What prompts a plant to evolve?

[Sunstone]

But we do that. Don't we? If you say yes, then will you also say that evolution developed this trait of SWOT analysis in us?

We may do that as a mental function, but such functioning does not alter our genetics, and consequently, does not drive evolution.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Consider Apples...apples do not breed true. Like humans they change every generaton.
The only way to get a field of apple trees all providing the same fruit is to graft them.
The root stock is usually a vigerous wild variety, on to which grafts are made.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

What prompts evolution? One word, mutations. Some help most don't.

 

[atanu]

We may do that as a mental function, but such functioning does not alter our genetics, and consequently, does not drive evolution.

Okay. But I did not get answer to my bonus question. Our predilection for SWOT analysis is a product of natural evolution?

 

[Sunstone]

Okay. But I did not get answer to my bonus question. Our predilection for SWOT analysis is a product of natural evolution?

Most likely, I'd think.

 

[atanu]

Most likely, I'd think.

Yet our wise or unwise thinking does not influence gene pool at al?

 

[Sunstone]

Yet our wise or unwise thinking does not influence gene pool at al?

Indirectly perhaps, but not directly. The fact you have some wise insight, Atanu, does nothing directly in the way of changing your genes, and thus does not influence the gene pool. Indirectly, your wise insight might result in you or someone else to whom you have communicated it surviving to reproduce, and in that way, it might indirectly influence the gene pool.

 

[atanu]

Indirectly perhaps, but not directly. The fact you have some wise insight, Atanu, does nothing directly in the way of changing your genes, and thus does not influence the gene pool. Indirectly, your wise insight might result in you or someone else to whom you have communicated it surviving to reproduce, and in that way, it might indirectly influence the gene pool.

Yeah. That is why I broached this to a wise man.

See, if we assume that intelligence developed somehow from inert materials, then enriching of some genetic pool over other becomes a blind process.

But if we had wisdom to start with, the gene pool could be manipulated, and it will still appear that Lamarck was wrong and that the process was blind. In this regard, I point out that epigenetics seems to be suggesting that Lamarck might not have been fully wrong.

The issue with the materialist story is that it first assumes that intelligence is nothing but material interactions and then concludes that intelligence was engendered from inert things. Is there any evidence of that?

YMMV.

 

[Darkstorn]

The issue with the materialist story is that it first assumes that intelligence is nothing but material interactions and then concludes that intelligence was engendered from inert things. Is there any evidence of that?

YMMV.

You say that there's an issue with the materialist story, but you have somehow failed to illuminate what this particular issue is. Almost makes it seem like YOU have an issue with it.

But yes. There is evidence of it. I know you don't like evidence that supports the materialistic view but if we talk about evidence here you're either going to have "materialistic" evidence or you have nothing.

I think it's a fool's errand to try to discredit materialism by supernatural arguments...

And aren't you first assuming something here:

"But if we had wisdom to start with"

I'm a Buddhist. But I think it's not constructive to try to wish away inconvenient evidence. And like you have been told (with supporting links) in other threads there is evidence that life can arise from "nonliving" matter.

My personal view is that depending on perspective, there is very little difference between living and nonliving things.

 

[Tiberius]

Evolution occurs because there is some pressure for an organism to evolve certain characteristics.

This pressure can be from natural selection (such as a change in the landscape, or a change in climate, or a new predator species entering the area) or artificial (a farmer selecting the best individuals to mate so the offspring will have the traits he most desires).

It is these pressures that drive nearly all evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Evolution occurs because there is some pressure for an organism to evolve certain characteristics.

This pressure can be from natural selection (such as a change in the landscape, or a change in climate, or a new predator species entering the area) or artificial (a farmer selecting the best individuals to mate so the offspring will have the traits he most desires).

It is these pressures that drive nearly all evolution.

This is adaptation. It's a process driven function and as such has no motivation. Existing mutations may help an organism survive through the mindless process of adaptation.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet our wise or unwise thinking does not influence gene pool at al?

Whether or not you had the wise thought isn't determined by your genes. So whatever effect they have in your case (your contribution to the gene pool), it is not because of evolution, which is a purely genetic process. In this scheme of things, the wise idea is one of the random things that happens to individuals.

 

[Milton Platt]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

The plant from which corn arose did not necessarily have to be simpler. Also, evolution is not guided solely by survival of the fittest. Corn could have arisen from a random genetic mutation that happened to be able to survive in the particular environment it was in, and then evolved from there to a varying degree. Not saying this was the case, just saying that there is nothing that would preclude this from happening.

 

[atanu]

Whether or not you had the wise thought isn't determined by your genes. So whatever effect they have in your case (your contribution to the gene pool), it is not because of evolution, which is a purely genetic process. In this scheme of things, the wise idea is one of the random things that happens to individuals.

I think you did not get what I meant. Possibly we can take steps to improve some aspect of our gene pool over time.

How Diet Can Change Your DNA

 

[atanu]

You say that there's an issue with the materialist story, but you have somehow failed to illuminate what this particular issue is. Almost makes it seem like YOU have an issue with it.

But yes. There is evidence of it. I know you don't like evidence that supports the materialistic view but if we talk about evidence here you're either going to have "materialistic" evidence or you have nothing.

I think it's a fool's errand to try to discredit materialism by supernatural arguments...

And aren't you first assuming something here:

"But if we had wisdom to start with"

I'm a Buddhist. But I think it's not constructive to try to wish away inconvenient evidence. And like you have been told (with supporting links) in other threads there is evidence that life can arise from "nonliving" matter.

My personal view is that depending on perspective, there is very little difference between living and nonliving things.

Well. First. I have not seen any evidence of existence-consciousness springing from non living. Second, I am not talking of any supernatural thing. I am pointing to a pre natural proto consciousness, which some scientists do consider as plausible.

It is nice that you are Buddhist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well. First. I have not seen any evidence of existence-consciousness springing from non living.

Then what do you consider every single example of reproduction to be?

 

[atanu]

Then what do you consider every single example of reproduction to be?

But that is my question in "Life is".

 

[Darkstorn]

Well. First. I have not seen any evidence of existence-consciousness springing from non living.

That doesn't mean it hasn't been given.

Second, I am not talking of any supernatural thing. I am pointing to a pre natural proto consciousness, which some scientists do consider as plausible.

"Pre natural?"

I am very sorry, but in the context of nature, that is still supernatural. I mean, you are literally implying something outside nature there, with plain speech. How can you not consider it supernatural?

It is nice that you are Buddhist.

I'm sure it is, but it has no bearing on the discussion.

 

[atanu]

That doesn't mean it hasn't been given.

That does not mean that it is given.

"Pre natural?"

I am very sorry, but in the context of nature, that is still supernatural. I mean, you are literally implying something outside nature there, with plain speech. How can you not consider it supernatural?

Yes. Pre natural. There is a condition prior to manifestation of objects: physical (and mental). Physics knows that it does not know exactly what matter is prior to wave function collapse.

 

[Darkstorn]

That does not mean that it is given.

Sure.

Yes. Pre natural. There is a condition prior to manifestation of objects: physical (and mental).

Can you show this to be true? Definite statements of truth like that are pretty much worthless for the sake of this thread: Which is about evolution. And you're trying to advocate a supernatural element. Sorry. Pre natural.

(Seriously)

If you won't accept claims like "there is a natural explanation for phenomena" then why should we accept claims like yours? I don't think you can even explain your claims logically. They sound a lot like wishful thinking and faith.

Physics knows that it does not know exactly what matter is prior to wave function collapse.

I'm not sure this actually means anything.