Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

Not all organisms have a brain and for those with brains, the level of awareness or consciousness varies broadly, right? Granted, you admit that this is merely speculation on your part, but I cannot see how mere consciousness of some organisms is the linchpin to understanding all of life, especially in light of the fact that initially, there only existed single celled organisms for the first one to two billion years. Given that mutation and change occurred during this period, I do not see consciousness being an active agent in mutation as you are suggesting here.

Given that the numerically and volumetrically dominant forms of life on Earth are microorganisms that do not exhibit evidence of consciousness, I don't see any reason it needs to be included in a theory of evolution.

 

[John53]

That assumes that fish with functional eyes are aware of what eyes are and that they have them. Are you really suggesting that?

Fisho omniscience

 

[MikeF]

I specifically stated that the loss of eyes in cave dwelling species may be one of the most gradual of changes in species. Individuals would hardly even know they had eyes.

Ok, but you said that most of the real change is in a single generation and then gave the example of cave fish which you stated could take a few more generations, clarification on "a few generations" to mean "grand babies, or great grandbabies".
Here:

Most of the real change is in a single generation. However, generations interbreed and many of the most dramatic changes in appearance (like loss of eyes in cave fish) are going to show up over at least a few more generations. While parent and offspring will usually appear to be quite similar the biggest difference are often invisible and won't show up until the grand babies, or great grandbabies arise.

I find it impossible that any "real change" can occur throughout a population in one generation or even three. Let's say a fish embryo of sighted parents undergoes a mutation such that it is born blind. How can the change expressed as genetic-based blindness in that individual spread to all individuals of the third generation of that population of fish?

 

[Valjean]

Just like assuming that a survivor must be fit is a circular arguments so too is assuming a species that doesn't "evolve" has had no selection pressure because it hasn't changed is a circular argument.

You've apparently redefined circular argument.

Nobody, no expert, and nobody with enormous visceral knowledge can just look at something and understand it. Our species is not logical so our opinions mean nothing no matter how much education or how many grants we have. Look and see Science is not the same as real science that is necessarily based on experiment.

Visceral knowledge is the only real knowledge but all things affect all other things so nobody has sufficient visceral knowledge to understand anything at all. Reality is very highly complex but our thinking is always very simple. We reduce things to models to understand so models must be founded in experiment.

 

[Valjean]

No. "Maladaptive" here is intended to mean any behavior likely to produce undesirable results. Humans don't need to make sense or produce good results. Therefore bad behavior and bad results are promoted resulting in devolution of the species. It should be remembered that homo omnisciencis is distinct from all other life. In most meaningful ways humans are different because we have complex language and act on beliefs instead of logic.

Undesirable to whom? Undesirable in what way?
A peacock's tail or Irish elk's antlers are/were serious encumbrances and metabolically expensive. They decrease the individual's health and increase its liklihood of death. This is undesirable from the standpoint of the individual, but it's sexually selective, and desirable from the genome's standpoint.

 

[cladking]

Not all organisms have a brain and for those with brains, the level of awareness or consciousness varies broadly, right?

No.

I believe "consciousness" is largely a matter of on or off. Obviously types of consciousness vary considerably and a gnat is not going to have the breadth and depth of conscious as a whale. A single celled slime mold has much of its "brain" external to its body. It knows very very little and is capable of learning very little more. More complex organisms have very little limitation but they can still only operate within the confines of the way they think which is strictly logical. To understand abstractions would require more capacity than most animals possess and it would have to occur within their language of which we are incapable at this time.

Part of the problem with communicating these ideas is that you believe in "intelligence" and I do not. I don't believe a condition exists in any life form that we call "intelligence". I believe all intelligence is actually an event and I call it "cleverness" for lack of a better word. In a nutshell there is precious little difference in the cleverness of a man and a porpoise. The difference is not intelligence, the difference is every porpoise must understand life and its world starting from square one. But a human has complex language with which he learns all the knowledge and wisdom of the last 4 to 40 thousand years. We start from square 150,000 where a dolphin starts from square one. Dolphins are little less intelligent but far less knowledgeable yet most people aren't even aware that it is language that sets us apart from all other life. Because of language we also start with superstition and illogic.

There must be "levels of awareness" since even an oak tree is conscious but it would be easy to overestimate the importance of such levels. An oak tree apparently needs little consciousness to thrive but still its nature is impossible to see from our perspective at this time. All we can do is speculate about what kind of behavior is adaptive for a tree and how the consciousness improves the odds of survival. There has been quite a bit of experimentation into these branches the last half century but still little is known.

Consciousness is primarily for survival but obviously it plays a significant role in reproduction and mate selection. Individuals avoid unhealthy, stupid, and dreary mates. Everyone wants a live one. Indeed, only the fastest most energetic sperm will fertilize most eggs. Even gametes are looking for a live one.

 

[cladking]

Undesirable to whom? Undesirable in what way?
A peacock's tail or Irish elk's antlers are/were serious encumbrances and metabolically expensive. They increase the individual's health and liklihood of death. This is undesirable from the standpoint of the individual, but it's sexually selective, and desirable from the genome's standpoint.

Things that promote the commonweal are desirable. Things that damage the commonweal are undesirable. Every animal understands this but humans think greed is good and anything that promotes the individual even at enormous cost to the commonweal is good. We are maladaptive. Life is not. We are illogical, nature and consciousness are not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

I believe "consciousness" is largely a matter of on or off. Obviously types of consciousness vary considerably and a gnat is not going to have the breadth and depth of conscious as a whale. A single celled slime mold has much of its "brain" external to its body. It knows very very little and is capable of learning very little more. More complex organisms have very little limitation but they can still only operate within the confines of the way they think which is strictly logical. To understand abstractions would require more capacity than most animals possess and it would have to occur within their language of which we are incapable at this time.

Part of the problem with communicating these ideas is that you believe in "intelligence" and I do not. I don't believe a condition exists in any life form that we call "intelligence". I believe all intelligence is actually an event and I call it "cleverness" for lack of a better word. In a nutshell there is precious little difference in the cleverness of a man and a porpoise. The difference is not intelligence, the difference is every porpoise must understand life and its world starting from square one. But a human has complex language with which he learns all the knowledge and wisdom of the last 4 to 40 thousand years. We start from square 150,000 where a dolphin starts from square one. Dolphins are little less intelligent but far less knowledgeable yet most people aren't even aware that it is language that sets us apart from all other life. Because of language we also start with superstition and illogic.

There must be "levels of awareness" since even an oak tree is conscious but it would be easy to overestimate the importance of such levels. An oak tree apparently needs little consciousness to thrive but still its nature is impossible to see from our perspective at this time. All we can do is speculate about what kind of behavior is adaptive for a tree and how the consciousness improves the odds of survival. There has been quite a bit of experimentation into these branches the last half century but still little is known.

Consciousness is primarily for survival but obviously it plays a significant role in reproduction and mate selection. Individuals avoid unhealthy, stupid, and dreary mates. Everyone wants a live one. Indeed, only the fastest most energetic sperm will fertilize most eggs. Even gametes are looking for a live one.

So you have a lot of beliefs about consciousness. Not any evidence, but a lot of beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Things that promote the commonweal are desirable. Things that damage the commonweal are undesirable. Every animal understands this but humans think greed is good and anything that promotes the individual even at enormous cost to the commonweal is good. We are maladaptive. Life is not. We are illogical, nature and consciousness are not.

More personal beliefs. Nothing to compel serious consideration as meaningful.

"Every animal understands this" is a statement of faith without any evidence to show it is a statement of fact.

You like to throw in the word "commonweal". Yeah, I get that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Things that promote the commonweal are desirable. Things that damage the commonweal are undesirable. Every animal understands this but humans think greed is good and anything that promotes the individual even at enormous cost to the commonweal is good. We are maladaptive. Life is not. We are illogical, nature and consciousness are not.

Do you think elephants vote Republican out of a desire to promote the integrity and stability of the United States or because they think it makes them look sexy?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

I believe "consciousness" is largely a matter of on or off. Obviously types of consciousness vary considerably and a gnat is not going to have the breadth and depth of conscious as a whale. A single celled slime mold has much of its "brain" external to its body. It knows very very little and is capable of learning very little more. More complex organisms have very little limitation but they can still only operate within the confines of the way they think which is strictly logical. To understand abstractions would require more capacity than most animals possess and it would have to occur within their language of which we are incapable at this time.

Part of the problem with communicating these ideas is that you believe in "intelligence" and I do not. I don't believe a condition exists in any life form that we call "intelligence". I believe all intelligence is actually an event and I call it "cleverness" for lack of a better word. In a nutshell there is precious little difference in the cleverness of a man and a porpoise. The difference is not intelligence, the difference is every porpoise must understand life and its world starting from square one. But a human has complex language with which he learns all the knowledge and wisdom of the last 4 to 40 thousand years. We start from square 150,000 where a dolphin starts from square one. Dolphins are little less intelligent but far less knowledgeable yet most people aren't even aware that it is language that sets us apart from all other life. Because of language we also start with superstition and illogic.

There must be "levels of awareness" since even an oak tree is conscious but it would be easy to overestimate the importance of such levels. An oak tree apparently needs little consciousness to thrive but still its nature is impossible to see from our perspective at this time. All we can do is speculate about what kind of behavior is adaptive for a tree and how the consciousness improves the odds of survival. There has been quite a bit of experimentation into these branches the last half century but still little is known.

Consciousness is primarily for survival but obviously it plays a significant role in reproduction and mate selection. Individuals avoid unhealthy, stupid, and dreary mates. Everyone wants a live one. Indeed, only the fastest most energetic sperm will fertilize most eggs. Even gametes are looking for a live one.

I would describe this as a syncretic creationist position. Sort of a potpourri of dribs and drabs of history, the Bible, science, philosophy, misunderstanding and imagination all thrown into a bucket and shaken about until the above comes out. Like a medley of unsupported ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would describe this as a syncretic creationist position. Sort of a potpourri of dribs and drabs of history, the Bible, science, philosophy, misunderstanding and imagination all thrown into a bucket and shaken about until the above comes out. Like a medley of unsupported ideas.

It is often ripe with emotional, rather moralistic and dramatic hyperbole, logical fallacies and what I see as useless attempts at trash talk to people that have become frustrated trying to get a straight answer with some evidence and explanation.

 

[cladking]

You've apparently redefined circular argument.

Not really. I'm just looking at it from another angle. One starts with the assumption that the fit survive preferentially to the weak and then sees it in the survival of the fittest.

...later

 

[John53]

Not really. I'm just looking at it from another angle. One starts with the assumption that the fit survive preferentially to the weak and then sees it in the survival of the fittest.

...later

One doesn't start with any assumptions, one examines the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not really. I'm just looking at it from another angle. One starts with the assumption that the fit survive preferentially to the weak and then sees it in the survival of the fittest.

...later

So you can show us that fitness originated this way. You must be able to, since you keep claiming it is so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One doesn't start with any assumptions, one examines the evidence.

@cladking has claimed he reasons in circles and he never provides evidence. Clearly coming up with unverified assumptions, considering them to be factual without any reason and then using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion is the way to go.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not really. I'm just looking at it from another angle. One starts with the assumption that the fit survive preferentially to the weak and then sees it in the survival of the fittest.

...later

What's your angle?

 

[John53]

What's your angle?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not really. I'm just looking at it from another angle. One starts with the assumption that the fit survive preferentially to the weak and then sees it in the survival of the fittest.

...later

Have you actually read any science on fitness are do you do as it seems. Argue cold with little or no information other than what you imagine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

View attachment 83795

Aaarrrgggghhh!

Dang! You scare 10 years off of me.

Duck Season!