Evolution has never been observed

[painted wolf]

For you. I get that. It is not an opinion I share.
I'm guessing for you convergent evolution is oddly coincidental?

It's not coincidental at all... it's physics.
The physics of water means there is only one way to be an efficient high speed swimmer. :beach:

If you want to believe that physics is an option then I'm sure you'll have no trouble flapping your arms and flying home.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

As a computer scientist, it is unsurprising that many attempts to solve the same problem resulted in the same solution.

Thanks for helping to establish my point... of conscious selection.

Imagine same solution to same problem for computer science without consciousness involved. Would be oddly coincidental, no?

 

[Acim]

It's not coincidental at all... it's physics.
The physics of water means there is only one way to be an efficient high speed swimmer. :beach:

And here's the part where you tie this in with convergent evolution, unless you are saying "the physics of water is example of convergent evolution."

 

[Gemini]

They've observed mice adapt to a dark rocky environment through natural selection. All the mice that were introduced were white and got picked off easily by birds as they were easy to see on the sand. Nearby on a dark rocky area, dark furred mice of the same species appeared that blended in with the rock. The whiter ones were picked off, the darker ones had a higher survival rate, and in a few generations there were black mice adapted to an environment where only white mice existed. They evolved to suit their environment. This story is kinda sketchy as I saw it on Discovery years ago. But yes, it's been observed.

 

[johnhanks]

And here's the part where you tie this in with convergent evolution, unless you are saying "the physics of water is example of convergent evolution."

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point being made is that if animals from different taxa are being selected for speed of movement through water, the physics of water will always result in similar morphologies being favoured.

Do you think it's 'oddly coincidental' that leaves tend to be flat, or might the advantages associated with a large light-absorbing surface have something to do with it?

 

[PolyHedral]

Thanks for helping to establish my point... of conscious selection.

Imagine same solution to same problem for computer science without consciousness involved. Would be oddly coincidental, no?

Conciousness already has nothing to do with computer science.

 

[outhouse]

Conciousness already has nothing to do with computer science.

it sounds like someone is just twisting reality to meet his specific needs despite the known facts of the matter

 

[PolyHedral]

it sounds like someone is just twisting reality to meet his specific needs despite the known facts of the matter

Elaborte. The relavent part of computer science, the study of algorithms, is almost entirely mathematical in nature.

 

[outhouse]

Elaborte. The relavent part of computer science, the study of algorithms, is almost entirely mathematical in nature.

im on your side lol.


I agree with you and your point

 

[atanu]

It's not coincidental at all... it's physics.
The physics of water means there is only one way to be an efficient high speed swimmer. :beach:

If you want to believe that physics is an option then I'm sure you'll have no trouble flapping your arms and flying home.

wa:do

Probably those fishes know physics as well as we do.

 

[atanu]

Conciousness already has nothing to do with computer science.

Consciousness is awareness. Do you imply that computers evolved just like we evolved from chemicals? That is a possibilty.:faint:

 

[PolyHedral]

Consciousness is awareness. Do you imply that computers evolved just like we evolved from chemicals? That is a possibilty.:faint:

In the generalised study of computers, we are computing machines.

 

[painted wolf]

And here's the part where you tie this in with convergent evolution,

I already covered this but here it goes again....
Physics puts specific pressures on form and function. If you want to be fast in the water, the physical properties of water will force you to develop a particular body shape. Otherwise turbulence/drag and lift will sink you.
Which is why squid, tuna, sharks, dolphins and seals all have a similar body shape even though they are not particularly closely related to one another.

Just like the chemical properties of arsenic make it toxic to life on Earth... it's not an opinion held by life but a fact imposed by reality.

unless you are saying "the physics of water is example of convergent evolution."

That doesn't even make sense.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

Physics puts specific pressures on form and function. If you want to be fast in the water, the physical properties of water will force you to develop a particular body shape.

That doesn't even make sense.

wa:do

That does not make any sense to me. Physics does not put any constraint. Physics is our way of comprehending the ways of part of nature that is amenable to us. The beings of nature sense the constraints and either are curtailed/crushed by the constraints or they overcome the constraints. That suggests inherent power of observation and analysis throughout the nature.

 

[atanu]

In the generalised study of computers, we are computing machines.

That may be so. But in my experience I have never seen any evolution in computers apart from volition of humans. In absence of volitional control, things will disintegrate and not otherwise. Why in this instance we stubbornly go against the observations.

IMO, it is logical to say that the forms and names continually evolve, prodded by volition associated with awareness.

 

[Acim]

The point being made is that if animals from different taxa are being selected for speed of movement through water, the physics of water will always result in similar morphologies being favoured.

Do you think it's 'oddly coincidental' that leaves tend to be flat, or might the advantages associated with a large light-absorbing surface have something to do with it?

All underlined portions are part of why I don't subscribe to 'oddly coincidental' and do subscribe to 'consciously selected.'

 

[Acim]

The relavent part of computer science, the study of algorithms, is almost entirely mathematical in nature.

Underlined part, clearly makes it aspect of consciousness. It is bizarre to me that you would argue otherwise, but here we are.

 

[Acim]

I already covered this but here it goes again....
Physics puts specific pressures on form and function. If you want to be fast in the water, the physical properties of water will force you to develop a particular body shape. Otherwise turbulence/drag and lift will sink you.
Which is why squid, tuna, sharks, dolphins and seals all have a similar body shape even though they are not particularly closely related to one another.

Wanting to be ... implies (strongly) conscious selection.
If it is not conscious selection, it would seem oddly coincidental that species with independent evolutionary origin would develop same trait for same purpose. I understand you are saying "it is physics of water" which is property known to consciously intelligent beings.

Just like the chemical properties of arsenic make it toxic to life on Earth... it's not an opinion held by life but a fact imposed by reality.

All facts (that I'm aware of) are consciously perceived. Let me know if you have any exceptions to this rule.

 

[painted wolf]

Wanting to be ... implies (strongly) conscious selection.

Poetic language, let me rephrase... There is only one shape that reduces drag in water enough to move through it at high speed.

If it is not conscious selection, it would seem oddly coincidental that species with independent evolutionary origin would develop same trait for same purpose.

This is like saying that stars and planets are both round because they like circles. It's no more a coincidence than that.

I understand you are saying "it is physics of water" which is property known to consciously intelligent beings.

No it's a property of reality... all of reality conforms to it. Even rocks succumb to this aspect of waters nature. Unless rocks are consciously intelligent?

All facts (that I'm aware of) are consciously perceived. Let me know if you have any exceptions to this rule.

Biased by your own experience. The experience of a rock is not the same as yours...yet you are both governed by the same physics. Neither of you can fly, and for the same reasons. Both of you will fall at the same speed, regardless.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

Wanting to be ... implies (strongly) conscious selection.

I agree. Our language itself embeds this fact. And ironically one uses conscious selection to deny this fact.