatever manages to survive is deemed as selected'. Charles Darwin assumed an Intelligent selection process in nature (in line with artificial selection in which specific traits are chosen consciously in the animal being bred). That's why he called it Natural Selection. But since scientists do not believe in any Intelligent selection, it cannot be a process.
I don't know why you are bringing in emotions into this. Emotions are present in higher organisms but the survival instinct is present even in an earth worm or bacteria. Everything resists death and automatically reproduces.
Merely because instincts in higher animals are linked to emotions does not mean emotions are inevitable for such instincts to exist. Even a bee has a survival instinct without any emotion attached.
Humans have several emotions attached to their procreation and parental instincts...does not mean spiders and snakes and bees also need to have emotions or else they do not have procreation or parental instincts.
The foundation of all survival and procreation instincts are present in our DNA and arise from their basic replication and copying tendency.
Emotions linked to these instincts in higher organisms are irrelevant to this discussion. Those are just a more complicated process by which the instincts exhibit themselves in higher organisms.
-
Asserting that there is no 'guidance' is no use. I have given enough reasons to say why guidance is there.
They're not "reasons" at all but unsupported assertions of yours based on what you want to be the case rather than what we can know to be the case.
You are merely attributing it all to random gene variation and a metaphoric process of NS.
I see you either didn't read, read but didn't understand or read but have forgotten what torridon told you only an hour past:
Natural Selection is not a metaphor, it is an actuality
Natural Selection cannot be a process because there are no specific laws governing it ... But since scientists do not believe in any Intelligent selection, it cannot be a process.
Maybe somebody else can tease out some sort of meaning from this (which strikes me as not even comprehensible English), because I sure as hell can't.
I don't know why you are bringing in emotions into this.
The only person bringing emotion into the discussion is you, based on what you for some reason seem to want to be the case (survival instinct driving evolution, which is utter codswallop).
Seriously, stay out of the science business and leave it to those who understand it, because you're just making a fool of yourself.
-
Asserting that there is no 'guidance' is no use. I have given enough reasons to say why guidance is there. You are merely attributing it all to random gene variation and a metaphoric process of NS.
Natural Selection cannot be a process because there are no specific laws governing it. It is just 'whatever manages to survive is deemed as selected'. Charles Darwin assumed an Intelligent selection process in nature (in line with artificial selection in which specific traits are chosen consciously in the animal being bred). That's why he called it Natural Selection. But since scientists do not believe in any Intelligent selection, it cannot be a process.
You lost me here. I don't know why you seem to be insisting NS is a metaphor; a metaphor for what ? Darwin never assumed any Intelligent selection process; he called it Natural Selection because it was natural, not supernatural, not guided, not intelligent, just natural
-
Natural Selection cannot be a process because there are no specific laws governing it. It is just 'whatever manages to survive is deemed as selected'. Charles Darwin assumed an Intelligent selection process in nature (in line with artificial selection in which specific traits are chosen consciously in the animal being bred). That's why he called it Natural Selection. But since scientists do not believe in any Intelligent selection, it cannot be a process.
This is utter drivel. Darwin certainly did not assume an "intelligent selection process in nature".
Look, natural selection really is very, very simple simple - even you should be able to grasp it.
We need only inheritance with variation to get it going.
Take a particular characteristic, as an example, say how tall some organism is. In each generation there is variation in height but generally taller organisms produce similarly tall offspring.
Now, we have an environment. For various reasons (access to light or food, or the need to see over other stuff) said environment might be favourable to (say) taller than average individuals, in the sense that shorter ones cannot get as much food or light or whatever. Hence, the taller ones are healthier, live longer and so produce more offspring.
Now because of all that, the average height of the population increases.
That is natural selection.
Notice that no individual organism can influence the process (it can't change how tall it grows), neither is there any external intelligence or instinct involved. Notice also, that if the environment changes, then the selection may change with it - it could be that shorter becomes an advantage because (say) the need to hide becomes more important than the other factors.
In the simplest cases, this may just be how fast a cell divides - too fast for the environment and the supply of nutrient is exhausted - too slow and something else gets it first.
In more complex cases, instinctive behaviours of individuals are selected in exactly the same way; if food is more plentiful earlier in the day, then the behaviour of becoming active earlier will be selected.
That is why instinct comes from natural selection and not the other way around.
-
You lost me here. I don't know why you seem to be insisting NS is a metaphor; a metaphor for what ? Darwin never assumed any Intelligent selection process; he called it Natural Selection because it was natural, not supernatural, not guided, not intelligent, just natural
You don't get it. Materialism is so deeply ingrained in some people that they cannot but eliminate all possibilities of any 'inner compulsions' ....however real.
Survival instinct is an inner compulsion to survive. So is the procreation instinct. It has nothing to do with emotions basically (except in higher organisms). It started off with RNA and DNA molecules replicating. It is that compulsive behavior that is responsible for survival, procreation, evolution and everything else since.
Without that inner compulsion to survive and procreate...NS would be irrelevant. Species would just die out without bothering to adapt.
It is these instincts that drives organisms to survive and procreate. No doubt about that at all.....regardless of what all of you might say.
You might have a problem about how and where from these instincts arise. That is not my concern. As far as I am concerned, it could be Nature, Universal Consciousness, God or whatever. If it is there ....it is there.
Natural Selection....I have discussed this many times. Darwin proposed NS only as equivalent to Artificial Selection where certain traits are consciously chosen while breeding plants and animals.
Darwin was not an atheist, he was an agnostic and he most probably assumed some sort of an manner through which Nature selects traits because of which complexity and humans have arisen.
Quote:
"Darwin thought of natural selection by analogy to how farmers select crops or livestock for breeding, which he called "artificial selection"; in his early manuscripts he referred to a Nature, which would do the selection."
" In a letter to Charles Lyell in September 1860, Darwin regretted the use of the term "Natural Selection," preferring the term "Natural Preservation". Unquote:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Cheers.
Sriram
-
You don't get it. Materialism is so deeply ingrained in some people that they cannot but eliminate all possibilities of any 'inner compulsions' ....however real.
Survival instinct is an inner compulsion to survive. So is the procreation instinct. It has nothing to do with emotions basically (except in higher organisms). It started off with RNA and DNA molecules replicating. It is that compulsive behavior that is responsible for survival, procreation, evolution and everything else since.
Without that inner compulsion to survive and procreate...NS would be irrelevant. Species would just die out without bothering to adapt.
It is these instincts that drives organisms to survive and procreate. No doubt about that at all.....regardless of what all of you might say.
You might have a problem about how and where from these instincts arise. That is not my concern. As far as I am concerned, it could be Nature, Universal Consciousness, God or whatever. If it is there ....it is there.
You're right I don't get it. Nobody denies that replicating molecules exists, but we have different forms of language to express and understand that process at an elementary level. What you might call 'inner compulsion' is simply the operation of the laws of physics at that level. A cheap way to dissipate energy is to make a copy of yourself, molecules that do this are merely enacting thermodynamic law.
-
Natural Selection....I have discussed this many times. Darwin proposed NS only as equivalent to Artificial Selection where certain traits are consciously chosen while breeding plants and animals.
Darwin was not an atheist, he was an agnostic and he most probably assumed some sort of an manner through which Nature selects traits because of which complexity and humans have arisen.
What Darwin understood through observation was the principle of descent with modification; that creatures produce non-identical offspring and that diversity among siblings will favour some individuals over others in terms of fitness; and scaled up to populations this mechanism neatly accounts for speciation. What he didn't understand was the underlying biological mechanisms, ie genes and mutations that underwrite heritability, we had to wait for Mendel to come along for that.
-
You're right I don't get it. Nobody denies that replicating molecules exists, but we have different forms of language to express and understand that process at an elementary level. What you might call 'inner compulsion' is simply the operation of the laws of physics at that level. A cheap way to dissipate energy is to make a copy of yourself, molecules that do this are merely enacting thermodynamic law.
LOL!! You are again trying to explain away something very fundamental. You did not agree that the survival instinct was fundamentally a part of an organisms nature. Now you talk thermodynamics!! ;D
Its all your (and others) materialistic mindset and your need to offer convoluted and off hand explanations for such extraordinary things as the 'survival instinct'...'procreation instinct'....and the evolution of complexity and humans.
To me it is very clear that there is a natural Intelligence/Consciousness present everywhere which directs evolution. No doubt at all. (it has nothing to do with religious deities).
The more you people argue against it the more points that arise in favour of it.
-
Actually, no, they don't.
The people arguing against understand science, whereas you are to science what Stephen Hawking is to line dancing.
-
Hi everyone,
The Triune system is one of the most famous and well accepted ways of classifying the brain and its evolutionary development.
The human brain is said to consist of three systems... The Reptilian system, the Limbic system and the Neo Cortex.
The Reptilian system is responsible for aggression, dominance, territorial behavior. The Limbic system is said to be responsible for emotion, reproductive and parental behavior. The Neo Cortex is said to be responsible for language, planning abstract thinking and so on.
In evolutionary terms the first one is said to have evolved in reptiles and the second in early mammals and the Neo Cortex in higher mammals and more so in humans.
Of course, this division is not accepted today in such a clear cut manner as in earlier decades, because many organisms have been found to be exceptions to these stages of development. Also, in humans, all the three systems function in an integrated manner as one unit.
Regardless of this, the Triune system is still regarded as one of the most representative models in relation to brain development and functioning.
IMO...the Triune system shows that advanced brain development in higher mammals did not happen merely as an extension of the earlier ones but appears to have developed as separate systems with separate structures.....with a step up at each level.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Just an answer complete cobblers
with not the slightest bit of evidence. Fairy storys for atheist.
~TW~
-
... we've had Jeff Daniels, now here comes Jim Carrey.
-
What Darwin understood through observation was the principle of descent with modification; that creatures produce non-identical offspring and that diversity among siblings will favour some individuals over others in terms of fitness; and scaled up to populations this mechanism neatly accounts for speciation. What he didn't understand was the underlying biological mechanisms, ie genes and mutations that underwrite heritability, we had to wait for Mendel to come along for that.
Darwin probably thought of NS as Nature's selection (something like God's selection) of specific traits leading to humans. People in later decades have made it absolutely materialistic and come up with this concept of NS as some sort of a process without really being a process.
Ironically.....I am not against the idea of Natural Selection at all! I in fact, believe that there really is a Natural Selection....some sort of a Consciousness within all beings that actually selects traits such that complexity arises and humans evolve. I am all for it actually.
But what I am against is the use of the term 'Natural Selection' to mean some haphazard throwing up of millions of random variations and then a so called 'selection' without really being a selection.
-
Just an answer complete cobblers
with not the slightest bit of evidence. Fairy storys for atheist.
~TW~
A good one coming from you who enjoys Biblical fairy tales. ::)
-
Reading Sriram trying to talk about science reminds me of Dr. Johnson's observation on a dog walking on its back legs - it's not done well, you're just surprised to see it done at all.
-
LOL!! You are again trying to explain away something very fundamental. You did not agree that the survival instinct was fundamentally a part of an organisms nature. Now you talk thermodynamics!! ;D
Its all your (and others) materialistic mindset and your need to offer convoluted and off hand explanations for such extraordinary things as the 'survival instinct'...'procreation instinct'....and the evolution of complexity and humans.
To me it is very clear that there is a natural Intelligence/Consciousness present everywhere which directs evolution. No doubt at all. (it has nothing to do with religious deities).
Eh ?
I fail to see what it is that is convoluted, all we are doing is explaining mainstream science, there is nothing controversial in that. It is you putting your own spin on things thats requires justification; if you want to call 'survival instinct' what textbooks describe in terms of base energy laws then you are just putting up some private language barrier it would seem. Terms like 'survival instinct' and 'procreation instinct' more properly apply at the level of higher animals; at the level of simple particles, we should use the correct terminology to avoid confusion.
-
Darwin probably thought of NS as Nature's selection (something like God's selection) of specific traits leading to humans. People in later decades have made it absolutely materialistic and come up with this concept of NS as some sort of a process without really being a process.
It was clear already that you know nothing about the modern notion of natural selection and now I suspect you know nothing about Darwin's work, either...
Ironically.....I am not against the idea of Natural Selection at all! I in fact, believe that there really is a Natural Selection....some sort of a Consciousness within all beings that actually selects traits such that complexity arises and humans evolve. I am all for it actually.
Unfortunately that isn't natural selection. You don't seem to understanding that science defines terms ('energy', 'natural selection') and their meaning is not a matter of personal preference.
If you want to believe what you say, that is a religious position and you have every right to believe it (without evidence) if you want - but calling it 'natural selection' is monumentally dishonest.
-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930660-100-evolution-learn-natural-selection/
This is a very interesting article that might shed some light on some of the questions raised in the above discussion, although it is slightly marred by the inability of popular science writers to keep away from wording that gives nature an anthropomorphic slant.
It is behind a firewall, so if you don't have access, imo,, it is worth popping in to the local library to read it in the next issue.
Leader: “Darwin’s beautiful theory must itself be allowed to evolve”: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930663-200-long-live-evolution/
-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930660-100-evolution-learn-natural-selection/
This is a very interesting article that might shed some light on some of the questions raised in the above discussion, although it is slightly marred by the inability of popular science writers to keep away from wording that gives nature an anthropomorphic slant.
Unfortunately this has been a besetting problem for evolutionary science going all the way back to Darwin himself and his espousal of the term 'natural selection.' It wasn't and isn't his fault but that of, you might say, what Justin Barrett termed the hyperactive agency detection device - the innate and inherent human tendency to see conscious, intelligent and purposive agency where it doesn't exist. As humans we know what it means to select things, so when a term like natural selection crops up many people innocently leap to asking the question "What's doing the selecting?", with the implication behind the question being that there's a deliberate selection process going on by a conscious agent analogous to human selection. They've been doing this in droves since 1859; they're still doing it now.
A couple of writers of my knowledge - only a couple, and far too few - have used the metaphor of a sieve to describe natural selection, since the sieve is a mindless device which "selects" something (like lumps in flour for example) on a purely blind, mindless, mechanical basis. Shove something like lumpy flour in a sieve; something will drop through; other stuff won't. This is a closer analogy with evolution by natural selection; selection is still going on as we would understand it from our human perspective - lumps of flour bigger than the holes of the sieve stay in the sieve; lumps smaller than the holes of the sieve fall through and therefore look, at first glance, as though they've been consciously and deliberately selected when in fact they haven't been anything of the sort. This reduces to physical laws. But then, ultimately, so does evolution.
Most people have a sieve in their kitchen. If you don't think a sieve is a conscious, purposive agent, why would evolution be?
-
I have heard of the sieve bit earlier. But that's nonsense too.
For one thing there is no specific size or shape being sieved. Everything from elephants, lizards, fish and spiders to crotons, apple trees, bacteria are being allowed through. What selection?
It is in fact wrong to talk of something being selected and something else not being selected. Dinosaurs were selected...not any more. Mammoths were selected....but not any more.
What is the time limit to decide whether something is selected or not? 1000 years, 10000 years, 1 million years, 100 million years. How long should it survive to be deemed selected.
It is more appropriate to talk of a big hole not a sieve, through which all species are passing through. Everything is selected for some time (however small) and everything is rejected after some time (however long).
Its more of a snap shot at one point of time. As at this moment, such and such species and organisms are selected. That's all it is. Maybe not by today evening. Some species could be extinct.
So...the concept of natural selection is 'trying to have it both ways'. You use a anthropomorphic concept of 'selection' as though it is some very clear and definitive process. Then suddenly it is not a selection at all.....just a reaction to random environmental changes!
People like to say....its not random at all...you don't understand....its Natural Selection! LOL!
Point is that Natural Selection is also random because environmental changes are random. So...random genetic variations ...'selected' through random environmental changes ....is very much random too. ::)
-
Dear me, it's hopeless ::)
-
Dear me, it's hopeless ::)
Yep...I agree! ::)
-
In that case stop embarrassing yourself by trying to pontificate on a subject of which you're invincibly ignorant.
-
I have heard of the sieve bit earlier. But that's nonsense too.
[bizarre waffle]
I'm struggling to understand what strange misunderstandings lie behind this post because you appear to be criticizing some idea that has nothing to do with natural selection.
Why you persist in trying to lecture the rest of us about things you are quite obviously in complete ignorance of yourself, is also a mystery to me.
Nobody (who knows anything about it) is suggesting there is some sort of universal selection criteria that selects for a species; dinosaurs, mammoths etc. - where did you get that idea...?
Each population has its own environment - an important part of which is the other species that live along side it. Most notable amongst them are things that want to eat it, things it wants to eat and things who want to eat the same stuff and live in the same place.
It is characteristics that are appropriate to the environment of the population that are 'selected'.
There is nothing magic about natural selection - it just says that individuals that are better suited to survival and reproduction in the environment will survive and reproduce in the enviroment more than those that are less suited to survival and reproduction in the environment. In that way random changes that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction in the environment, spread through populations.
Is any of this getting through?
It really is a very simple idea.
For those who aren't as allergic to learning as Sriram clearly is and who have a genuine interest:-
Evolution 101
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
-
Each population has its own environment - an important part of which is the other species that live along side it. Most notable amongst them are things that want to eat it, things it wants to eat and things who want to eat the same stuff and live in the same place.
It is characteristics that are appropriate to the environment of the population that are 'selected'.
There is nothing magic about natural selection - it just says that individuals that are better suited to survival and reproduction in the environment will survive and reproduce in the enviroment more than those that are less suited to survival and reproduction in the environment. In that way random changes that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction in the environment, spread through populations.
Which is not saying much actually. If you think about it what you are saying is that 'what ever survives ...survives'. Which is what I have said too. Its just a random occurrence based on random environmental changes.
Why are you therefore trying to paint it as some sort of a clearly defined and definitive process....based on some law of nature?
What is the law that governs NS? What is the predictability? Which are the species 'allowed to pass through the sieve' and which aren't?
-
Gordon, for goodness sake get us a facepalm emoticon when you can, please!
-
Which is not saying much actually. If you think about it what you are saying is that 'what ever survives ...survives'.
Those traits that are good for survival in the prevailing environment of the population are passed on. Natural selection is about characteristics.
Evolution isn't random in the sense of randomly shuffling DNA and suddenly produced a woolly mammoth, an oak tree or a human. If a change is not advantageous (in the prevailing environment) it will be lost but if it is, it is kept. That excludes a large amount of the random variations.
In that way, all sorts of organisms can develop over time - all under pressure from their environments. There are many complex interactions that drive different populations to evolve in different ways.
For example, you can get "evolutionary arms races" between predators and prey. When some variation makes prey harder to catch, it will quickly spread through the prey population. When some variation then makes the predator better able to catch these new variant prey, that will quickly spread through the predator population and so on and so on...
Is there a goal? No. Can we predict what will emerge over long periods of time? No - it's way too complex.
Why are you therefore trying to paint it as some sort of a clearly defined and definitive process....based on some law of nature?
What is the law that governs NS? What is the predictability? Which are the species 'allowed to pass through the sieve' and which aren't?
Don't blame other people for your misunderstandings. If you want to learn about the real science, it isn't difficult - there is no need for complicated mathematics, unlike much of science. There are many websites and excellent books on the subject.
Just don't try to lecture other people about things you haven't bothered to learn about yourself - it makes you look foolish.
-
Gonners, Sriram and ~TW~, blind leading the blind leading the blind.
Gonners just doesn't understand evolution and never will no matter by who or how many times he is told, Sriram thinks there's something intellectual about his view on evolution, it isn't, ~TW~'s, well, just an absolute plonker.
Looks like we're really going to learn something earth shatteringly significant on this thread now they're all here together.
I can hardly wait.
ippy
-
Which is not saying much actually. If you think about it what you are saying is that 'what ever survives ...survives'. Which is what I have said too. Its just a random occurrence based on random environmental changes.
Why are you therefore trying to paint it as some sort of a clearly defined and definitive process....based on some law of nature?
What is the law that governs NS? What is the predictability? Which are the species 'allowed to pass through the sieve' and which aren't?
If the environment changes over time, some individuals will be better able to cope and have offspring. The genes that gave them that advantage are then passed on, and THAT is the selection. Selecting genes that just happened to give advantage in that environment!
-
Dear ippy,
Gonners just doesn't understand evolution
Correct old son ;) and I am slowly coming to the concussion that a great many posters who say they do understand evolution are talking through a hole in their erky.
Thing is old chum, I will get it, it may take time, the ones who think they have got it are only deluding themselves.
Further ippy old chap, I am not afraid to challenge it, to turn it up side down, to F*** with it, it is science and science belongs to everyone :)
Yours, your old pal,
Gonnagle.
-
Correct old son ;) and I am slowly coming to the concussion...
I thing your conclusion mutated.
:)
-
Dear Stranger,
Mutated or mutation, good words, so is junctional diversity :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
This evolution stuff is easy.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
Mutated or mutation, good words, so is junctional diversity :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
This evolution stuff is easy.
Gonnagle.
The concept is really really easy.
I cannot understand why it seem so hard for some to understand.
In all of science, this has to be the simplest to get your head around.
-
Those traits that are good for survival in the prevailing environment of the population are passed on. Natural selection is about characteristics.
Evolution isn't random in the sense of randomly shuffling DNA and suddenly produced a woolly mammoth, an oak tree or a human. If a change is not advantageous (in the prevailing environment) it will be lost but if it is, it is kept. That excludes a large amount of the random variations.
In that way, all sorts of organisms can develop over time - all under pressure from their environments. There are many complex interactions that drive different populations to evolve in different ways.
For example, you can get "evolutionary arms races" between predators and prey. When some variation makes prey harder to catch, it will quickly spread through the prey population. When some variation then makes the predator better able to catch these new variant prey, that will quickly spread through the predator population and so on and so on...
Is there a goal? No. Can we predict what will emerge over long periods of time? No - it's way too complex.
Don't blame other people for your misunderstandings. If you want to learn about the real science, it isn't difficult - there is no need for complicated mathematics, unlike much of science. There are many websites and excellent books on the subject.
Just don't try to lecture other people about things you haven't bothered to learn about yourself - it makes you look foolish.
Since you are so knowledgeable about evolution....just answer my questions.
Why is NS not just a reaction (adaptation) to an environment change and why is it a 'selection'?
What is the law governing NS?
What is the predictability of the selected species?
What is the criterion to decide that some thing has been selected and some thing has not?
Random gene variations should throw up virtually millions of phenotypes out of which some are 'selected' (according to you). Have such millions of mutations actually been observed in every case? Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....is it random gene variation and NS..... or it it active adaptation to the changed environment?
PS: The more personal remarks you make the more your weakness is shown, as a rule!
-
Dear ippy,
Correct old son ;) and I am slowly coming to the concussion that a great many posters who say they do understand evolution are talking through a hole in their erky.
Thing is old chum, I will get it, it may take time, the ones who think they have got it are only deluding themselves.
Further ippy old chap, I am not afraid to challenge it, to turn it up side down, to F*** with it, it is science and science belongs to everyone :)
Yours, your old pal,
Gonnagle.
Gonners, it's not any kind of dogma evolution is a theory that's been around for about 160 years without a significant challenge, in other words, it's as good as an established fact.
If you get the following book "The Peppered Moth", have a good read it's about as simple as it can get telling how evolution works, give it a go if you still don't get it, well, then give up, but not before you've read it.
Evolution has nothing to do directly with religion it's just a part of the facts of life, emphasis on facts not fancy.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Correct old son ;) and I am slowly coming to the concussion that a great many posters who say they do understand evolution are talking through a hole in their erky.
Thing is old chum, I will get it, it may take time, the ones who think they have got it are only deluding themselves.
Further ippy old chap, I am not afraid to challenge it, to turn it up side down, to F*** with it, it is science and science belongs to everyone :)
Yours, your old pal,
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle,
Actually most people here just pretend to know science. They have read some books and taken it on authority. Coupled with their need to find atheistic and non mystical explanations....they get locked on to such explanations without thinking about it.
They like being skeptical but only in selected areas....they are themselves carried away by faith in scientific authority. They are as fanatical about their beliefs as religious followers are.
If some famous scientist suddenly rejects some idea or questions some long held scientific 'belief'....you'll find a angry and scornful reaction by all these science enthusiasts. They'll happily condemn the scientist rather than change their view point. Its their memes fighting for survival. LOL!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Gonnagle,
Actually most people here just pretend to know science. They have read some books and taken it on authority. Coupled with their need to find atheistic and non mystical explanations....they get locked on to such explanations without thinking about it.
They like being skeptical but only in selected areas....they are themselves carried away by faith in scientific authority. They are as fanatical about their beliefs as religious followers are.
If some famous scientist suddenly rejects some idea or questions some long held scientific 'belief'....you'll find a angry and scornful reaction by all these science enthusiasts. They'll happily condemn the scientist rather than change their view point. Its their memes fighting for survival. LOL!
Cheers.
Sriram
Just as I said in my original post.
Of course Sriram you're the one with all of the intellectual qualities needed to understand anything like evolution, so if you were to read Margaret Drabbles book I think you might be able to follow the evidence as presented, like BA says it's one of the more simple theories to get your head around.
Don't forget Sriram,"The Peppered Moth".
ippy
-
Why is NS not just a reaction (adaptation) to an environment change and why is it a 'selection'?
Because in isn't a reaction to the environment. The (random) variation has to be there first to be selected. Changes don't arise for the purpose of surviving in the environment.
What is the law governing NS?
What is the predictability of the selected species?
What is the criterion to decide that some thing has been selected and some thing has not?
I don't even know what you mean by these. It's an amazingly simple concept that has now been explained to you multiple times...
Random gene variations should throw up virtually millions of phenotypes out of which some are 'selected' (according to you). Have such millions of mutations actually been observed?
Most variation isn't down to mutation.
Mutations happen over a long time. You never suddenly get millions of mutated phenotypes.
There are always genetic mutations but most don't do anything. (IIRC each human has about 100 mutations.)
The point is that when a mutation makes a difference to the phenotype, that is advantageous in the environment, it will spread through the population and become the norm. Advantageous mutations accumulate in the population.
Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....is it random gene variation and NS..... or it it active adaptation to the changed environment?
Random variation and natural selection - that's how it always works. DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly.
PS: The more personal remarks you make the more your weakness is shown, as a rule!
Well, seriously, what do you expect if you can't be bothered to find out the basics about a subject before trying to tell everybody else they are wrong?
This is easy science and there are many websites and books that explain it in detail. There really isn't an excuse for criticism from ignorance.
-
I cannot understand why it seem so hard for some to understand.
In all of science, this has to be the simplest to get your head around.
I find this seriously puzzling. What's so hard...?
-
Dear ippy,
This is evolution stuff, I get it but I haven't got it, yet! I know it works, there is to much evidence to deny it, but it should be questioned, science is there to be questioned, it is what scientists do, the thing is, science does not belong to scientists it belongs to everyone.
Your Peppered Moth, I read about this years ago, the thing that astounded me was I thought evolution was a slow process, as in millions of years to make any difference, apparently not.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't think it is hard, but some people really really wish that evolution was directed, that is, that there is some intelligence at work, deciding that moths would be better off being a bit darker, and so on. There is no need for this intelligence however, Occam does his work as usual.
-
Dear Stranger and Berational,
Go for it gentlemen, I am sitting here a willing sponge, waiting to soak up your simple explanation of evolution.
Ooops, now we have the Saintly Wigs, go on gentlemen, for us less educated.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't think it is hard, but some people really really wish that evolution was directed, that is, that there is some intelligence at work, deciding that moths would be better off being a bit darker, and so on. There is no need for this intelligence however, Occam does his work as usual.
Yes, you see that in Sriram every time - desperately wanting the captain to be at the helm and conjuring up all sorts of twaddle in the process.
-
Dear Sriram,
Actually most people here just pretend to know science. They have read some books and taken it on authority. Coupled with their need to find atheistic and non mystical explanations....they get locked on to such explanations without thinking about it.
Atheistic, oh! you will be in trouble for that one, being an atheist does not affect your thinking, or so I am led to believe :-X
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
This is evolution stuff, I get it but I haven't got it, yet! I know it works, there is to much evidence to deny it, but it should be questioned, science is there to be questioned, it is what scientists do, the thing is, science does not belong to scientists it belongs to everyone.
Your Peppered Moth, I read about this years ago, the thing that astounded me was I thought evolution was a slow process, as in millions of years to make any difference, apparently not.
Gonnagle.
I suppose if, say I'm an expert on evolution have been studying evolution for years and was at the forefront of evolutionary research, even if that were so Gonners, it isn't, there wouldn't be anything of major concern that would alter the basics of this theory and the likes of you and I Gonners more than likely would have some difficulty getting our heads around all that's left to challenge of this theory because it would be so minor.
The evolutionary theory is about it, even when Franklin Wilson and Crick discovered DNA, guess what it fitted Darwin's original theory like a glove, with the most minor ripple of a discrepancy.
So really the only discrepancy there is for argument comes from that lunatic fringe of mostly American creationists and they may a well be disregarded in the same way we now disregard the flat Earth lot, it's settled there is no controversy, no argument, so unless in the extremely unlikely event someone comes up with a legitimate challenge that's it we're there.
It doesn't matter how long evolutionary changes take, the basics don't alter.
ippy
-
Because in isn't a reaction to the environment. The (random) variation has to be there first to be selected. Changes don't arise for the purpose of surviving in the environment.
I don't even know what you mean by these. It's an amazingly simple concept that has now been explained to you multiple times...
Most variation isn't down to mutation.
Mutations happen over a long time. You never suddenly get millions of mutated phenotypes.
There are always genetic mutations but most don't do anything. (IIRC each human has about 100 mutations.)
The point is that when a mutation makes a difference to the phenotype, that is advantageous in the environment, it will spread through the population and become the norm. Advantageous mutations accumulate in the population.
Random variation and natural selection - that's how it always works. DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly.
Well, seriously, what do you expect if you can't be bothered to find out the basics about a subject before trying to tell everybody else they are wrong?
This is easy science and there are many websites and books that explain it in detail. There really isn't an excuse for criticism from ignorance.
1. You haven't heard of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism? Acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny.
2. Every process needs to follow some law of nature for it to be considered a natural process that is repeated again and again. If there is no known law that is being followed...it is not a process. It is just a random occurrence.
3. You keep saying it is a simple concept but don't understand that there is no 'selection' being made. According to you, it is just random genetic variations out of which some manage to survive in a given environment. If the environment changes...it could change the survival scenario. So...no selection. Today something is 'selected' tomorrow something else is 'selected'. There is no predictability because environmental changes are random and happen all the time.
4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic). The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour. You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.
All these convoluted explanations are required because you people believe that 'DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly'. That is the problem. Well...maybe it can. Epigenetics and its influence on gene expression could be the answer.
-
Sriram,
There is no hope for you.
You are just too indoctrinated, or too stupid.
It's one or the other.
-
Sriram,
There is no hope for you.
You are just too indoctrinated, or too stupid.
It's one or the other.
Thanks BR. Who is indoctrinated I don't know.
-
Thanks BR. Who is indoctrinated I don't know.
You are as you fail to grasp the most simple concept.
-
1. You haven't heard of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism? Acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny.
2. Every process needs to follow some law of nature for it to be considered a natural process that is repeated again and again. If there is no known law that is being followed...it is not a process. It is just a random occurrence.
3. You keep saying it is a simple concept but don't understand that there is no 'selection' being made. According to you, it is just random genetic variations out of which some manage to survive in a given environment. If the environment changes...it could change the survival scenario. So...no selection. Today something is 'selected' tomorrow something else is 'selected'. There is no predictability because environmental changes are random and happen all the time.
4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic). The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour. You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.
All these convoluted explanations are required because you people believe that 'DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly'. That is the problem. Well...maybe it can. Epigenetics and its influence on gene expression could be the answer.
Supposed to be a serious post?
Why try to make something sound complicated when it isn't? I must admit the word epigenetics sounds important.
It's easier to see black on white or visa versa, it couldn't be the birds spotted the darker moths on the trees that were no longer had their bark being coated with industrial smoke/smog and the bark was gradually getting lighter.
The darker moths standing out more on the gradually lightening tree bark got eaten by the birds so any moth that happened to be born a bit lighter got missed, they then they reproduced and on and on the darker moths were not reproducing at he the same rate as the lighter ones because they were being eaten and guess what the darker ones died out, what a surprise.
ippy
-
1. You haven't heard of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism? Acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny.
Epigenetics is about possibly heritable changes in gene expression - it doesn't alter the genetic sequence, so cannot be the main process in evolution.
2. Every process needs to follow some law of nature for it to be considered a natural process that is repeated again and again. If there is no known law that is being followed...it is not a process. It is just a random occurrence.
Sorry, I see lots of words but no relevant meaning.
3. You keep saying it is a simple concept but don't understand that there is no 'selection' being made. According to you, it is just random genetic variations out of which some manage to survive in a given environment. If the environment changes...it could change the survival scenario. So...no selection. Today something is 'selected' tomorrow something else is 'selected'. There is no predictability because environmental changes are random and happen all the time.
Of course selection changes when the enviroment changes - that doesn't mean no selection. Do you ever think before you type?
4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic). The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour. You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.
You still don't understand - I can only think because you don't want to understand. The peppered moth was not epigenetics, it was a change the the genome. The rest of this is blind-faith assertion.
Ilik Saccheri, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Liverpool, UK, and his colleagues have used molecular genetics to show that one mutation from a single ancestor causes increased dark pigment, called melanism, in the typically light-coloured moth.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html
All these convoluted explanations are required because you people believe that 'DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly'. That is the problem. Well...maybe it can. Epigenetics and its influence on gene expression could be the answer.
I suggest learning just a little about the standard science of evolution and natural selection. In an earlier post you accused other posters of just reading some books. It would be nice if you could be arsed to even do that, before declaring that large parts of science (which you obviously haven't taken the time to study) is all wrong and the all-knowing Sriram has the answer.....
-
4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic). The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour. You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.
When trees were blackened by Victorian pollution, lighter coloured moths became more visible to predators, got eaten more, and so tended to die out whereas the darker coloured moths tended to be camoflaged and so tended to out survive the lighter moths, passing on their gene variants. It is that simple at base.
-
OK guys...... I may not be able to write at length today.
The point is simple.
Natural Selection, the way you people believe in it, is just a random process with no basis in law nor is there any clearly defined process and certainly no predictability. It is just a reaction to random environmental changes.
No way complexity could have arisen all the way up to humans through this so called random 'method'!
'Natural Selection' to be meaningful at all (similar to artificial selection), should be governed by some purpose and objective and should have some inner force providing it direction (Darwin believed that).
The mechanism for this to happen (epigenetics) is now fairly well known although many people seem to be still stuck with their random variation stuff.
Don't get stuck so religiously with authority guys. Think out of the box.
Cheers....have fun :D
Sriram
-
Natural Selection, the way you people believe in it, is just a random process with no basis in law nor is there any clearly defined process and certainly no predictability. It is just a reaction to random environmental changes.
Restate misunderstanding.
No way complexity could have arisen all the way up to humans through this so called random 'method'!
Make baseless assertion.
'Natural Selection' to be meaningful at all (similar to artificial selection), should be governed by some purpose and objective and should have some inner force providing it direction (Darwin believed that).
Assert superstition (and lie about Darwin).
The mechanism for this to happen (epigenetics) is now fairly well known although many people seem to be still stuck with their random variation stuff.
Restate another misunderstanding.
Don't get stuck so religiously with authority guys. Think out of the box.
It's everybody else! Honest!
Repeat....
::)
-
Sriram
Believe any rubbish you like, but do NOT teach it to children, or tell them it is true.
-
Sriram
Believe any rubbish you like, but do NOT teach it to children, or tell them it is true.
Susan....
Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies. I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.
So...don't worry yourself, we know what to think and believe. You worry about yourself please.
In fact, if you support some idea I know I should certainly go in the opposite direction. :D
No offence....but thanks anyway. :)
-
Susan....
Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies. I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.
So...don't worry yourself, we know what to think and believe. You worry about yourself please.
In fact, if you support some idea I know I should certainly go in the opposite direction. :D
No offence....but thanks anyway. :)
I don't believe you.
-
Susan....
Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies.
Remarkable. Did they leave microbiology because the crap you told them made them really bad at it?
I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.
Hopefully not designing anything more critical than the toilets.
-
OK guys...... I may not be able to write at length today.
The point is simple.
Natural Selection, the way you people believe in it, is just a random process with no basis in law nor is there any clearly defined process and certainly no predictability. It is just a reaction to random environmental changes.
No way complexity could have arisen all the way up to humans through this so called random 'method'!
'Natural Selection' to be meaningful at all (similar to artificial selection), should be governed by some purpose and objective and should have some inner force providing it direction (Darwin believed that).
The mechanism for this to happen (epigenetics) is now fairly well known although many people seem to be still stuck with their random variation stuff.
Don't get stuck so religiously with authority guys. Think out of the box.
Cheers....have fun :D
Sriram
You're just hopelessly confused about this it seems. Maybe you've latched on to 'epigenetics' as a magic last hope for some sort of purpose in evolution. Epigenetics doesn't confer any sort of direction or purpose to evolution, it is just another pathway in which the principle of inheritance operates in certain circumstances; it comes down to gene expression being 'selected' rather than gene mutations being 'selected'. In neither case is there any hidden intelligence at work, just a multiplicity of ways in which life adapts and diversifies in response to (random) environmental change.
-
Susan....
Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies. I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.
So...don't worry yourself, we know what to think and believe. You worry about yourself please.
In fact, if you support some idea I know I should certainly go in the opposite direction. :D
No offence....but thanks anyway. :)
Going by the content of your posts Sriram, it doesn't show.
Darwin's theory is so proven and so beautiful in it's simplicity, how come its rather obviously gone right over your head?
ippy
-
You're just hopelessly confused about this it seems. Maybe you've latched on to 'epigenetics' as a magic last hope for some sort of purpose in evolution. Epigenetics doesn't confer any sort of direction or purpose to evolution, it is just another pathway in which the principle of inheritance operates in certain circumstances; it comes down to gene expression being 'selected' rather than gene mutations being 'selected'. In neither case is there any hidden intelligence at work, just a multiplicity of ways in which life adapts and diversifies in response to (random) environmental change.
I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.
The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions. A clear case of biology being created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. :D
Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.
I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here, not much, I gather)...... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.
More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture or how things fit together!!! That's the problem.
But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. :D
-
I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.
Totally unsupported assertion, following a totally biased belief. On what tests, reliability of test results, etc do you base the statement that you have no doubts at all that evolution has direction?
quote]
-
I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.
Dogmatic assertion of superstition.
Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. Not necessarily.
I don't know how educated most people here are (not much I gather).... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.
More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture and how things fit together!!! That's the problem.
Confusion, assertion, superstition, and rather comical, affected superiority.
But then...that's too much for many people here I realize. :D
It's everybody else! Honest!
-
I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.
The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions. A clear case of biology being created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. :D
If that is your grand theory then you need to justify it, merely asserting it without evidence is not going to cut it. If you were right everlasting fame and a Nobel prize no doubt would be yours for the taking. Step up to the mark and show us what it is that 150 years of biologists have failed to notice.
-
But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. :D
What you don't realise is that many of us are less susceptible to believing stuff for which there is zero testable evidence.
-
I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.
The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions. A clear case of biology being created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. :D
Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.
I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here, not much, I gather)...... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.
More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture or how things fit together!!! That's the problem.
But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. :D
All sorts of people can be very well educated and at the same time be left seriously wanting in the intellect area.
ippy
-
If that is your grand theory then you need to justify it, merely asserting it without evidence is not going to cut it. If you were right everlasting fame and a Nobel prize no doubt would be yours for the taking. Step up to the mark and show us what it is that 150 years of biologists have failed to notice.
torridon,
I have written many times earlier about two types of people. Those with the Zoom-In mind and those with the Zoom-Out mind.
The Zoom-In mind is which zooms into things. Details, separating, differentiating, categorizing, specializing, splitting apart and so on. This is the mind of the average scientist. Always seeing differences.....rarely integrating.
The Zoom-out mind is that which zooms out like a TV camera. Its puts together things that seem different. It integrates, finds similarities, sees everything as parts of a whole. This is the mind of a philosopher. Always looking for the Big Picture.
Most people here (needless to say) are of the Zoom-In variety. All science enthusiasts, but by their very nature and nurture only zoom-in people. They will never be able to integrate ideas and put together seemingly disparate phenomena.
As far as evidence for direction to evolution is concerned. Its everywhere....most people of the zoom-out variety will be able to see it at once. Those of the zoom-in variety sadly, will not be able to put them together.....that is all. It is unfortunate but true. :(
1. The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!
2. The Survival instinct and procreation instincts born from DNA replication is another evidence of a goal.
3. Epigenetics/neo-Lamarckism are probably the mechanism (besides other unknowns) by which information gathered during ones life time are passed on to the progeny facilitating active adaptation. No need for random stuff.
4. Many other well known ideas such as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, Anthropic Principle, Gaia hypothesis all point to an active participation of Consciousness in the world....and to the world being a living system with constant feed back and regulation.
All this is enough evidence for a direction to evolution, according to me....certainly much more than is available for Dark Matter and Dark Energy......but I know that with the Zoom-In mindset of most people here none of this will make any sense. They will be back to baring their fangs with their crass and scornful remarks. :D Unfortunate!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Blimey ... yet another suitable partner for Sass. The dear girl is going to be overwhelmed with possible suitors. :)
-
Dear ippy,
All sorts of people can be very well educated and at the same time be left seriously wanting in the intellect area.
Veeerrry! true old son, for instance, there are some people who understand words like, genotype, genome, melanism, phenotype, allele, homozygous, heterozygous, autosomal dominants, macroevolution, microevolution, speciation, etc etc etc, but then proceed to tell me that it is all veeerrry simple.
And I am still waiting for these great well educated minds who have voiced an opinion on this thread to show me in a few paragraphs how veerrry simple it all is, hell!! ippy old chum did you yourself not describe it as "beautifully simple".
Gonnagle.
-
There are few things sadder than the lone crank convinced that he's hugging the truth to himself while the entire scientific community of the planet are in the wrong.
-
I have written many times... [blah, blah...]
A very long version of "It's everybody else, Honest!".
Can't be bothered to type detail as you don't take any notice anyway....
1/ Personal incredulity.
2/ Misunderstanding and superstition.
3/ More misunderstanding.
4/ More terms you've misunderstood.
5/ [The bit at the end] Empty assertion and a bizarre comparison to more things you've misunderstood.
-
And I am still waiting for these great well educated minds who have voiced an opinion on this thread to show me in a few paragraphs how veerrry simple it all is, hell!! ippy old chum did you yourself not describe it as "beautifully simple".
What is it you are having trouble understanding? There are two or three basic explanations of natural selection in the thread. Perhaps Darwin's own definition would help...
Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.
-
Dear Stranger,
I do that, if I can't find the words, my favourite is using an Einstein quote, here's one,
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Oh! and BTW I get the gist of natural selection, life changes if our environment changes, but when you start to get into the detail :o :o and I would like to thank you, your 101 evolution link is very useful.
Gonnagle.
-
I do that, if I can't find the words...
I assumed you didn't understand by attempts (#37 #43 #62).
Oh! and BTW I get the gist of natural selection, life changes if our environment changes, but when you start to get into the detail :o :o and I would like to thank you, your 101 evolution link is very useful.
:) I'm glad, and to be honest the detail can get complicated, especially now we know about genetics, but the basic principle was, and remains, simple...
-
I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction.
So you are certain that a falsehood is true in your mind. Unfortunately, reality doesn't take any notice of your opinion.
The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.
Again you are wrong.
The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions. A clear case of biology being created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. :D
Didn't you notice the other posts in the thread that demonstrate the triune system is a massive oversimplification at best.
Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.
Materialism is a philosophical position, science is a method for finding things out. Can you point out who on this board has confused the two?
I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here, not much, I gather)
I suspect most of us are educated to around the same level as you (with one or two notable excepts like Prof D). However, some of us took notice of the things we were being taught. You should try it.
But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. :D
I understand that you want your particular world view to be true. Unfortunately, wanting doesn't make it so.
-
Dear ippy,
Veeerrry! true old son, for instance, there are some people who understand words like, genotype, genome, melanism, phenotype, allele, homozygous, heterozygous, autosomal dominants, macroevolution, microevolution, speciation, etc etc etc, but then proceed to tell me that it is all veeerrry simple.
And I am still waiting for these great well educated minds who have voiced an opinion on this thread to show me in a few paragraphs how veerrry simple it all is, hell!! ippy old chum did you yourself not describe it as "beautifully simple".
C
Gonnagle.
The terms you're referring to as you no doubt know can be looked up in a combination of the dictionary and Google.
If as it seems to me you don't want to understand how evolution is described by Darwin, I can't make you and don't really have any need to do so.
Understanding evolution as described by Darwin doesn't really require any kind of super brain, the way you write and put together your posts doesn't suggest any lack of the grey stuff in your head, assuming that's so I can only think that for reasons of you own the accepted version of how evolution works doesn't suit you, I've no idea why?
ippy
-
torridon,
I have written many times earlier about two types of people. Those with the Zoom-In mind and those with the Zoom-Out mind.
The Zoom-In mind is which zooms into things. Details, separating, differentiating, categorizing, specializing, splitting apart and so on. This is the mind of the average scientist. Always seeing differences.....rarely integrating.
The Zoom-out mind is that which zooms out like a TV camera. Its puts together things that seem different. It integrates, finds similarities, sees everything as parts of a whole. This is the mind of a philosopher. Always looking for the Big Picture.
Most people here (needless to say) are of the Zoom-In variety. All science enthusiasts, but by their very nature and nurture only zoom-in people. They will never be able to integrate ideas and put together seemingly disparate phenomena.
As far as evidence for direction to evolution is concerned. Its everywhere....most people of the zoom-out variety will be able to see it at once. Those of the zoom-in variety sadly, will not be able to put them together.....that is all. It is unfortunate but true. :(
1. The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!
2. The Survival instinct and procreation instincts born from DNA replication is another evidence of a goal.
3. Epigenetics/neo-Lamarckism are probably the mechanism (besides other unknowns) by which information gathered during ones life time are passed on to the progeny facilitating active adaptation. No need for random stuff.
4. Many other well known ideas such as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, Anthropic Principle, Gaia hypothesis all point to an active participation of Consciousness in the world....and to the world being a living system with constant feed back and regulation.
All this is enough evidence for a direction to evolution, according to me....certainly much more than is available for Dark Matter and Dark Energy......but I know that with the Zoom-In mindset of most people here none of this will make any sense. They will be back to baring their fangs with their crass and scornful remarks. :D Unfortunate!
Cheers.
Sriram
This is not so much evidence, as patronising rant. For sure there are lots of things we don't understand, that will always be the case. But that shouldn't licence us to throw out all the insights we have accumulated to date.
As far as a direction to evolution goes, we could say there is some direction in terms of increasing complexity of life forms over time but I don't see that the particular trajectory of the evolution of complexity on this planet suggests that some hidden guiding hand is at work. 'Progress' if we can call it that, has been hit and miss, sometimes one step forward and two steps back with often enormous periods of no change in between. A truer model to explain this pattern is given already by understanding that life finds explanations in terms of chemistry and chemistry arises out of physics, and armed with that understanding we would predict that carbon based life forms would tend to increase in complexity as a direct consequence of the observed bonding promiscuity of carbon. It comes down to the particular quirks of the periodic table. If we discover silicon based life on other planets, the prediction from the universal periodic table would be that it will achieve nothing like the levels of complexity achieved by carbon. Of course you could argue that the periodic table must then have been architected specifically by some arch-chemist in the sky such that it would produce bankers and playwrights somewhere or other sooner or later. But that too is something of a philosophical dead end eventually because it pointedly fails to explain the origin of the arch chemist in the sky. It's not an explanation at all, in other words, just something that very superficially looks like one.
-
This is not so much evidence, as patronising rant. For sure there are lots of things we don't understand, that will always be the case. But that shouldn't licence us to throw out all the insights we have accumulated to date.
As far as a direction to evolution goes, we could say there is some direction in terms of increasing complexity of life forms over time but I don't see that the particular trajectory of the evolution of complexity on this planet suggests that some hidden guiding hand is at work. 'Progress' if we can call it that, has been hit and miss, sometimes one step forward and two steps back with often enormous periods of no change in between. A truer model to explain this pattern is given already by understanding that life finds explanations in terms of chemistry and chemistry arises out of physics, and armed with that understanding we would predict that carbon based life forms would tend to increase in complexity as a direct consequence of the observed bonding promiscuity of carbon. It comes down to the particular quirks of the periodic table. If we discover silicon based life on other planets, the prediction from the universal periodic table would be that it will achieve nothing like the levels of complexity achieved by carbon. Of course you could argue that the periodic table must then have been architected specifically by some arch-chemist in the sky such that it would produce bankers and playwrights somewhere or other sooner or later. But that too is something of a philosophical dead end eventually because it pointedly fails to explain the origin of the arch chemist in the sky. It's not an explanation at all, in other words, just something that very superficially looks like one.
Sriram, it's pretty obvious you're not completely brain dead, but to be fair I think the way you're trying to convey these thoughts of yours about evolution are more indicative of some sort of childhood indoctrination, than a reasoned out chain of thoughts about the subject. Well whatever, that's how I read you.
ippy
-
Sriram, it's pretty obvious you're not completely brain dead, but to be fair I think the way you're trying to convey these thoughts of yours about evolution are more indicative of some sort of childhood indoctrination, than a reasoned out chain of thoughts about the subject. Well whatever, that's how I read you.
ippy
Thanks for having faith in my abilities ippy. Nice of you. So....try to think through what I say and see if you mind opens up. That's the whole point of faith...you know. :)
-
Thanks for having faith in my abilities ippy. Nice of you. So....try to think through what I say and see if you mind opens up. That's the whole point of faith...you know. :)
Translation: Accept my entirely unevidenced views on thoughts to do with God/god/s, the supernatural, and this will mean you have an open mind according to Sriram's definition (and AB's Sassy's et all).
-
So....try to think through what I say and see if you mind opens up.
Sriram, what you have said in this thread demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the subject. You seem to be engaged in the time-honoured practice of trying to destroy that which you do not understand.
-
Sriram, what you have said in this thread demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the subject. You seem to be engaged in the time-honoured practice of trying to destroy that which you do not understand.
So you like to believe!!! ::)
-
So you like to believe!!! ::)
I know, from the evidence of your posts, that don't understand the theory of evolution (so does everybody else who has read this thread and does understand it) - yet you are obviously trying to discredit it and replace it with your own 'ideas'.
If you really want your 'ideas' to be taken (slightly more) seriously you should at least do your homework and understand that which you want to oppose.
-
I know, from the evidence of your posts, that don't understand the theory of evolution (so does everybody else who has read this thread and does understand it) - yet you are obviously trying to discredit it and replace it with your own 'ideas'.
If you really want your 'ideas' to be taken (slightly more) seriously you should at least do your homework and understand that which you want to oppose.
You yourself keep saying it is simple. Just a case of random mutations.....environmental pressure....and NS. Big deal!!
Point is that I don't agree that complexity can arise due to this so called 'process'. Now that's simple too......you know!! :D
-
So present your evidence.
Hand-waving won't cut it here.
-
Point is that I don't agree that complexity can arise due to this so called 'process'. Now that's simple too......you know!! :D
The fact that you don't agree with an established fact makes you look a tad stupid.
-
The fact that you don't agree with an established fact makes you look a tad stupid.
An established fact!!? Reaalllly?! Lol!
-
An established fact!!? Reaalllly?! Lol!
Yes, really! Here is your remark that prompted my post :-
"The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!"
You are simply unable to perceive that the complexity of life HAS arisen from the process of evolution.
I don't know why you have this blind spot, and I hope you will be able to get over it some day.
-
Yes, really! Here is your remark that prompted my post :-
"The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!"
You are simply unable to perceive that the complexity of life HAS arisen from the process of evolution.
I don't know why you have this blind spot, and I hope you will be able to get over it some day.
You do realize that I am not questioning 'evolution' itself.....don't you? ::)
I am questioning the random process that you people are touting as the mechanism for evolution.
-
You do realize that I am not questioning 'evolution' itself.....don't you? ::)
I am questioning the random process that you people are touting as the mechanism for evolution.
Human sperm and egg are produced in a totally random way. None of the thousands of sperm produced in one ejaculation are genetically identical and I think the same applies to the eggs awaiting fertilisation.
The resulting fertilised egg is then exposed to the random conditions of its surroundings, both before and after birth.
On what grounds do you question the "randomness" of the process?
-
Point is that I don't agree that complexity can arise due to this so called 'process'. Now that's simple too......you know!! :D
Unfortunately, since you offer no evidence and no reasoning to support your opinion, there is no reason at all for anybody else to take it seriously.
You do realize that I am not questioning 'evolution' itself.....don't you? ::)
I am questioning the random process that you people are touting as the mechanism for evolution.
Your stubborn ignorance is showing again. The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.
-
Unfortunately, since you offer no evidence and no reasoning to support your opinion, there is no reason at all for anybody else to take it seriously.
Your stubborn ignorance is showing again. The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.
You do realize...I hope....that evolution can happen without your brand of Natural Selection. It really can!!
-
You do realize...I hope....that evolution can happen without your brand of Natural Selection. It really can!!
Really really really really?
Where's your evdence for this?
-
You do realize...I hope....that evolution can happen without your brand of Natural Selection. It really can!!
Evidence? Reasoning?
Silly to ask, I guess.
-
In other words...you guys never understood all along that I have no objection to 'evolution' per se.....and that it was only the random nature of your brand of Natural Selection that I was objecting to?! Amazing!!!
You people really do have your heads full of religious baggage so that the moment someone objects to something in science you go into a tizzy and start assuming that they are entirely anti-evolution, anti-science, pro religion......and so on.
No wonder you guys keep going around in circles!!
PS: I have already stated many times that the rise of complexity is itself evidence against random events causing evolution. Now...don't tell me NS is not random. If the environmental changes are random...and act on random mutations.....NS has to be random too.
-
In other words...you guys never understood all along that I have no objection to 'evolution' per se.....and that it was only the random nature of your brand of Natural Selection that I was objecting to?! Amazing!!!
Still stubbornly ignorant. I'll repeat:-
The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.
PS: I have already stated many times that the rise of complexity is itself evidence against random events causing evolution. Now...don't tell me NS is not random. If the environmental changes are random...and act on random mutations.....NS has to be random too.
I'm not going to explain it again - go read a book for a change.
Just stating that something is evidence, doesn't turn it into evidence.
-
PS: I have already stated many times that the rise of complexity is itself evidence against random events causing evolution. Now...don't tell me NS is not random. If the environmental changes are random...and act on random mutations.....NS has to be random too.
You might have stated it many times, but I don't recall that you have justified it, unless I missed that somewhere. Just repeating assertions does not make them true. What makes you think that complexity cannot arise out of simpler underlying factors ?
-
Still stubbornly ignorant. I'll repeat:-
The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.
I'm not going to explain it again - go read a book for a change.
Just stating that something is evidence, doesn't turn it into evidence.
SKS,
Ok....let me repeat.....
1. Evolution is just 'change'. 'Evolution'...does not mean 'Evolution by Natural Selection'. Do you get it? Everything evolves over time. Cars have evolved, computers have evolved, planes have evolved, civilizations have evolved, music has evolved, cultures have evolved, languages have evolved....and so on. And all this evolution has had Intelligent direction behind it. All these things have moved in specific directions of increasing complexity from simpler beginnings. So...biological evolution is only one more instance of evolution. Evolution does not automatically mean random processes. I hope this is clear to begin with!!
2. Biological evolution happens there is no doubt. But just as there was Lamarckism before Darwin....evolution can have many explanations. Darwinian NS is only one of them. It need not be final and conclusive. Nothing ever is. So...don't try this Argument from Authority.
3. Charles Darwin (I have given quotes earlier.... refer to them) was not an atheist and intended Natural Selection as a mechanism similar to Artificial Selection. I have quoted this many times but you people have selective eye sight. Just as AS has direction and specific goals NS was also assumed to have goals. Also, Darwin did believe in acquired characteristics getting passed on to progeny.
4. It was later....in neo-Darwinism touted by such people as Weismann and Wallace....that NS (the random mutations brand) became mainstream. The Weismann Barrier as it is called...rejected Lamarckian ideas. In other words...what you refer to as Darwinian NS is actually neo Darwinism........!
5. Today, research in Epigenetics has brought back the possibility of Lamarckian explanation of evolution as a clear possibility. If you don't now about this....read up on it. Don't have a blind spot on this.
6. Coming back to Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution....it is a random process because genetic mutations are random and environmental changes are also random. Randomness cannot give rise to complexity. That is common sense. Its for you to prove that it can.
7. Such basic instincts as Survival and Procreation Instincts being present from the earliest times....point to survival and procreation being basic objectives in evolution, without which evolution cannot happen at all. It is therefore not a random directionless process.
8. Because of the above....the neo darwinian NS that you people are so fond of, cannot be an explanation for evolution. Alternative processes are possible....and should be examined.
Now, all of you can holler to high heaven about all this being rubbish and what not......but I am clear about what I have said and stand by it.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
1. Evolution is just 'change'. 'Evolution'...does not mean 'Evolution by Natural Selection'. Everything evolves over time. Cars have evolved, computers have evolved, planes have evolved, civilizations have evolved, music has evolved, cultures have evolved, languages have evolved....and so on. And all this evolution has had Intelligent direction behind it. All these things have moved in specific directions of increasing complexity from simpler beginnings. So...biological evolution is only one more instance of evolution. Evolution does not automatically mean random processes. I hope this is clear to being with!!
In what way are other usages of the word relevant to this discussion?
3. Charles Darwin (I have given quotes earlier.... refer to them) was not an atheist and intended Natural Selection as a mechanism similar to Artificial Selection. I have quoted this many times but you people have selective eye sight.
The quotes you gave did not support your claims.
Natural selection is similar to artificial selection, just not in the way you'd like.
In both cases there are variations that are then selected. Either consciously chosen (artificial) or just by the environment (natural). The variations don't happen in order to please a human breeder and they don't happen in order to survive in the environment. In both cases, however, some variations are passed to the next generation. This really isn't hard.
Here (again) is Darwin's own definition of natural selection:
Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.
5. Today, research in Epigenetics has brought back the possibility of Lamarckian explanation of evolution as a clear possibility. If you don't now about this....read up on it. Don't have a blind spot on this.
6. Coming back to Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution....it is a random process because genetic mutations are random and environmental changes are also random. Randomness cannot give rise to complexity. That is common sense. Its for you to prove that it can.
7. Such basic instincts as Survival and Procreation Instincts being present from the earliest times....point to survival and procreation being basic objectives in evolution, without which evolution cannot happen at all. It is therefore not a random directionless process.
8. Because of the above....the neo darwinian NS that you people are so fond of, cannot be an explanation for evolution. Alternative processes are possible....and should be examined.
This has all been gone over before. You still have zero evidence, whereas the actual theory of evolution has been collecting evidence for over a century.
-
Dear Darwin,
Artificial selection has bugger all to do with environment, right! yes/no?
Artificial selection is a quick process, by quick I mean, sometimes it can be measured in a man's life time, not always but some times.
Natural Selection has everything to with environment, right! yes/no?
Natural selection can be a quick and a slow process, right! yes/no?
Gonnagle.
PS: I wonder if Rhiannon and Shaker have noticed any difference in there teeth. :o
-
Dear Darwin,
I'm pretty sure he doesn't post here - being a bit dead an' all.
I'll do my best.
Artificial selection has bugger all to do with environment, right! yes/no?
Well, if you stretch the definition of the environment enough to include a person doing the selection, then there is literally no difference between artificial selection and natural selection.
In artificial selection the environment of a population is totally dominated by said person and their conscious goal. In natural selection, all sorts of environmental factors determine which individuals survive and reproduce.
Artificial selection is a quick process, by quick I mean, sometimes it can be measured in a man's life time, not always but some times.
The speed of either natural or artificial selection depends on several factors. Most notably perhaps, the individual lifetime of organisms in the population. Populations evolve, not individuals; a change can't spread through a population without a new lot of individuals.
More Darwin - as you asked (my emphasis):-
We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants would almost immediately undergo a change, and some species might become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement.
As much Darwin as you want:-
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
-
Dear Stranger,
First of all a big thank you for your efforts, it is slowly sinking in :o
Secondly, Darwin does post here, everytime someone mentions anything to do with evolution he posts. ;)
Just one question from your post, are you stretching the definition of environment to far?
Gonnagle.
-
Just one question from your post, are you stretching the definition of environment to far?
Too far for what? :)
[OK - this is me, not Darwin.] I think you can view artificial selection as a special case of natural selection. I say that because an important part of any population's environment consists of the other species that live alongside it and interact with it. Most obviously, they may be predators, prey or they may compete for the same prey. Having evolved to produce conscious manipulators of the population is just a special (and unique, as far as we know) case.
The point that I was trying to make was that the underlying mechanism is the same, in the sense that there is variation of individuals in the population and then something determines which pass on their genes and which don't.
The something can be just the combined effects of climate, predators, availability of food and so on, or the deliberate actions of a human.
-
Ditto with sexual selection. If you fancy that girl next door with the big b***ies and huge b*^m, that is still a form of natural selection at the end of the day, manifesting through emotions and behaviours.
-
Dear Stranger,
Artificial and Natural, I may be hung up on these two words, step away from the book Gonnagle :o
Anyway as way of thanks I will leave you with this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY
This when you can really use the terms awe and wonder.
But a question, what does Dawkins mean when he talks about Starlings flocking,
Group mind? No, local units obeying local rules.
Gonnagle.
-
Anyway as way of thanks I will leave you with this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY
This when you can really use the terms awe and wonder.
But a question, what does Dawkins mean when he talks about Starlings flocking,
Group mind? No, local units obeying local rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbUPfMXXQIY