Mutation not random????

[ppp]

But just to be clear "fit" by any name does not exist. All individuals are equally adaptive or fit.

That is such a strange statement. Why do you think that?

 

[cladking]

That is such a strange statement. Why do you think that?

There's nothing "strange" about it, it is a simple observation.

When we see a fox fail to catch a rabbit we do not see the three consciousnesses involved. Most people don't even believe animals are really even conscious so they ascribe the failure of the fox to reflect its weakness or the rabbit's strength. We never consider that both animals may have been aware of our presence and acted differently because of it. We never consider simple luck and happenstance. The fox might have known that the rabbit was likely to get away but made a try of it anyway. Without an understanding of the rabbit's knowledge and genetics as well as its current condition we can make no real conclusions about how, or why, or likely it was to have gotten away. The amount of knowledge necessary is staggering but this can't even be begun until we understand the nature of consciousness.

But one rabbit being eaten or not eaten by one fox does not "evolution" make. Change in species is the vector sum total of every single thing happening principally in niches but also in the entire cosmos because everything affects everything else. We believe we can reduce rabbit dinners to understanding why fossils exist of creatures similar to animals which exist today by imagining data aren't needed and the fit survive but the simple fact of the matter is there are no experiments that show this and there are experiments that show it to be false as well as all observation shows it false. Niches undergo massive changes periodically and species change between these changes. Darwin mistakenly believed populations remain relatively stable but the reality is they do not and it is very low population that causes change in species.

The rabbit that got away from the fox largely through being alert and getting a good jump might have a blind spot for predators that rarely even hunt rabbits because they can't catch them. Perhaps its olfactory senses are hyperacute giving it an edge or it just knows when a fox is around. When the niche changes this perfectly healthy and robust individual may be at increased risk of dying. You'll jump up and say "that's exactly what fitness is" but it is not because every individual has an increased or decreased likelihood of thriving when the niche changes. If niches lasted forever then there would be a gradual change that favored the fit just like Darwin said but the changes in niches are more fundamental and might exclude almost every individual that acts like a rabbit. This leaves only individuals that don't act like a rabbit and it is they who create a new species virtually "overnight" (they might still breed like rabbits).

We have tried to reduce the remarkably complex into something that is simple (survival of the fittest) but the reality is every individual is equally fit but will thrive under completely different conditions. Obviously having some of the traits that are beneficial under changed conditions will give an individual somewhat better odds but this doesn't change the species, it merely reduces the genetic diversity and leads to a slight random walk in the nature of its species. It simply requires a population bottleneck that selects for unusual behavior to cause a change in species. It is this that accounts for the fossil record and every experiment. All changes in all life of every type is sudden. There are no gradual changes.

This being said an environment can obviously change in some specific ways over a very long period of time. The oxygen content can gradually increase over billions of years for instance. Such changes merely help to define niches and the types of life that can exist in them. Animals can get larger or smaller, for instance, but each species and each individual still change suddenly.

All individuals are equally fit and change in species is sudden. This does not mean that one rabbit has the exact same odds of getting away from a fox as another. Which rabbit (A or B) does Darwin think will get away? And, YES, it matters which gets away and NO, nobody can predict because both rabbits are equally fit and chance plays a very large role in everything to do with life and its effects on the individual.

"Consciousness" is key, not "fitness".

 

[ppp]

When we see a fox fail to catch a rabbit we do not see the three consciousnesses involved.

I assume that the third consciousness is the observer? In any case, we do not see consciousness. We see evidence of it.

Most people don't even believe animals are really even conscious

I don't know about 'most people', but outside of bad sci fi movies, the modern scientific consensus, while divided on the nature of animal consciousness, tip towards the positive. Especially among ethologists who study morality in non-human animals.

so they ascribe the failure of the fox to reflect its weakness or the rabbit's strength. We never consider that both animals may have been aware of our presence and acted differently because of it. We never consider simple luck and happenstance. The fox might have known that the rabbit was likely to get away but made a try of it anyway. Without an understanding of the rabbit's knowledge and genetics as well as its current condition we can make no real conclusions about how, or why, or likely it was to have gotten away. The amount of knowledge necessary is staggering but this can't even be begun until we understand the nature of consciousness.

None of this is true. Or relevant.

Fitness is not about whether the rabbit got away from the fox. Fitness is about whether a population of rabbits or foxes or humans or begonias (or whatever) with a given set of genes live long enough to pass those genes on to children.

If an ice age comes, the white rabbits that can blend into the snow will have a better chance, and their of offspring will flourish. If a desert forms, then the brown rabbits will do better.

My mother has thalassemia (alpha), so I may as well. If I do, and malaria makes a comeback in the United States, I may be more fit than those who do not carry the gene.

 

[cladking]

I don't know about 'most people', but outside of bad sci fi movies, the modern scientific consensus, while divided on the nature of animal consciousness, tip towards the positive. Especially among ethologists who study morality in non-human animals.

It is wholly irrelevant what any scientist believes about "consciousness" until there is a working definition and experimental evidence.

This failure of science has led to to almost every bad hypothesis ever dreamed up by any individual. The very nature of human consciousness makes it impossible for us to see many things such as the role of consciousness in evolution. And, yes, my working definition of "consciousness" is an "intelligent" awareness bestowed by Nature/ God (smoke 'em if you got 'em) that enables every individual to thrive under "any" condition". Consciousness is life and life is consciousness. There is no difference in the terms and all consciousness, all life, all ideas, and all knowledge is held ONLY by individuals. "Peers", herds, and committees are irrelevant except to the degree they are beneficial to individuals. There are no "species" which gradually change and all life is change (in the sense all things change). "Species" is a human concept with no referent in the real world because all life is individual. There is no rabbit but merely individuals which we believe can "breed like bunnies". But an individual "horse" and a "mouse" can't breed at all. Individuals usually select similar (albeit a different sex) individuals with which to mate. This is especially true outside of humans.

We believe we can reduce reality to definitions and axioms for study in the lab but the reality is some things are irreducible and in most ways consciousness and life are one of them. When you parse computer code or life nothing survives. When you reduce individuals its species doesn't somehow respect this. You can't understand species without understanding consciousness. Change in species is many many orders of magnitude more complex than consciousness or the consciousness of the of the individuals which compose this species. Bad methodology leads to bad results. Garbage In Garbage Out even if you didn't initially parse the code.

Fitness is about whether a population of rabbits or foxes or humans or begonias (or whatever) with a given set of genes live long enough to pass those genes on to children.

No. Every individual has unique genetic structure. Every individual has a different chance of success which can not be quantified or predicted. Every individual is equally fit and will best thrive under some specific conditions. When only individuals with different behavior survive in a bottleneck they breed a new species. This is what all the evidence suggests but is hard to see because of our perspective that ignores the very nature of life and hence defines how it changes in time.

 

[ppp]

It is wholly irrelevant what any scientist believes about "consciousness" until there is a working definition and experimental evidence.

This failure of science has led to to almost every bad hypothesis ever dreamed up by any individual. The very nature of human consciousness makes it impossible for us to see many things such as the role of consciousness in evolution. And, yes, my working definition of "consciousness" is an "intelligent" awareness bestowed by Nature/ God (smoke 'em if you got 'em) that enables every individual to thrive under "any" condition". Consciousness is life and life is consciousness

Is this a joke?

You just went from decrying science for not having evidence to making a bunch of bald assertions about the way that things actually are while presenting no evidence.

 

[cladking]

Is this a joke?

As I said; every experiment and observation support my contentions.

My statements about consciousness is only exactly what I said, "a working definition". I believe this is bourn out by experiment and observation as well, though obviously a "working" definition is not intended to be science itself. It is a platform for studying the nature of consciousness.

I've spent a lifetime coming up with the working definition. It will be someone else's job to learn all the details.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've spent a lifetime coming up with the working definition. It will be someone else's job to learn all the details.

So you come up with an assertion, and then you expect other people to do your homework to support it?



Don't hold your breath

 

[cladking]

So you come up with an assertion, and then you expect other people to do your homework to support it?



Don't hold your breath

I'm sure surprised you missed the part where I called it a working definition and the parts where I said every experiment and observation already agree with me.

Saving the human race from our follies is not my job. If you want to do science then you must build on the work of those who came before whether they were right or wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence for consciousness involved in causing, directing or guiding evolution. None. That is belief, speculation or conjecture without evidence. The only support I see for it is circular reasoning and a sort of double speak that says that a role exists without evidence.

Species change over time with change driven by the environment (selection). There is no evidence that speciation is driven by consciousness. There is no evidence that speciation is instantaneous.

Biological fitness is not a statement describing the general vigor of an individual. It is the net increase in reproductive success of a phenotype in relation to other phenotypes in a population. Not all individuals are equally fit. Claiming that they are makes no sense and is not supported by the evidence.

Biological fitness is not survival of the fittest.

 

[cladking]

There is no evidence for consciousness involved in causing, directing or guiding evolution. None.

With not even a working definition fgor "consciousness" it is singularly impossible to have any evidence that consciousness is related to anything at all.

It is my contention that all observation and experiment can be interpreted in terms of consciousness is life. From this perspective there is no "fitness" driving change in species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One cannot claim that it is impossible to relate consciousness to evolution (or anything else) and at the same time claim that all observation of evolution of species can be related to consciousness. It is absurd. It reveals not only fundamental misunderstandings of biology, but of logic an reason as well.

These are obvious and deeply rooted misunderstandings of biology and being used as if they were established facts based on countless observations, when no such observations exist. For instance, fitness is not a driver of biological change. Change in species is driven by the environment acting on the genotype and phenotype. Fitness measures the ability of phenotypes to respond to the environment and successfully reproduce. All members of a population are not equally fit.

 

[cladking]

One cannot claim that it is impossible to relate consciousness to evolution (or anything else) and at the same time claim that all observation of evolution of species can be related to consciousness. It is absurd. It reveals not only fundamental misunderstandings of biology, but of logic an reason as well.

You missed what I said.

Just as you can't disprove the existence of "God" without a definition and a well crafted experiment you also can't disprove the importance of "consciousness" without a definition and experiment.

If you define "consciousness" as a gift of God/ nature that allows individuals to survive then it becomes the fixation on species and the misunderstanding about population bottlenecks that have made change in species invisible as the driver of change in species. Think in terms of punctuated equilibrium and you'll be much closer to how (and when) species actually change.

"Science" can't ever "prove" anything without experiment so it can't 'disprove' it either. "Evolution" is merely a misinterpretation and gradual change has never been shown experimentally. "Fitness" it irrelevant to consciousness and causes only nominal change in species.

 

[metis]

There is no evidence for consciousness involved in causing, directing or guiding evolution.

It can in regard to what I have called "cultural selection" which I put as part of natural selection. IOW, some traits may have a strong appeal to a species so that mating is influenced by whom has what.

A possible such trait may be female breasts, whereas in apes they flatten against the abdomen when not lactating and yet stand out in human females regardless of whether they are or aren't lactating. Some feel that blue eyes also may have been selected for in northern European climes because they are carried on recessive genes but show up in abundance there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It can in regard to what I have called "cultural selection" which I put as part of natural selection. IOW, some traits may have a strong appeal to a species so that mating is influenced by whom has what.

A possible such trait may be female breasts, whereas in apes they flatten against the abdomen when not lactating and yet stand out in human females regardless of whether they are or aren't lactating. Some feel that blue eyes also may have been selected for in northern European climes because they are carried on recessive genes but show up in abundance there.

I thought about sexual selection when I was making my post, but in those cases for the trait selected there is no indication that conscious choice is driving the selection. The selected trait is often related to fitness, but not directly increasing fitness. Selection of tail length or color in male birds or antler size in some deer. These are indicators of greater fitness without necessarily increasing fitness. In some cases, the sexually selected trait puts a fitness burden on those possessing it. Male birds can be more easily seen by predators as well as by potential mates.

 

[gnostic]

These are indicators of greater fitness without necessarily increasing fitness. In some cases, the sexually selected trait puts a fitness burden on those possessing it. Male birds can be more easily seen by predators as well as by potential mates.

I have never thought of that...

..the trade off of being flashy is offset by being eaten.

 

[gnostic]

You missed what I said.

Just as you can't disprove the existence of "God" without a definition and a well crafted experiment you also can't disprove the importance of "consciousness" without a definition and experiment.

If you define "consciousness" as a gift of God/ nature that allows individuals to survive then it becomes the fixation on species and the misunderstanding about population bottlenecks that have made change in species invisible as the driver of change in species. Think in terms of punctuated equilibrium and you'll be much closer to how (and when) species actually change.

"Science" can't ever "prove" anything without experiment so it can't 'disprove' it either. "Evolution" is merely a misinterpretation and gradual change has never been shown experimentally. "Fitness" it irrelevant to consciousness and causes only nominal change in species.

Science don’t prove or disprove anything, because it isn’t proof-driven...unless the scientists are more mathematicians than scientists.

Mathematicians are the ones that “prove” or “disprove” their logical modeling - which are usually expressed in forms of equations. So when they tried to prove or disprove, they are actually trying TO SOLVE equations. That’s what “proof” is, equation solving.

What lot of people get confused, is they think “proof” is synonymous for “evidence”...it isn’t... it is not, to the mathematicians, and it is not to scientists.

Mathematical equations (logical modeling), or proofs, may be useful to scientists formulating their hypotheses, but like the explanatory modeling & predictive modeling, none of these modeling are true “by default”. All models within a hypothesis, must be tested...otherwise the hypotheses are not hypothesis, but unfalsifiable concepts.

The only way to test hypotheses or existing scientific theories, is through OBSERVATION. Observations would include experiments and discovery of evidence.

The “observations” should yield information or DATA, (information such as the properties of the phenomena, or quantities, measurements, etc).

IOW, hypotheses or theories needs to be testable.

A hypothesis is one that is testable, and yet to be accepted or rejected, while a scientific theory is testable and tested, and that have been verified as probable.

You have brought up Evolution...well, Evolution have been both testable (hence it is FALSIFIABLE), and have been repeatedly tested...therefore Evolution is science.

You don’t prove or disprove Evolution...no, you would test Evolution, and the numbers of evidence have shown that Evolution is even more “solid” or robust scientific theory than Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.

Your continued uses of “prove” or “disprove” only demonstrate how little you understand the working of science.

Plus, added to your misunderstanding, is that you thinking experiments are not observations.

Experiments are OBSERVATIONS!

And you are wrong. They do, do experiments in Evolution...you just blindly ignore their experiments.

While is true, these evidence needs to be discovered outside the controlled environment of laboratory, but the evidence are often brought to laboratory for further testings - such as DNA testing (hence involving experiments), and in the case of fossil samples, paleontology involved in using more than one dating method, eg radiometric dating methods (eg using multiple radioactive isotopes, C14, Ar-K, Pb, U, etc), and any one of the thermoluminescence methods, etc, which also again involved in “experiments”.

If you don’t understand that Evolution do “do” experiments, then you are closed minded and biased about Evolution.

 

[cladking]

Science don’t prove or disprove anything, because it isn’t proof-driven...unless the scientists are more mathematicians than scientists.

Perhaps "I" "should start "putting" "every" "word" "in" a "sentence in "parentheses".

I said "you can't disprove the existence of "God" or "consciousness" without a definition and as typical I get a semantical response. Are you suggesting if they were real then you could prove them? That's a semantical question though, isn't it.

The only way to test hypotheses or existing scientific theories, is through OBSERVATION

No matter how many times you say this you will still be wrong. "Experiment" creates theory, NOT observation.

A hypothesis is one that is testable, and yet to be accepted or rejected

EXACTLY. Therefore it stands to reason that a force that isn't even defined can't possibly be tested by experiment.

Your continued uses of “prove” or “disprove” only demonstrate how little you understand the working of science. Plus, added to your misunderstanding, is that you thinking experiments are not observations.

These are semantical arguments because you can not address my points.

And you are wrong. They do, do experiments in Evolution...you just blindly ignore their experiments.

And EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask for an experiment that shows ANY GRADUAL CHANGE in any kind, type, or sort of life someone cites a rapid change. Might I point out that it is MY CONTENTION ALL CHANGE IS SUDDEN and your contention change is gradual. You are supporting my argument and then astounded I don't come around to your way of thinking.

All observation and experiment support my theory. All change in all life is sudden. It is driven by the expression of genes through behavior whose principle driver is CONSCIOUSNESS. Darwin had faulty assumptions and misled biology. The concept of "God" is far closer to the reality of what life is, and how it changes through behavior and mutation, is far closer to reality than "survival of the fittest" which does not actually drive change in species.

I'm sure this is clear enough you could address what I'm actually saying if you wanted to.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps "I" "should start "putting" "every" "word" "in" a "sentence in "parentheses".

I said "you can't disprove the existence of "God" or "consciousness" without a definition and as typical I get a semantical response. Are you suggesting if they were real then you could prove them? That's a semantical question though, isn't it.

Your errors aren’t semantics, cladking.

Scientists “test” models, they don’t prove or disprove anything. It is mathematicians who prove or disprove their equations.

Evidence and proofs are not the same things.

Science relied on evidence, not proofs.

It is best you use the correct terminology, than mixing them up or using the terms wrongly.

Your problem is that, you don’t use the correct defined terms, are just semantic problems, you are scientifically illiterate. You refused to learn from your mistakes, you just compound your confusion of not using correct terms, with making false claims.

Such false claims as you thinking there are no experiments being done in Evolution.

What do you think DNA testing and analysis are, they are experiments.

Thermoluminescence and radiometric methods are all experiments; they are testing the age of the samples.

It is rather clear to me, that you don’t have any idea as to what constitute as experiments, when you are ignoring dating methods and DNA testings are all experiments.

I would laugh at your ignorance, but I don’t find it funny at all with willful ignorance from anyone.

 

[gnostic]

btw, @cladking

you cannot test god, because god is testable, which would mean any concepts of “God” are deemed unfalsifiable. So why would you think scientists should waste their time on testing some things that cannot be tested. Theology, creationism, and this idiotic Intelligent Design, are all unfalsifiable concepts - they are all pseudoscience.

As to your preference of using the word prove or disprove.

You are right about one thing. You cannot prove or disprove “God”, but not because of what you may think.

You cannot prove or disprove God, because you cannot put God into any equations (equation = proof). There are no God equations, so there are no proofs of any god.

 

[gnostic]

And EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask for an experiment that shows ANY GRADUAL CHANGE in any kind, type, or sort of life someone cites a rapid change. Might I point out that it is MY CONTENTION ALL CHANGE IS SUDDEN and your contention change is gradual. You are supporting my argument and then astounded I don't come around to your way of thinking.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

I only spoke of Evolution only in general term. I didn’t make an claim of Evolution being “gradual” or “sudden”. I have not mentioned anything as to the rate of change.

Please, stop making things up.

All I said, what you quoted from me, is that Evolution do “do” experimental tests. I even gave you a couple of examples of such experiments, like thermoluminescence dating, radiometric dating and DNA test/analysis. All 3 are examples of experiments being performed.

As I said, I wrote nothing about gradual changes or sudden changes, so this is nothing but you, using strawman.