Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Robert.Evans]

Yeah, straight up. Calling it luck ignores all the problems, all the extinctions, all the suboptimal designs, even when you are assigning subjective values.

But there are always prototypes in design aren't there?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Simple: it is not sheer luck and chance. If you can call luck the fate of +90% of all species that have lived on the planet.

Ciao

- viole

It is as regards random mutations, which must act as their title suggests, otherwise NS has nothing to act open.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why does everything want to live?

 

[Kirran]

But there are always prototypes in design aren't there?

Yes. But in evolution, every species can be said to be a finished product, as it is no way existing so as to be improved upon.

Why does everything want to live?

It doesn't. A bacterium doesn't want to live, a virus doesn't want to live, it just does.

The proportion of stars in the Universe which are white dwarfs is continually increasing, because they are the most long-lived and stable form of star. This is exactly the same as the principles behind the ToE.

 

[Kirran]

The idea of random mutations bringing about everything we see has to be questioned I think. If we were to roll a die with a million sides and we needed a six, the chances of a six coming up are one in a million. If there were only one roll of the die, then we could be certain that there would be no reason us waiting for the answer, as the chances of it landing on another number are too great. But we also now that the law of probabilities says that the rolls of the die that are played, the greater the chance of a six coming up.

Now firstly, there is no actualy ''law of probablities''. Yet it appears to work.

Even if the die had been rolled for a million times, six might not come up; it might take ten million rolls of the die before it did. But this is based on something crucial, and that is, every roll of the die has to be rolled in a slightly different way, so that friction and the basic dynamics of the movement of the die will bring about a different number. So we see that there has to be parameters around the 'game' of rolling the die.

But even then we still only have a one in a million chance on the short odds. It is only on the long odds, (continually rolling the die), that we can assume a six will come up. So there has to be certain parameters. If we said that the die had no idea what it was supposed to be doing, and that someone had put parameters in to make the six come up at some point, it would make sense. There appears to be a random side which brings up whatever it wills, and then parameters to make sure that it brings up the correct number.

What if the random side does not want to bring up the six, and it is the parameters that eventually force it to do just that.

The reason I ask if because of the simple point that, each roll of the die is still one in a million. To me that is mind blowing that it would EVER at any point in time, EVER come up on a six! Why would it? Every roll means there are near 1 million chances of some other number coming up.

Something has to make it come up. Something has to force the odds.

When we use the law of probability, we are saying that odds seem to have a memory. But who really thinks that they do? No one I would guess.

So I find this idea of random mutations somehow bringing about something better, and that NS acts upon it, somewhat strained.

But if the odds have a memory, then it is conscious.

We don't JUST need a six. Each number it might fall on has certain traits affecting the organism. It's not like all other numbers result in death, or in no change.

And of course, the parameters result in mutation, if you go really into it - where the UV ray strikes, the position of the DNA plymerase as it misses a base pair, etc. But its functionally random.

Random mutations almost always DON'T bring about something 'better', as if that was a valid term in this case. They result in any and all sorts of changes, or even in no changes (silent/synonymous mutations).

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes. But in evolution, every species can be said to be a finished product, as it is no way existing so as to be improved upon.

That is a good point.

It doesn't. A bacterium doesn't want to live, a virus doesn't want to live, it just does.
.

Which begs the question, Why?

 

[viole]

Why does everything want to live?

Because it would be dead otherwise. And dead ones do not want anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

We don't JUST need a six. Each number it might fall on has certain traits affecting the organism. It's not like all other numbers result in death, or in no change.

Okay. Good point again. So you are saying that all changes happen they just aren't all retained, is that it?

And of course, the parameters result in mutation, if you go really into it - where the UV ray strikes, the position of the DNA plymerase as it misses a base pair, etc. But its functionally random.

Can you go into that more, in simple terms?

Random mutations almost always DON'T bring about something 'better', as if that was a valid term in this case. They result in any and all sorts of changes, or even in no changes (silent/synonymous mutations).

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because it would be dead otherwise. And dead ones do not want anything.

Ciao

- viole

Was that a joke. I doesn't really engage with the question. Even I am aware that something dead does not want anything.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why does everything want to live?

In the philisophical sense it is because I desire to. It is an innate want.

However evolutionary it is explained as a will to survive and to produce offspring. It is the most basic of the basic needs for success in evolution.

 

[viole]

Was that a joke. I doesn't really engage with the question. Even I am aware that something dead does not want anything.

Oh, you were serious? Ok, let's analyze this.

You asked why everything wants to live. I am not sure everything wants to live. I doubt, for instance, that my car wants to live.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

DNA fails to copy accurately.
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are “naturally-occurring.” For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA—and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.

Evolution 101: The Causes of Mutations
___

I actually like that one. It fits very nicely with my Theology.

 

[Kirran]

That is a good point.

Thankyou.

Which begs the question, Why?

Why? Well, I suppose because it is of insufficient complexity to do so.

Because it would be dead otherwise. And dead ones do not want anything.

I'll be honest, I think assigning 'desires' to lifeforms on such a general level mystifies this process.

Okay. Good point again. So you are saying that all changes happen they just aren't all retained, is that it?

What I was saying more that whatever number the die lands on, that has a different impact on the organism, or no impact, it isn't trying to get a specific number. Numbers just happen, and then selection occurs based on whatever numbers have shown up.

Although actually, what you thought I said is also a very good point. Certainly, it can be said that of all mutations which occur, the vast majority are weeded out by selection, leaving only those which enhance the reproductive success of the organism in question.

Can you go into that more, in simple terms?

I'll give it a try.

Basically, for all practical purposes, we can assume that mutations occur randomly.

But really, if we could map every particle, its charge and spin and motion etc, we could predict what mutations would occur.

Essentially, all mutations occur because the replicatory machinery, the proteins used in the cell to replicate DNA, and to recombine DNA in sperm cells and egg cells, aren't perfect. They make mistakes. Sometimes these are just due to them messing up, basically, and sometimes due to UV light or some mutagenic (mutation-causing) chemical. This is why smoking, barbecued meat and a lot of time in bright sun can give us cancer - they encourage mutations.

Does that explain this clearly?

 

[Robert.Evans]

In the philisophical sense it is because I desire to. It is an innate want.

However evolutionary it is explained as a will to survive and to produce offspring. It is the most basic of the basic needs for success in evolution.

But where is the ''will'' in something without a mind?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Oh, you were serious? Ok, let's analyze this.

You asked why everything wants to live. I am not sure everything wants to live. I doubt, for instance, that my car wants to live.

Ciao

- viole

You just get funnier.

 

[viole]

It is as regards random mutations, which must act as their title suggests, otherwise NS has nothing to act open.

Can you think of a better source of new fresh information than a random mutation?

I would be more surprised to see complexity without selected random mutations, than the other way round.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kirran]

DNA fails to copy accurately.
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are “naturally-occurring.” For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA—and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.

Evolution 101: The Causes of Mutations
___

I actually like that one. It fits very nicely with my Theology.

Yeah, that's mutation. Our systems aren't perfect, so we make mistakes.

While I can see how that would map to your theology, what I'd like to point out is that there isn't a disproportionate level of beneficial mutations. The vast majority have no impact whatsoever, and a huge number result in reduced function. An organism is a very finely-tuned machine, and so the vast majority of differences in programming make it less reproductively fit.

 

[Kirran]

You just get funnier.

Honestly, I think a car and a bacteria both 'want' to live about the same amount. That is to say, they don't. They aren't capable of such a desire.

Non-Bob people: I think using the term 'will to live' is clouding the issue here.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thankyou.



Why? Well, I suppose because it is of insufficient complexity to do so.



I'll be honest, I think assigning 'desires' to lifeforms on such a general level mystifies this process.



What I was saying more that whatever number the die lands on, that has a different impact on the organism, or no impact, it isn't trying to get a specific number.

Although actually, what you thought I said is also a very good point. Certainly, it can be said that of all mutations which occur, the vast majority are weeded out by selection, leaving only those which enhance the reproductive success of the organism in question.



I'll give it a try.

Basically, for all practical purposes, we can assume that mutations occur randomly.

But really, if we could map every particle, its charge and spin and motion etc, we could predict what mutations would occur.

Essentially, all mutations occur because the replicatory machinery, the proteins used in the cell to replicate DNA, and to recombine DNA in sperm cells and egg cells, aren't perfect. They make mistakes. Sometimes these are just due to them messing up, basically, and sometimes due to UV light or some mutagenic (mutation-causing) chemical. This is why smoking, barbecued meat and a lot of time in bright sun can give us cancer - they encourage mutations.

Does that explain this clearly?

I guess it does. Though is it not interesting of those example you gave that they end up with something detrimental? I mean, can think of something that now in our times is beneficial? I am guessing not.

The why question comes to mind again.

Though the mechanisms that do not copy correctly, are also suggestive of a reflective memory (in a way) are they not, as they show that we forget things, mix things up. What do you think?

 

[Ouroboros]

Unless, of course, God is existence.

Exactly.