The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Wildswanderer]

But we are talking millions, even billions of years. That's reality.

That's your reality maybe. And actually the current theory is the change actually happened very quickly, at different times. Not over millions of years.

 

[Valjean]

So what is gonna cause the tuna fish to transition into something else?

PLEASE! STOP IT!
We've explained the mechanisms of evolution to you a thousand times. You learned it in school. Yet you persist in either pretending not to understand it, or ignoring the explanations, or actually being either a complete dimwit or the word's most obtuse person.

 

[Wildswanderer]

PLEASE! STOP IT!
We've explained the mechanisms of evolution to you a thousand times. You learned it in school. Yet you persist in either pretending not to understand it, or ignoring the explanations, or actually being either a complete dimwit or the word's most obtuse person.

So I'm supposed to accept nonsense because you say it makes sense?
Maybe you should cut back on the caffeine, BTW, you seem a little high strung.

 

[Jose Fly]

You learned it in school.

I wouldn't bet on that.

 

[Audie]

So what is gonna cause the tuna fish to transition into something else?

Bumblebee

 

[cladking]

The nature of consciousness is more complex in humans but fundamentally similar in organisms with a brain with its origin from the subcortical brain which is shared in organisms with a similar central nervous system.

Humans experience reality only in terms of their beliefs and the models and abstractions derived from them. I could argue animal consciousness tends to be more complex because it must always adapt in four dimensions to changing conditions.

More importantly though no matter which is deemed more complex is that human consciousness is nothing at all like other life forms. No other life form even "thinks" or understands a single abstraction. Humans can't even imagine what it's like to not think and merely act based on knowledge, experience, and genes.

Did you even read his book?

I generally avoid fiction other than science fiction. There's no science in Darwin just plenty of keen insight. I have skimmed much of it over the years.

There is both gradual and rapid change.

Yes, this is your contention but everything that is offered as evidence supports my contention that all change is sudden.

Punk eek is on the right track but there is no "survival of the fittest" and virtually no gradual change. Any gradual change is a random walk and has little to do with the species niche unless there is a gradual change in the niche which is a virtual impossibility because, as I mentioned, all observed change in all life at all levels is... ...wait for it... ...sudden.

 

[blü 2]

But a great deal of study in biology and evolution in particular is based on induction. This isn't to say it's all wrong but it is misinterpreted.

Science works by empiricism and induction and maximizing objectivity. If you think anything is misinterpreted, there are forums for learned debate in all sciences around the net; reputable magazines of science are an example. If there are misinterpretations, don't tell me, tell them.

Simply stated there is still no evidence of any gradual change in any life of any sort. Virtually by definition life is change. Consciousness is the ability to change to suit the needs of the moment. Consciousness drives change in the individual thereby driving change in the species. "Fitness" is irrelevant because no such thing exists.

What do you make of the observations of the finches on the Galapagos Islands? They were regularly measured, including through a (five?) year period of drought late (from memory) in the last century. By the end of that time it was evident that the task of surviving the drought had favored finches with shorter, thicker beaks, more suitable for cracking the heavier seeds they ate, and such finches were now the very substantial majority. When the drought broke, and the former range of seeds became available, this emphasis was seen to decline back towards the pre-drought range.

Why is that not evidence of gradual morphological change in response to environmental change? Why, if the drought conditions had continued, was it impossible for it to result over time in a new species?

"Human history" doesn't begin until the advent of modern humans (homo omnisciencis) about 3000 BC.

No, human history begins with the first self-reproducing cell. The history of civilization begins, on the evidence presently available, in the Middle East, perhaps at Göbekli Tepe (in modern Turkey) which shows settled activity from 9000 BCE (11,000 ya). Similar datings are found at Jericho in modern Palestine. Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia dates to 7000 BCE (9,000 ya) and is identifiable as a proto-city.

The nature of consciousness in modern humans is different than every other form of life and different than homo sapiens.

The trouble with statements like that is finding a precise definition of "consciousness" and a precise way of measuring it in humans and non-humans ─ a trick I've yet to see performed. Instead it all seems floppy and subjective.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. Thank you.

Over the years biologists have been closing in on the reality... ...sortta.

I don't think they will ever get all the way there until they chuck out the "survival of the fittest" nonsense and actually start looking at individuals and the actual mechanisms of survival as well as death. I don't believe this will be possible without an appreciation of consciousness and the meaning of life.

An arctic wolf has a litter of pups. Each is different. They vary in size, coat color, fur thickness, physique, &al. Their environmental conditions determine which variant is most successful in surviving and reproducing. The gene frequency of the variant that best "fits," increases in the general population -- slowly, over many generations.
Why is this impossible?
The same litter born in Spanish wolves would have selected for different features. Environment is the determinant.

The forests of Africa give way to widespread savanna as the climate slowly dries. The forest-dwelling apes spend more time on the ground. The kids better adapted to this new, grounded lifestyle thrive over their more arboreal siblings. Gene frequency increases. Slowly, bipedal plains apes appear as new species. Impossible?
Consciousness? Meaning of life? I don't see how these have any role in evolution. Explain, SVP?

All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) and there's no reason to suppose that any individual is less "fit" than another.

But individuals do vary in fitness: Innuit anatomy and physiology would not "fit" in the Kalihari. San A&P wouldn't fit in the arctic.

Indigenous people living in both the Himalayas and the Andes have physiological adaptations to low oxygen levels -- completely different adaptations.

Many people of European origin have genes that resist plague (one copy); or confer complete immunity (two copies). Curiously, these also cross immunize for AIDS. How do you think this happened?

A mutant protein first discovered in an Italian family has been found to completely prevent plaque buildup in arteries. Heart attacks are unknown in this population.

So... Yes. Variations occur that confer increased fitness do occur in human populations. The Himalayan or Andean variant would not have increased fitness in low altitude populations. But when one of these variants appeared in a high-altitude people, it did increase fitness, and the gene frequency increased -- slowly -- in the population, over many more than two generations.

They simply have different genes driving different behavior through the engine of consciousness.

Consciousness has nothing to do with it. Different behavior? What behaviors are you referring to?

There are no humans who are more fit than other humans. Well this would be exactly true if you were referring to any other life form. Even in humans it is mostly true. Unless an individual is born with mutations or defects or acquires an injury or disease it is just exactly as fit as every other member of that species. This is essentially true by definition except we have strange definitions and perspectives.

This is simply not true. Where did you get this idea?

 

[Valjean]

So what is gonna cause the tuna fish to transition into something else?

Changing environment, of course, same as everything elsre.

 

[Valjean]

That's your reality maybe. And actually the current theory is the change actually happened very quickly, at different times. Not over millions of years.

Link, please.

 

[Valjean]

So I'm supposed to accept nonsense because you say it makes sense?
Maybe you should cut back on the caffeine, BTW, you seem a little high strung.

But why do you call it nonsense? Everyone with any knowledge of the subject believes if. The evidence is overwhelming.
Why have you been unable to convince the scientific community that this is nonsense?

 

[Valjean]

That's your reality maybe. And actually the current theory is the change actually happened very quickly, at different times. Not over millions of years.

Give me a link, then.

 

[Bear Wild]

More importantly though no matter which is deemed more complex is that human consciousness is nothing at all like other life forms. No other life form even "thinks" or understands a single abstraction.

How do you know that? Do you have the evidence to support this statement?

I generally avoid fiction other than science fiction. There's no science in Darwin just plenty of keen insight. I have skimmed much of it over the years.

So you did not read it and do not have a clue. His book is not fiction. It is evidenced based with tremendous observations. Clearly proposed with even his own critical evaluation of the theory. To call this work fiction is either ignorance or arrogance.

Yes, this is your contention but everything that is offered as evidence supports my contention that all change is sudden.

Then you do not know the evidence. Even in recent research in bacteria there is clear gradual genetic change. More rapid change happens with certain genetic changes and gradual with others. It is neither one or the other.

Punk eek is on the right track but there is no "survival of the fittest" and virtually no gradual change. Any gradual change is a random walk and has little to do with the species niche unless there is a gradual change in the niche which is a virtual impossibility because, as I mentioned, all observed change in all life at all levels is... ...wait for it... ...sudden.

??? - an organism that is better adapted to its environment with the advantage of more successful reproduction has the right fit for that environment. This concept does not take that much imagination to understand. Gradual change has been observed in both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. Environments can change rapidly or slowly. The statement of all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden will be false the moment you put the word "all" in.

 

[We Never Know]

Actually, it is more likely that life arose at multiple points in our history, there is not one "ancestor" to all life on Earth, but potentially thousands.

Exactly! Sadly the competing two sides think it comes down to only one.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Link, please.

Punctuated Equilibria Is Back, but Still Magical | Evolution News
The Cambrian Explosion | Discovery Institute

 

[Valjean]

Punctuated Equilibria Is Back, but Still Magical | Evolution News
The Cambrian Explosion | Discovery Institute

These are not examples of "instant evolution." Evolution proceeds both slowly and quickly, depending on the need to evolve.
In a stable environment, there is no selective pressure for a species to change. In a radically changed environment evolution surges ahead by leaps and bounds.
Leaps and bounds don't mean two generations. Read some S. J. Gould.

The Cambrian explosion was, indeed, a period of rapid speciation. It occurred in just 13 to 25 million years.
Millions of years are not two generations.

 

[cladking]

Science works by empiricism and induction and maximizing objectivity. If you think anything is misinterpreted, there are forums for learned debate in all sciences around the net; reputable magazines of science are an example. If there are misinterpretations, don't tell me, tell them.

I'm suggesting that observer effect and circular reasoning are both largely caused by taxonomies and inductive reasoning. These might be OK for forming hypothesis but they are not OK for experiment design nor its interpretation! We think in terms of abstractions so this is mostly unavoidable at this point in time. It's like when you point out that reality is chaotic but this doesn't appear in journals and is ignored. Well, reality also doesn't have abstractions nor does any taxonomy of any kind exist in reality. The very means we use to think and perceive reality is at odds with reality itself. This is a strictly human problem and affects all human activity from A to Z including all of science. When you point this out to an Egyptologist, biologist, or cosmologist it is shrugged off. When you point out flaws in interpretation it is shrugged off. When you point out that every argument is circular reasoning everyone goes back to what they were doing. People tend to believe there is no escape from running in circles.

What do you make of the observations of the finches on the Galapagos Islands? They were regularly measured, including through a (five?) year period of drought late (from memory) in the last century. By the end of that time it was evident that the task of surviving the drought had favored finches with shorter, thicker beaks, more suitable for cracking the heavier seeds they ate, and such finches were now the very substantial majority. When the drought broke, and the former range of seeds became available, this emphasis was seen to decline back towards the pre-drought range.

Why is that not evidence of gradual morphological change in response to environmental change? Why, if the drought conditions had continued, was it impossible for it to result over time in a new species?

Species can make minor changes to immediate needs fairly quickly which is exactly what I'm saying and is observed again and again. These changes can even become permanent if nothing intervenes or if the changed individuals are separated from the rest of the population. This seems only natural.

No, human history begins with the first self-reproducing cell. The history of civilization begins, on the evidence presently available, in the Middle East, perhaps at Göbekli Tepe (in modern Turkey) which shows settled activity from 9000 BCE (11,000 ya). Similar datings are found at Jericho in modern Palestine. Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia dates to 7000 BCE (9,000 ya) and is identifiable as a proto-city.

No. This is not the "history" to which I refer. Perhaps I should have used the qualifier "written" history but I was referring to modern knowledge of any specific person or event. This doesn't really start until 2000 BC though there are a few brief snippets from as early as ~2400 BC. I believe this is caused by not being able to understand our predecessor species; Ancient Language can't be translated and ancient knowledge can't be translated. They had their own "Theory of Evolution" and it appears to fit observation much better than ours. It is the theory that allowed the invention of agriculture and to a real extent also makes implications about how termites invented agriculture and beavers invented dams. It suggests that everything we believe is seen from a very poor perspective that supports our beliefs preferentially to understanding the reality of how and why species change.

Essentially the problem is that consciousness is the most important aspect of all life and understanding its nature is necessary to understand our taxonomies. If you don't understand every rabbit is different then you can't understand why one lives and the other dies nor can you understand why species change. We can only observe finches that change in response to drought and then improperly extrapolate this to apply to change in species. All these terms are merely abstractions and there is no such thing as "finches" but merely a collection of individuals which can and do interbreed. Darwin certainly knew something about finches but not Evolution or the way species change.

The trouble with statements like that is finding a precise definition of "consciousness" and a precise way of measuring it in humans and non-humans ─ a trick I've yet to see performed. Instead it all seems floppy and subjective.

No, the trouble is we have no scientific definition of "consciousness". We can't study it because of bias, observer effect, and the inability to find any common denominators. Humans are the only species that don't understand consciousness. We instead see what we believe and think in one dimension. Humans are programmed by a language full of abstractions, taxonomies, and where all words have to be defined and none are precise. Only humans since "the tower of babel" use such a language or engage in analog thought. All other language is digital and in tune with the logic that is manifested as reality. It is in tune because this is the way the digital "brain" is wired.

We are the species least able to define consciousness but most likely to someday define in scientific terms, study, and understand it. I fear the "scientific terms" might require a new science and am confident it will at least require a new perspective. There are no "taxonomies" that will apply to the brain or to consciousness. There are no abstractions and any inductive logic must be confined to experiment design and hypothesis formation.

 

[cladking]

If there are misinterpretations, don't tell me, tell them.

My experience is nobody wants to hear it.

Essentially I'm saying that the most important part of science is metaphysics and most scientists have a poor grasp of it. Some are almost mystics and have no clue why science even woks.

 

[cladking]

How do you know that? Do you have the evidence to support this statement?

It's not appropriate to this thread.

Ancient Reality

Then you do not know the evidence.

The evidence all supports my contention that everything that affects life including change in species is sudden.

??? - an organism that is better adapted to its environment with the advantage of more successful reproduction has the right fit for that environment.

So all you have to do now is show that this accounts for the fossil evidence which is the sole reason to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

 

[cladking]

An arctic wolf has a litter of pups. Each is different. They vary in size, coat color, fur thickness, physique, &al. Their environmental conditions determine which variant is most successful in surviving and reproducing. The gene frequency of the variant that best "fits," increases in the general population -- slowly, over many generations.
Why is this impossible?
The same litter born in Spanish wolves would have selected for different features. Environment is the determinant.

Every individual is most suited to specific conditions but this doesn't mean every artic wolf likes cold weather. And HEREIN LIES THE REAL CAUSE OF CHANGE IN SPECIES. Arctic wolves that can't stand, can't tolerate or don't like cold weather behave much differently than those which do. If an event wipes out every wolf that is hunting under ideal conditions and spares a few holed up in their dens then the survivors breed an entirely new species. Punctuated equilibrium not "survival of the fittest". Animals don't live and die based on fitness but rather the expression of their genes in behavior through the mechanism of consciousness. This is invisible to homo omnisciencis. We already have the stinkin' answers and don't need no evidence to confuse us.