Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Kirran]

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.

How do you mean? Almost every trait possessed by every organism is beneficial to it in terms of its reproductive success, because otherwise these traits wouldn't have been retained. You mean in terms of mutations we've seen occurring? Well in bacteria we've seen them adapt to different environments through mutation countless times. You can see them do it in the lab.

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?

Reminiscent of it, yes, but I don't think suggestive.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Bacteria for example are engineered to do what is necessary for survival. When we developed more advanced cognitive capabilities and more and more our behaviors were less reactionary and more computative it is the logical procession within their development.

Though I think the distinction should be made that when I am referring to the "will to live" I am referring to the different functions within an organism that drive it along. I don't necessarily mean the same kind will as we would have to not eat cake when on a diet.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not trying to make an attack here, but I think if you say that a 'car needs a driver', you actually don't fully understand the ToE.

Right.

Regarding evolution, nature, God, etc, in this discussion, we can consider car and driver to be one. The car is the driver. The driver is the car.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Talking of mutations; have you ever heard of the Thalidomide children?

Not pleasant viewing, just to warn you.

thalidomide children - Google Search

The bad side of science

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

If you are saying that one needs a big bag of ingredients to pick from in order to make a nice stew, I agree.

 

[viole]

If you are saying that one needs a big bag of ingredients to pick from in order to make a nice stew, I agree.

Whatever do you mean? That is not even close to what I said.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kirran]

If you are saying that one needs a big bag of ingredients to pick from in order to make a nice stew, I agree.

For selection to occur, there must be variation. Variation arises ultimately from mutations.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Bacteria for example are engineered to do what is necessary for survival. When we developed more advanced cognitive capabilities and more and more our behaviors were less reactionary and more computative it is the logical procession within their development.

Though I think the distinction should be made that when I am referring to the "will to live" I am referring to the different functions within an organism that drive it along. I don't necessarily mean the same kind will as we would have to not eat cake when on a diet.

But how, and what is this, then, that ''drives it along''? That is what I asked about evolution, What drives it? I think it is Paul Davies that said that there seems to be an arrow through time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But how, and what is this, then, that ''drives it along''? That is what I asked about evolution, What drives it? I think it is Paul Davies that said that there seems to be an arrow through time.

Entropy marks the arrow of time. But that has little to do with what we are discussing. Basically the idea goes back to what survives and what doesn't. If certain systems are better at self sufficiency and reproduction then they will survive. This means that those organisms that have mechanisms that allow for greater reproduction and better survival will continue and pass on their superior genes.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Entropy marks the arrow of time. But that has little to do with what we are discussing. Basically the idea goes back to what survives and what doesn't. If certain systems are better at self sufficiency and reproduction then they will survive. This means that those organisms that have mechanisms that allow for greater reproduction and better survival will continue and pass on their superior genes.

Just as one might say that some thoughts are remembered and some are not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If mutations are mostly made by our own copying mechanisms not doing that good a job, then what if we say it is the other way round, and that those that are beneficial are doing a good job? Is that not allowed? Does it mean that there sounds like there is direction or intelligence involved?

Is it not possible that instead of undirected non-guided mutations, perhaps we are seeing a fight for survivial of information? Perhaps then the mutations are not just random effects, but rather following some other construct, intelligence perhaps.

Just as the mind picks and chooses through all the information we receive every day, so it appears evolution has to the same thing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Just as one might say that some thoughts are remembered and some are not.

Not exactly but in some cases yes. Its more like certain things are maintained. The essence of the matter is that they replicate themselves to create a population of similar organisms but not identical. Then there are trends that allow for the most successful to produce more offspring while less successful produce fewer or no offspring. In this way the condition of the gene pool would constantly be improving.

If there was a population of small animals that had short stubby legs and suddenly a new predator was introduced there would be now natural selection that would be put in place. Prior it didn't matter that the legs were short and stubby because they were not running from anything. But now they are. The ones with the shortest legs and therefore were the slowest would be killed of first. The ones with slightly longer legs and were slightly faster survived. They survived to produce several offspring that would then have a higher chance of living while the slower ones were systematically killed off. Eventually you get a population with slightly longer legs that are as a whole faster. But then one day a single animal was born that was far more slender than the rest. Now it has the "long leg" gene but now the "slender" mutation. That mutation allows this animal to be even faster. So the cycle rinses and repeated till that "slender" gene was passed on to the whole population.

Another population simply migrated before all of these changes happened. Now what was once one population is now two and lets say one migrated over the mountain and they no longer interbred with each other. In this new environment they needed eat a new type of food. The grasses in the old habitat were different than the harsher vine and leaf diet that they now have to adapt to. So in this way only the ones that were able to adapt and had genes already in place that allowed them to break down the food would survive. And eventually there will be mutations in their genes that assist their survival further. And then again and so on and so forth with just a single mutation at a time being passed along the population.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just as one might say that some thoughts are remembered and some are not.

Sorry Robert but that seems like another of your random comments.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If mutations are mostly made by our own copying mechanisms not doing that good a job, then what if we say it is the other way round, and that those that are beneficial are doing a good job? Is that not allowed? Does it mean that there sounds like there is direction or intelligence involved?

Is it not possible that instead of undirected non-guided mutations, perhaps we are seeing a fight for survivial of information? Perhaps then the mutations are not just random effects, but rather following some other construct, intelligence perhaps.

Just as the mind picks and chooses through all the information we receive every day, so it appears evolution has to the same thing.

The reason we say no is because mutations are very very very very very very very very very very rarely good. They are rarely bad as well. They are most of the time inconsequential. and boring. You right now have a number of genes that are only in existence because of prior mutations. Nearly every person (perhaps every single person) will have mutations. The overwhelming vast majority of these don't matter. The ones that do matter usually are harmful. So only the very very very few that are positive are passed on.

This doesn't seem to be the work of intelligence. Also the mutation has to already happen before. For example we have a small number with a mutation that is mostly beaning and then a change in the environment suddenly makes it desirable and effective.

If it were intelligently designed we wouldn't need evolution in the first place but beyond that we wouldn't need the shotgun style hit and miss that we have now with overwhelmingly low success rate.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The reason we say no is because mutations are very very very very very very very very very very rarely good. They are rarely bad as well. They are most of the time inconsequential. and boring. You right now have a number of genes that are only in existence because of prior mutations. Nearly every person (perhaps every single person) will have mutations. The overwhelming vast majority of these don't matter. The ones that do matter usually are harmful. So only the very very very few that are positive are passed on.

This doesn't seem to be the work of intelligence. Also the mutation has to already happen before. For example we have a small number with a mutation that is mostly beaning and then a change in the environment suddenly makes it desirable and effective.

If it were intelligently designed we wouldn't need evolution in the first place but beyond that we wouldn't need the shotgun style hit and miss that we have now with overwhelmingly low success rate.

Okay.... but if what you speak of is replicating thought processes in the first place, then this means the thought processes were doing the same thing. In other words, much like one might invisage a computer making many calculations, so the mind would be making many calculations, many thoughts, many alterations to what it knows once it gains something better to go off. We learn things in other words. But, from early thought, when there is nothing to draw from, how does one move thought processes forward? It is difficult. We do that now with comparative ease as we have things already known by others that we learn from. But the initial divine mind did not have that. So it is going to be a, trial and error, approach in order to work out what works and what doesn't. Now does that not sound similar to evolution?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not exactly but in some cases yes. Its more like certain things are maintained. The essence of the matter is that they replicate themselves to create a population of similar organisms but not identical. Then there are trends that allow for the most successful to produce more offspring while less successful produce fewer or no offspring. In this way the condition of the gene pool would constantly be improving.

If there was a population of small animals that had short stubby legs and suddenly a new predator was introduced there would be now natural selection that would be put in place. Prior it didn't matter that the legs were short and stubby because they were not running from anything. But now they are. The ones with the shortest legs and therefore were the slowest would be killed of first. The ones with slightly longer legs and were slightly faster survived. They survived to produce several offspring that would then have a higher chance of living while the slower ones were systematically killed off. Eventually you get a population with slightly longer legs that are as a whole faster. But then one day a single animal was born that was far more slender than the rest. Now it has the "long leg" gene but now the "slender" mutation. That mutation allows this animal to be even faster. So the cycle rinses and repeated till that "slender" gene was passed on to the whole population.

Another population simply migrated before all of these changes happened. Now what was once one population is now two and lets say one migrated over the mountain and they no longer interbred with each other. In this new environment they needed eat a new type of food. The grasses in the old habitat were different than the harsher vine and leaf diet that they now have to adapt to. So in this way only the ones that were able to adapt and had genes already in place that allowed them to break down the food would survive. And eventually there will be mutations in their genes that assist their survival further. And then again and so on and so forth with just a single mutation at a time being passed along the population.

One thought that comes to mind: why is it that when a long legged and short legged mate, that long legs are derived from that? Why did it not follow the shorter leg trait? Why does it move in a positive direction? It is almost as if it knows it has to, to survive.

I suppose your answer is that some are born longer and some shorter, and those longer live as they run faster, and so on and so forth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Okay.... but if what you speak of is replicating thought processes in the first place, then this means the thought processes were doing the same thing. In other words, much like one might invisage a computer making many calculations, so the mind would be making many calculations, many thoughts, many alterations to what it knows once it gains something better to go off. We learn things in other words. But, from early thought, when there is nothing to draw from, how does one move thought processes forward? It is difficult. We do that now with comparative ease as we have things already known by others that we learn from. But the initial divine mind did not have that. So it is going to be a, trial and error, approach in order to work out what works and what doesn't. Now does that not sound similar to evolution?

Trial and error from simple to complex does sound like evolution. What exactly are you adding that is not going to be evolution?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

One thought that comes to mind: why is it that when a long legged and short legged mate, that long legs are derived from that? Why did it not follow the shorter leg trait? Why does it move in a positive direction? It is almost as if it knows it has to, to survive.

I suppose your answer is that some are born longer and some shorter, and those longer live as they run faster, and so on and so forth.

Because the mutation for longer legs had to have already existed. And its possible that some of the offspring had short legs. However they would have been systematically removed. It is a percetange game after that. If I have 10 kids and if five of them inherit a "long leg trait" and five do not then the five that did inherit it would be more likely to survive. So maybe all five or 3 or 4 of them would survive to pass on that long leg gene while the other five die off or only one survives. The total number of animals with the long vs short leg gene would shift till the short leg gene is removed totally.

 

[McBell]

Talking of mutations; have you ever heard of the Thalidomide children?

Not pleasant viewing, just to warn you.

thalidomide children - Google Search

The bad side of science

One wonders why your god would do that to children...
That is your claim, is it not, that god did it, right?

 

[Kirran]

One wonders why your god would do that to children...
That is your claim, is it not, that god did it, right?

I believe he thinks of it more as an amoral intrinsic intelligence to the Universe, including the process of evolution.

Bob, there are different kinds of mutations, producing different kinds of allele (versions of a gene). Loss-of-function, gain-of-function. There's a scale of recessiveness and dominance, and you get codominance and corecessiveness, and then there's polygenic traits.

Anybody here know about the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium?

It's essentially a mathematical proof of evolution.