Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[McBell]

It lacks not only experimental support for gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but lacks even a definition for . "consciousness"

Except for the fact that "consciousness" has been defined:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, OP was okay, but you betray your (usual) agenda almost immediately in posts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

 

[George-ananda]

And since intelligence is complex, it must have been fostered by --- oh, wait!

Consciousness is primary in this view. And the universe is a play/drama of consciousness including incarnation in matter (life).

Consciousness' existence then becomes the mystery. No one is claiming to eliminate all mystery but DNA and complex life forming from unthinking simple processes seems a challenge of almost impossible proportions.

 

[Balthazzar]

Oil, water, sand, rocks, stones, (debris) and collection basins come to mind. I "imagine" it to work mechanically, via laws of physics. Some things are binders with other like things, while other things are not able to bond, except with those things like themselves. There's a natural process to the channels or funnels (pathways) traveled. Magnetic poles and magnetism play a role also.

Some particles are able to pass through some pathways, other particles aren't able and get stuck. The size and density of the particles helps determine placement and cohesion. It all operates mechanically. Material elements (debris/proteins/cells/molecules) stack and form this way. Good luck figuring out the exact specifics, but this is how DNA forms, as well as all other forms of matter (a simplistic summary).

 

[YoursTrue]

It lacks not only experimental support for gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but lacks even a definition for "consciousness". There's really very little justification for believing in replication (of the ability to have) consciousness through genetics and DNA and that it arose through so simple a means as survival of the fittest. There is no justification to believe that consciousness which has resisted both definition and reduction to experiment could have arisen piecemeal.

Science has its place but this place is obviously not in understanding life or the nature of the change in the abstraction we call "species". It works better for understanding orbits and the interplay between elemental forces and star clusters. Chemistry is its forte. Anything that can be reduced is rife for the application of science. Reducing ramps to what mustta been is an utter failure. Reducing life to "species" is an abject failure as well.

In agreement with that, seems there's a big difference in ability (consciousness, perhaps?) between bonobos and humans. I do know that the little lizards in front of my walkway scatter after a few seconds perhaps of sensing that something is headed their way. I am happy to say I have not spoken to them and they have not, to the best of my knowledge, spoken to any scientist as to their thought process.

 

[gnostic]

No I'm not saying genetics don't work.

You didn’t create this thread, to learn anything.

You seriously believe that with your high school biology that you know more than any qualified biologist who have years of experiences. Which bring up the points, as to what working experiences & expertise do you have? None.

Your threads may started out seemingly like questions that you wanted answers about science, but that’s not what you want at all. But the thread topic & opening post hide your true motive of another pointless thread.

None of the threads you have made in recent years, demonstrate anything other than you, you wanting to get the one-upping at evolution with belief in superstitions & in the supernatural, all while crowing some imaginary victories for Creation or for Intelligent Design.

You have never understood any science (not just biology), but you think you know better than everyone else. What you wanted to really do, is smack down any replies that you get, that don’t align with your religious beliefs, that of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ anti-science sentiments.

Your threads have always been disingenuous, and your replies are often arrogantly dismissive.

Why do you always start each new thread, pretending with a question or two, as if you want some honest scientific answers?

We all have experiences with your tactics before, so it was understandable as to why @Jayhawker Soule & @Dan From Smithville have responded the ways they did.

You have already revealed your motive for creating this new thread, when you responded to @George-ananda with this:

I'll bet scientists do not know how DNA came about.

This was thread was never about fact-finding mission, but to challenge members here, so you can brag about some empty victories you believe that you’ve won.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Consciousness is primary in this view. And the universe is a play/drama of consciousness including incarnation in matter (life).

Yes, I know that. But because consciousness has never, ever been observed without a complex, biochemical foundation -- and can very easily be turned off and then on again -- it is not primary in the view of most of science.

Consciousness' existence then becomes the mystery. No one is claiming to eliminate all mystery but DNA and complex life forming from unthinking simple processes seems a challenge of almost impossible proportions.

And because of my previous paragraph, while the mechanism of consciousness is a difficult enigma, its existence is not. A flower turns towards the sun -- meaning that in some manner the plant can detect sunlight, and subsequently cause the plant to react so as to turn the flower towards it. It seems like a not terribly major addition to add a mechanism for internally detecting the detection and reaction -- a little feedback out to be enough to do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

f

Oil, water, sand, rocks, stones, (debris) and collection basins come to mind. I "imagine" it to work mechanically, via laws of physics. Some things are binders with other like things, while other things are not able to bond, except with those things like themselves. There's a natural process to the channels or funnels (pathways) traveled. Magnetic poles and magnetism play a role also.

Some particles are able to pass through some pathways, other particles aren't able and get stuck. The size and density of the particles helps determine placement and cohesion. It all operates mechanically. Material elements (debris/proteins/cells/molecules) stack and form this way. Good luck figuring out the exact specifics, but this is how DNA forms, as well as all other forms of matter (a simplistic summary).

Thank you. Of course, a very simplistic summary. It has to be.

You didn’t create this thread, to learn anything.

You seriously believe that with your high school biology that you know more than any qualified biologist who have years of experiences. Which bring up the points, as to what working experiences & expertise do you have? None.

Your threads may started out seemingly like questions that you wanted answers about science, but that’s not what you want at all. But the thread topic & opening post hide your true motive of another pointless thread.

None of the threads you have made in recent years, demonstrate anything other than you, you wanting to get the one-upping at evolution with belief in superstitions & in the supernatural, all while crowing some imaginary victories for Creation or for Intelligent Design.

You have never understood any science (not just biology), but you think you know better than everyone else. What you wanted to really do, is smack down any replies that you get, that don’t align with your religious beliefs, that of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ anti-science sentiments.

Your threads have always been disingenuous, and your replies are often arrogantly dismissive.

Why do you always start each new thread, pretending with a question or two, as if you want some honest scientific answers?

We all have experiences with your tactics before, so it was understandable as to why @Jayhawker Soule & @Dan From Smithville have responded the ways they did.

You have already revealed your motive for creating this new thread, when you responded to @George-ananda with this:



This was thread was never about fact-finding mission, but to challenge members here, so you can brag about some empty victories you believe that you’ve won.

Do you agree with the following statement (there's more, but I take it slowly for comprehension and agreement or lack of it): So it is said, in order to fully understand the processes occurring in present-day living cells, we need to consider how they arose in evolution.

 

[gnostic]

How about consciousness? What is it and did it just spring from the mind? How?

You seem to be forgetting that bacteria, archaea, protists and that of fungi & plants, all don’t possess consciousness, because they don’t have central nervous systems (CNS, eg brain & spinal cord) or even basic nervous systems. Only animals have nerves that control their sensory organs or tissues, and that enabled consciousness.

The most basic functions of consciousness, is awareness of the environments, through any one their sensory perceptions, be it of sight, hearing, smelling or feeling…plus having some control of movements through their environment.

Take the starfishes for instance. They have no brain, but have systems that are complex enough, to give them sense of touch, in which not only give them sense of their preys, but they can also sense light. Their simple or basic eyes are very similar to those of many aquatic & terrestrial invertebrates, each eyespot with some numbers of ocelli.

look up ocellus with google or Wikipedia.

The points are that not all living organisms require consciousness for them to be alive.

Single-celled organisms, like the eukaryotic protists, unicellular fungi (eg yeasts), or the prokaryotic bacteria & archaea, only have 3 main basic functions, the ability to acquire & store energy, basic respiratory function and the ability to produce - all of their functions occurring in just one cell. They have no needs to have consciousness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I know that. But because consciousness has never, ever been observed without a complex, biochemical foundation -- and can very easily be turned off and then on again -- it is not primary in the view of most of science.

And because of my previous paragraph, while the mechanism of consciousness is a difficult enigma, its existence is not. A flower turns towards the sun -- meaning that in some manner the plant can detect sunlight, and subsequently cause the plant to react so as to turn the flower towards it. It seems like a not terribly major addition to add a mechanism for internally detecting the detection and reaction -- a little feedback out to be enough to do that.

would you say that DNA and RNA are complex, or are they simple?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I know that. But because consciousness has never, ever been observed without a complex, biochemical foundation -- and can very easily be turned off and then on again -- it is not primary in the view of most of science.

And because of my previous paragraph, while the mechanism of consciousness is a difficult enigma, its existence is not. A flower turns towards the sun -- meaning that in some manner the plant can detect sunlight, and subsequently cause the plant to react so as to turn the flower towards it. It seems like a not terribly major addition to add a mechanism for internally detecting the detection and reaction -- a little feedback out to be enough to do that.

How do you feel about this: "The sensory nervous system is a part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information. A sensory system consists of sensory neurons (including the sensory receptor cells)."

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to be forgetting that bacteria, archaea, protists and that of fungi & plants, all don’t possess consciousness, because they don’t have central nervous systems (CNS, eg brain & spinal cord) or even basic nervous systems. Only animals have nerves that control their sensory organs or tissues, and that enabled consciousness.

The most basic functions of consciousness, is awareness of the environments, through any one their sensory perceptions, be it of sight, hearing, smelling or feeling…plus having some control of movements through their environment.

Take the starfishes for instance. They have no brain, but have systems that are complex enough, to give them sense of touch, in which not only give them sense of their preys, but they can also sense light. Their simple or basic eyes are very similar to those of many aquatic & terrestrial invertebrates, each eyespot with some numbers of ocelli.

look up ocellus with google or Wikipedia.

The points are that not all living organisms require consciousness for them to be alive.

Single-celled organisms, like the eukaryotic protists, unicellular fungi (eg yeasts), or the prokaryotic bacteria & archaea, only have 3 main basic functions, the ability to acquire & store energy, basic respiratory function and the ability to produce - all of their functions occurring in just one cell. They have no needs to have consciousness.

So do you conclude that consciousness evolved from non-consciousness?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So do you conclude that consciousness evolved from non-consciousness?

As opposed to what?

That a (presumably conscious) woman evolved from a (presumably non-conscious) rib?​

​

( Assuming, of course, that Genesis was referring to a rib. )​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

would you say that DNA and RNA are complex, or are they simple?

Both. They are made of very few elements -- each strand (of DNA, or the single strand of RNA) has a backbone made of alternating sugar (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups. Attached to each sugar is one of four bases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) or thymine (T). The two strands are connected by chemical bonds between the bases: adenine bonds with thymine, and cytosine bonds with guanine.

How those bases are arrayed along the strands can look quite random -- and in fact much of it is junk that does nothing because it is random -- but the organization of those bases instructs amino acids how to fold into proteins. And that's all it does.

But many, many complex things in the universe are built out of quite simple structures. Atoms -- just protons, neutrons and electrons -- form all the elements we know, from Hydrogen to pure gold. Add a single proton to a neon atom (a gas, pretty store lights) and you get sodium (a crystal that helps make your food taste better). Adding that proton is not done by God -- it's done in the atomic furnaces that make up stars, as they run out of fuel and eventually explode. All very complex -- and yet essentially simple.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

( Assuming, of course, that Genesis was referring to a rib. )

I still conclude that it was referring to a baculum -- Adam's penis bone, to be precise.

 

[gnostic]

Do you agree with the following statement (there's more, but I take it slowly for comprehension and agreement or lack of it): So it is said, in order to fully understand the processes occurring in present-day living cells, we need to consider how they arose in evolution.

The answer to that question is not so simple.

Most biologists are only focused on the modern living species, not past of past organisms of hundreds of millions or even billions of years. They are not interested in the origin of earliest cells, or the earliest genes & DNA, etc. Most biologists are focused on the now, not from some distant past. Whether these biologists would answer yes or no, to this question, depends upon their level of expertise, especially on the matter of molecular biology.

While other biologists do research on much earlier organisms. Palaeo-biology in whatever fields (eg palaeo-bacteriology, palaeontology, abiogenesis, etc), are not the easy thing to research. These biologists would most definitely answer with a yes. Note that abiogenesis is still ongoing but very active hypothesis.

While most biologists are focused on the present species, they would know enough about Evolution, because they do have to understand some of the common traits shared by different species, genera, families, orders, classes, etc.

As I said, it depends on which biologist (in what areas of expertise they are in), whom you would be asking questions to. So there isn’t any really simple “one” answer.

 

[gnostic]

So do you conclude that consciousness evolved from non-consciousness?

one again, you are asking question that cannot be answered simply, with a yes or no.

And as I am not a biologist, my answer would too long and cumbersome.

All I am saying that only animals exhibit consciousness...animals with systems of nerves, whether it be a complex or basic system.

Plants and fungi don’t possess nerves, they have no neuron. They are living organisms, but they are not conscious or sentient organisms.

I have already given example of creature with simple nervous system that are conscious. Another marine invertebrates that possessed simple nervous systems, but exhibited no signs of being conscious - they are the sponges (phylum Porifera).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I still conclude that it was referring to a baculum -- Adam's penis bone, to be precise.

I'm pleased to see that you found the Ziony Zevit interpretation to be so memorable.

 

[YoursTrue]

one again, you are asking question that cannot be answered simply, with a yes or no.

And as I am not a biologist, my answer would too long and cumbersome.

All I am saying that only animals exhibit consciousness...animals with systems of nerves, whether it be a complex or basic system.

Plants and fungi don’t possess nerves, they have no neuron. They are living organisms, but they are not conscious or sentient organisms.

I have already given example of creature with simple nervous system that are conscious. Another marine invertebrates that possessed simple nervous systems, but exhibited no signs of being conscious - they are the sponges (phylum Porifera).

As noted, if a concept cannot be answered - taught - in layman's terms, well then, I guess those interested can get a doctorate. By the way, I listened to Dr. Feynman's lectures some time ago -- he's very engaging and understandable.

 

[YoursTrue]

one again, you are asking question that cannot be answered simply, with a yes or no.

And as I am not a biologist, my answer would too long and cumbersome.

All I am saying that only animals exhibit consciousness...animals with systems of nerves, whether it be a complex or basic system.

Plants and fungi don’t possess nerves, they have no neuron. They are living organisms, but they are not conscious or sentient organisms.

I have already given example of creature with simple nervous system that are conscious. Another marine invertebrates that possessed simple nervous systems, but exhibited no signs of being conscious - they are the sponges (phylum Porifera).

As noted, if a concept cannot be answered - taught - in layman's terms, well then, I guess those interested can get a doctorate. By the way, I listened to Dr. Feynman's lectures some time ago -- he's very engaging and understandable.