Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

i have told You countless times, that not all living organisms have consciousness. Only animals with nervous systems - sensory nervous systems & central nervous systems have consciousness, while others have sensory systems and nerve nets would have limited consciousness. You won’t acknowledge that too.

I told you the very first time you said it that not only do I disagree but most scientists don't think animals are sentient. You are alone in your belief that butterflies are sentient. well, alone in the scientific community. I believe that not only do butterflies in China cause hurricanes but they are completely conscious. While they can't predict or cause hurricanes through intent I'm fairly sure they know they are causing them. Their brains don't work like yours. They don't know anything except the experience of consciousness and what they need to know to be a butterfly. They know the future is determined by patterns they rarely comprehend and what exists in the here and now. They know they can affect the future by acting through will in the here and now. They know that they have will and instinct that will aid them in success and that efficiency and proper behavior are more likely to be rewarded than waste and not paying attention.

All you can do is tell me what your models generate and you have shown that your models mostly generate and support what you've read in books. This is great if the books are right but as I've told you countless times and you ignore, I believe the books are all wrong. You are not addressing my arguments but lecturing about what you believe.

 

[gnostic]

You can't even see posts that you disagree with. You mine them for soundbites.

Yes, I believe ALL life is individual and I believe ALL life is conscious. Consciousness is the tool that nature provides to succeed. No not for species to succeed because "species" is an abstraction. It is a tool for individuals. Trees don't need as much ability to recognize patterns or exercise free will as a whale.

well, you all talk, but no substance.

you keep claiming you have done the experiments, but never able to support your claims.

Since you are claiming all living organisms are conscious organisms. Then you’d need some demonstrable evidence that organisms without any nerve tissues, like trees for example, to be conscious organisms.

You have positive claim about trees, then it falls upon you to demonstrate it is so.

Claims are not evidence. Making claims don’t make them true, credible or realistic. Claims are just words.

Show evidence, or cite scientific sources, otherwise acknowledge you have made mistake, regarding to trees.



And btw, consciousness is not the same thing as “free-will”. That’s another error.

 

[cladking]

well, you all talk, but no substance.

you keep claiming you have done the experiments, but never able to support your claims.

You forget the flying cockroaches, upside down flies, and the actual experiments I've cited. you've forgotten dozens of examples.

Since you are claiming all living organisms are conscious organisms. Then you’d need some demonstrable evidence that organisms without any nerve tissues, like trees for example, to be conscious organisms.

You have positive claim about trees, then it falls upon you to demonstrate it is so.

I can show many sorts of animals are sentient through numerous observations and anecdotal evidence but then you don't remember.

I have a little running joke that when I walk by a small sassafras tree with a shovel the leaves wilt. Try moving a few and you might see the point. I've seen yew trees that spread pollen not correlated to the degree of shaking caused by the wind but rather by wind direction. You are assuming an acorn wiggles around before sending down a taproot because of external forces. I am making no such assumption. An acorn could by some means sense bare soil and change its center of gravity to position itself.

But then you know everything and I know nothing at all. But I can still see an acorn wiggling around and then sending a root between sticks and stones and hitting bare dirt most of the time. Maybe it's instinct eh?

I believe all of your assumptions and premises are wrong just like all of Darwin's.

 

[cladking]

Show evidence, or cite scientific sources, otherwise acknowledge you have made mistake, regarding to trees.

Unlike you, I could be wrong. I don't think I am or I wouldn't believe it. But there can be no "mistake". It is simply derivative of my models. If the models are correct there's a very good chance that trees are conscious. As I've pointed out before and was ignored even single celled slime molds exhibit signs of consciousness so why can't a tree or an acorn which shares many many genes with humans also be conscious? Which gene do you think carries sentience?

Now you'll ignore all this and lecture me about what you believe based on Peer opinion.

 

[cladking]

But then you know everything and I know nothing at all. But I can still see an acorn wiggling around and then sending a root between sticks and stones and hitting bare dirt most of the time. Maybe it's instinct eh?

I can imagine many different ways that an acorn could know where the soil is. Most of these are so subtle that they are probably beyond the ability of science to measure at this time. But thank God there will always be heretics to come up with new ideas and new inventions so someday we might be able to know how they do it even if we still can't talk to them. Alas they probably wouldn't have much to say anyway.

 

[cladking]

Alas they probably wouldn't have much to say anyway.

Survival of the fittest!!!! Any thinking acorn can do this and don't need no stinkin' fitness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you miss the part where I explained that this phenomenon is also seen in GA's and that I actually worked with those?

This is not "just what science says". This is very demonstrable.

GA's do not mean that evolution occurs as in the Darwinian formula. If you and others figure they do, == Have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

so basically, what you are really saying, is that genetics don’t happen, or genetics don’t work? It is just magic?

No, I'm not saying that.

 

[John53]

GA's do not mean that evolution occurs as in the Darwinian formula. If you and others figure they do, == Have a good evening.

What is the Darwinian formula?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why don't you humor me and tell me the Survival Quotient of any living thing?

If you can't quantify then quit suggesting you can.

Now you'll ignore this and the next time I challenge you you'll say you've already done it.

Saying you addressed the argument is not the same thing as actually addressing it. I've had to repeat myself hundreds of times but apparently you can't do it once.

I explained to you that reality is so ridiculously complex that it is near impossible to express it in any meaningful way as a unit.
This is different in GA's, where the "environment" is a lot simpler and where all variable are under your control. The "fitness score" in a GA is a thing. It's quite a crucial thing actually as that is the score by how one identifies the "best performers" and how the algorithm picks those who will produce the next generation.

In the real world, there are simply far to many variables to account for. Much of those variables are also to unknown for us to identify in predictive ways.
Unpredictable things happen in reality all the time. Like a new virus showing up or environmental changes as a result of some volcano 1000kms away or what-have-you.
All those things would have to be included in the calculation of the "fitness score" of an individual.

I explained this multiple times already.
I predict you will continue posting as if I didn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You caught me. i didn't really read it the first time and i didn't read it now.

Off course you didn't. And won't.

If you were paying attention you'd have seen I specifically stated numerous times I don't believe in PE. I still don't believe in PE.

You don't even know what it is about. And you just acknowledged also that you aren't interested in learning what it is about.
So yeah....................

I never in my entire life have said I support, believe in, or think things evolve through PE.
I believe consciousness is fundamental to life and ALL of its changes. Not PE. Not Darwinism, And certainly not survivalability.

Your beliefs are, by your own acknowledgement, rooted in willful ignorance and can therefor be safely ignored.

And then you complain that we don't engage with your points..... Your points are rooted in ignorance. There is nothing to engage there. All we can do is point out that they are rooted in ignorance.

As I said previously, it's like demanding people to engage with an argument of how purple tastes like. There is no point in doing that. All we can do is point to the false notions that colors have a "taste".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On the basis of WHAT experiment are you concluding I was given the correct information?

Observation of the real world and every GA ever used.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You caught me. i didn't really read it the first time and i didn't read it now.

You can't even see posts that you disagree with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unlike you, I could be wrong.

How would you ever find out, if you refuse to learn about the subjects you are so hellbend on arguing against, as you have literally just acknowledged?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

GA's do not mean that evolution occurs as in the Darwinian formula. If you and others figure they do, == Have a good evening.

GA's are literally models based on the principles of evolution.

If evolution as a mechanism doesn't work, then GA's shouldn't work either.

But off course, GA's do work. Very well. In fact, they are at the heart of things like machine learning.
They work so well that companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to software companies to build them GA based optimization modules to come up with solutions to problems that their best engineers can't come up with.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.



GA's only work because evolution works. If evolution didn't work, then GA's wouldn't work either.

 

[cladking]

You don't really know what punctuated equilibrium is, do you?
You seem to think it contradicts "mainstream" evolution and / or seem to imply that only a marginal amount of scientists accept it.

No!

or seem to imply that only a marginal amount of scientists accept it.

When I studied "Evolution" it was not widely accepted but I believe in NEITHER.

At generation 0, initial conditions are set in place, with a set number of selection pressures. These pressures are kept stable.

I'm not sure what this means. I believe it is where I quit reading the first time because I don't believe in PE anyway.

The process starts and the population starts to evolve in function of the selection pressures.

I disagree. There is no selection, no population, and no starting and stopping of anything related to change in species.

After some time, the population will have reached to so called "local optimum".

Everything is always at "optimum" because all things affect all other things all the time.

If you want to define a food shortage as "non-optimum" then you are overlooking the other life forms that benefit from it.

This is a state of "maximal adaption" in context of the selection pressures. This does NOT mean there aren't "better solutions".

I have no clue what this means. Are you saying that when all the rabbits are fat and sassy they could be fatter and sassier? So what?

What it does mean, is that no more, or extremely little, new evolutionary pathways exist towards further better adaption.

There is neither such a thing as Evolution nor paths to it.

For example, if a hypothetical better solution existed, it might require the population to take 10 steps back to then take an alternative evolutionary pathway to get to that solution. It can no longer get there by mere incremental, gradual steps each of which yields beneficial results over the previous state.

There is no such thing as a better species, better individual, or better pathway.

These are all mental gymnastics and circular reasoning.

When the "local optimum" is reached, the "state" of the population stabilizes. Meaning that little further evolution will be taking place since very little, if any, potential additional change yields beneficial results. So natural selection will start favoring the status quo.

If you're trying to say stable conditions lead to stable populations and little change in species then I agree.

Change in species isn't about "beneficial results", it's about the nature of life to fit its niche as well as the random forces that affect individuals and populations.

You really tip your hand here since your term suggests the most fit are most worthy of being fit. Todays rabbits are no better or worse than rabbits ever. They are merely different and each is different than the last.

The sum up:
- in periods of environmental stability, species will eventually reach a stage of "local optimum" which will result in evolution stabilizing as well (= slowing down).
- following periods of environment change, local optimums will move and the rate of evolution will speed up again, till the next local optimum is reached again.

This is so blatantly obvious I'm surprised Darwin didn't come up with it.



Now I read your little diatribe why not answer my questions and address my points?

 

[cladking]

(genetic algorithms)


And, yes, I've noticed you toss around "GA" like it's the gospel of God or Peers but you never defined it. "Gospel Accompli".

I asked for the "fitness quotient" for any individual and apparently GA is just a restatement of the believe in "Evolution".

 

[cladking]

How would you ever find out, if you refuse to learn about the subjects you are so hellbend on arguing against, as you have literally just acknowledged?

You are assuming you are right. How will I ever learn if I don't agree with you? This is why we are having this discussion, I do NOT agree with you and I believe you are wrong. So instead of lecturing me about your beliefs address my argument!

 

[Pogo]

(genetic algorithms)


And, yes, I've noticed you toss around "GA" like it's the gospel of God or Peers but you never defined it. "Gospel Accompli".

I asked for the "fitness quotient" for any individual and apparently GA is just a restatement of the believe in "Evolution".

Here you go, a mathematical description of fitness, the equations are simple but difficult to apply without extremely controlled environments which rarely exist in nature.

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Otherwise all of your above just says you have no idea what evolution is even though you insist on using the terms with your own unrelated definitions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I studied "Evolution" it was not widely accepted but I believe in NEITHER.

When was that? In 1971? Perhaps it's time to update your knowledge a bit.

I'm not sure what this means.

Uhu. Someone who has a basic understanding of evolution, would know what it means.

I believe it is where I quit reading the first time because I don't believe in PE anyway.

"I have no clue what it means or how it works or what it is and this text explaining it is too hard to understand for me, but I don't believe it anyway so why bother trying to understand it"

~cladking logic


This is why nobody takes you seriously.
Why would I even bother with the rest of your post if this is the mentality you bring to the table?
Any discussion with a closed mind like yours is utterly futile anyway.

I disagree. There is no selection, no population, and no starting and stopping of anything related to change in species.

You can disagree all you want, but it's exactly what happens in both GA's as well as in the real world.

Everything is always at "optimum" because all things affect all other things all the time.

No and doesn't follow.

If you want to define a food shortage as "non-optimum"

Makes no sense. This is one of those things that you say only because you have no clue and refuse to learn.

then you are overlooking the other life forms that benefit from it.

Ow, so you are saying that there are other life forms that are more successful then others at gathering this limited resource known as "food", ha? How about that.

I have no clue what this means.

Uhu. But you don't believe it anyway, right?

There is neither such a thing as Evolution nor paths to it.

There is no such thing as a better species, better individual, or better pathway.

These are all mental gymnastics and circular reasoning.

If you're trying to say stable conditions lead to stable populations and little change in species then I agree.

Hallelulia.

Now, what will happen to stable populations and rate of change in those species when the stable conditions become unstable and change to something else, with different / altered selection pressures?

Let's try an easy one....
Polar bears are white. They are adapted for hunting against the white background of snow.
Now suppose that over the course of a few dozen generations, this snow melts and the grey/brown background comes through and overtakes the white snowy background.

What will happen to the color of Polar bears, assuming they don't go extinct?
What polar bear will be likely more successful in the hunt? The one that stays completely white? Or the one that has white fur with some grey/brown patches to match the new background?

How would you rate the overall fitness (= quantitative measure of reproductive success) of these 2 polar bears?
Which one will be more likely successful in survival and eventual reproduction?

Change in species isn't about "beneficial results", it's about the nature of life to fit its niche as well

So change that makes an individual "fit its niche" better, isn't about "beneficial results"?

You really tip your hand here since your term suggests the most fit are most worthy of being fit.

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

This is so blatantly obvious I'm surprised Darwin didn't come up with it.

IOW: you believe in PE.

Now I read your little diatribe why not answer my questions and address my points?

Which ones?
And remember, if your points and questions are rooted in falsehoods and / or ignorance, my response will be to point those out.