Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Evolution in action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Uh, they are DEFINED in terms of the environment.

    I have no idea how to parse this. What do you mean by value, or frequency or intensity?
    www.dictionary.com

    There is no magic, I agree. But you do see useful characteristics become widespread. Roots are helpful for plants, and motility is helpful for animals. So these are common, though not universal. There are plants without roots, and there are sessile animals, because there are so many environmental niches you wouldn't expect anything to be entirely universal.

    As for "objectively beneficial", this is an oxymoron.
    There's definitely a moron here, but good old oxy ain't it.

    You see useful characteristics become widespread if mutations actually develop for them early in the evolutionary process of life on earth. Intelligence is widespread, for example. It's also highly complex. We still don't know exactly which genes human intelligence is dependent on. Probably because intelligence is a wide umbrella term for a variety of functions that work together but are not necessarily tied to each other genetically.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      II'm attempting a reductio ad absurdum, based on my (admittedly limited) experience that most evolutionists seem to vehemently deny that evolution and/or natural selection is anything close to a conscious or rational process, i.e that natural selection somehow "decides" which traits should be passed on to the next generation based on how well those traits are going to help the individual/group/species/whatever survive, rather than that traits are passed blindly from one generation to the next, without any consideration of whether or not these traits will actually be beneficial or not.
      Uh, wow, where to start?

      Probably with the nature of selection. Of course selection can't see the future, and there is no process that can know what is "going to help". The way selection works with mutation is that mutation provides a population with a wide range of variation of many many different traits. Most of the variatons are neutral, and of those that are not, the percentage that are harmful or helpful depends on how well adapted the population already is to its environment. In theory, if it were perfectly adapted, no beneficial mutation would be possible. But in practice, environments are so complex and varied, and tend to change enough, that such perfection can never be reached - it's a moving target.

      Nonetheless, some traits give those individuals who possess them a slight edge in the contest to reproduce. Those individuals are more likely to reproduce, so those traits are preferentally conserved and passed to future generations. And conversely, some traits are handicaps, and the luckless possessors of them don't reproduce so well. Those traits are said to be "selected out".

      So in this sense, evolution is blind to the future. It's just a process of some organisms having differential reproductive success. This is not a conscious process, but neither is it irrational. What's important is that there is no consideration of FUTURE benefit here, except insofar as environments tend to be fairly stable (the "adaptive landscape" is said to be smooth), which means a trait that's helpful today is very likely to be helpful tomorrow as well. Not guaranteed, because environments do change, but they do so slowly enough to be worth tracking.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        I'm attempting a reductio ad absurdum, based on my (admittedly limited) experience that most evolutionists seem to vehemently deny that evolution and/or natural selection is anything close to a conscious or rational process, i.e that natural selection somehow "decides" which traits should be passed on to the next generation based on how well those traits are going to help the individual/group/species/whatever survive, rather than that traits are passed blindly from one generation to the next, without any consideration of whether or not these traits will actually be beneficial or not.
        If there was any "consciousness/rationality" to evolution, it's either dumb as a stump or the type of person who pulled the wings off of flies as a child.

        More seriously, while I don't accept the "argument from poor design" as a valid argument against a deity, the Wikipedia article on that topic has several examples of very poor design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...esign#Examples

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          You can explain yourself better than that. In biology, benefit and detriment are defined as being environment-dependent. I know what your individual words mean, but YOU need to relate them to the environment an organism faces. How can an environment have frequency? What does that MEAN?

          There's definitely a moron here, but good old oxy ain't it.
          Then you need to explain what you mean by "objective". Benefit is relative to the environment by definition.

          You see useful characteristics become widespread if mutations actually develop for them early in the evolutionary process of life on earth. Intelligence is widespread, for example.
          Huh? What do you consider "intelligence", then? The overwhelming majority of earthly organisms are prokaryotes. In the eukaryotic kingdom, we find mostly plants and insects.

          It's also highly complex. We still don't know exactly which genes human intelligence is dependent on. Probably because intelligence is a wide umbrella term for a variety of functions that work together but are not necessarily tied to each other genetically.
          This is why we need a good working definitioin of "intelligence". And also, what does "tied to each other genetically" mean? Do you mean, genes on the same chromosome? Or do you mean that some heritable characteristics work well together with others?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by phank View Post
            Yes, this definitely reflects a lack of understanding of evolution. If, say, intelligence were universally beneficial, it would be selected for and you'd find it everywhere. If smarter bacteria lived longer, you'd find smarter bacteria!
            Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it require that a characteristic already existed, or arose in a gene pool, before it could actually be selected for?

            You see, I'm not saying that a characteristic couldn't be spread to "nearly all organisms" through being selected for, as long as said characteristic was sufficiently prevalent, or arose sufficiently often in independent species/populations. What I'm sceptical of is the likelihood that said characteristic, however universally beneficial said characteristic was, would arise independently in enough individuals of varying species to even give the possibility of spreading that trait to "nearly all organisms" through selection.

            Of course, if you by "nearly all organisms", mean "nearly all organisms of a particular species/genus/family" (or something of that sort), rather than "nearly all organisms" in a more universal manner my point (if I've managed to make one) is entirely moot.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by phank View Post
              Uh, wow, where to start?

              Probably with the nature of selection. Of course selection can't see the future, and there is no process that can know what is "going to help". The way selection works with mutation is that mutation provides a population with a wide range of variation of many many different traits. Most of the variatons are neutral, and of those that are not, the percentage that are harmful or helpful depends on how well adapted the population already is to its environment. In theory, if it were perfectly adapted, no beneficial mutation would be possible. But in practice, environments are so complex and varied, and tend to change enough, that such perfection can never be reached - it's a moving target.

              Nonetheless, some traits give those individuals who possess them a slight edge in the contest to reproduce. Those individuals are more likely to reproduce, so those traits are preferentally conserved and passed to future generations. And conversely, some traits are handicaps, and the luckless possessors of them don't reproduce so well. Those traits are said to be "selected out".

              So in this sense, evolution is blind to the future. It's just a process of some organisms having differential reproductive success. This is not a conscious process, but neither is it irrational. What's important is that there is no consideration of FUTURE benefit here, except insofar as environments tend to be fairly stable (the "adaptive landscape" is said to be smooth), which means a trait that's helpful today is very likely to be helpful tomorrow as well. Not guaranteed, because environments do change, but they do so slowly enough to be worth tracking.
              Three points:

              1. Little of what you describe above is news to me (except for the term "adaptive landscape", I don't remember encountering that term before, though it's entirely possible that I've seen the term before and subsequently forgot about it).

              2. I never implied that the evolutionary process was considered to be irrational, I implied that it was not considered to be a rational process. A process does not have to be irrational if it's not rational, it can be arational as well. I'm sure you know the difference between arational and irrational.

              3. I'm not actually proposing that my description of the evolutionary process being a conscious and rational process is actually how the process is, or has ever been conceived, I'm saying that from my perspective your claim that "nearly all organisms" should have a specific trait if said trait was universally beneficial, seem to require, or atleast strongly suggest, that the process is, if not conscious and irrational, at least working in a way that is eerily suggestive of consciousness and rationality.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by phank View Post
                You can explain yourself better than that. In biology, benefit and detriment are defined as being environment-dependent. I know what your individual words mean, but YOU need to relate them to the environment an organism faces. How can an environment have frequency? What does that MEAN?
                How frequently do we run into the environment that is on the sun, vs say, a desert? Or a cold metropolis? Of what utility is it to be able to swim in lava? Intelligence is not environment-dependent. Being more intelligent is more useful than not in any plausible environment.

                Huh? What do you consider "intelligence", then? The overwhelming majority of earthly organisms are prokaryotes. In the eukaryotic kingdom, we find mostly plants and insects.
                Gathering and using information about the surrounding environment should suffice.

                This is why we need a good working definitioin of "intelligence". And also, what does "tied to each other genetically" mean?
                The genes responsible for the various functions do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Being more intelligent is more useful than not in any plausible environment.
                  That statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. Brains require energy, lots of energy. In low-stimulus environments where the energy cost of maintaining a larger brain is more than the benefit the larger brain provides the larger brain will be selected against. Just like the eyes in a blind cave fish, "use it or lose it" is an evolutionary axiom that applies to intelligence too. It's better to be less intelligent and getting enough nutrition than be smart and starve to death.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Outis View Post
                    http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...k-human-genome

                    And here, once again, we see that evolution is not a process from "inferior" to "superior," but simply genetic variation and natural selection.
                    THAT 'evolution' (E1), as I have tirelessly stated, is SCIENCE. E1 is observable, testable, demonstrable science.

                    Now let's look at the 'Evolution' (E2) that is bait-and-switched with the above 'evolution' (E1).
                    E2 claims that "3-4 billion years ago a 'simple' common ancestor began evolutionary changes and divergence which as time went by gave rise to millions of species some of which went extinct and others that are with us today".

                    Unless a person is ignorant or dishonest (or both), to go from a simple common ancestor to millions of species absolutely demands that there be a humongous increase in genetic complexity that then becomes manifest in phenotypes. I mean, it is obvious to anyone that an elephant, a whale and a human are more complex than a paramecium. In other words, there is indeed a progression from "inferior" to "superior" in terms of increased complexity.

                    So to refer to 'Evolution' (E2) as "... not a process from "inferior" to "superior," but simply genetic variation and natural selection" is naive at best and dishonest at worst UNLESS you are referring strictly to E1.

                    Which is it?

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      That statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. Brains require energy, lots of energy. In low-stimulus environments where the energy cost of maintaining a larger brain is more than the benefit the larger brain provides the larger brain will be selected against. Just like the eyes in a blind cave fish, "use it or lose it" is an evolutionary axiom that applies to intelligence too. It's better to be less intelligent and getting enough nutrition than be smart and starve to death.
                      More intelligence doesn't necessarily require a larger brain. Humans are the most intelligent creatures on earth and our resistance to starvation is far above that of other similar mammals. Or dissimilar ones for that matter.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        More intelligence doesn't necessarily require a larger brain.
                        Not necessarily overall brain mass but factors such as the number of cortical neurons and their conduction velocity. As a rule more is better, and more takes extra energy.

                        Intelligence is a heritable morphological trait just like speed and strength. Depending on the environment more of a "good" trait isn't always better. You still seem unable to grasp the basics.

                        Humans are the most intelligent creatures on earth and our resistance to starvation is far above that of other similar mammals. Or dissimilar ones for that matter.
                        What a ridiculous claim. A human locked in a room with water but no food will last about three weeks average. A Burmese python can go for up to a year between meals. You sure screwed up on that one.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          What a ridiculous claim. A human locked in a room with water but no food will last about three weeks average. A Burmese python can go for up to a year between meals. You sure screwed up on that one.
                          Hey genius Darth said: Humans are the most intelligent creatures on earth and our resistance to starvation is far above that of other similar mammals.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            Not necessarily overall brain mass but factors such as the number of cortical neurons and their conduction velocity. As a rule more is better, and more takes extra energy.

                            Intelligence is a heritable morphological trait just like speed and strength. Depending on the environment more of a "good" trait isn't always better. You still seem unable to grasp the basics.
                            As I already explained, having a trait that is theoretically maladaptive in a highly unlikely environment does not mean it's not objectively better. The fact that this planet's apex predator is primarily distinguished by its intelligence is evidence enough.

                            Now back to your regularly scheduled program of HMS_Beagle explaining how a python is actually a mammal. The existence of animals that can last longer does not change the fact that humans are both the most intelligent species on the planet and highly adept at surviving starvation.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              Now back to your regularly scheduled program of HMS_Beagle explaining how a python is actually a mammal. The existence of animals that can last longer does not change the fact that humans are both the most intelligent species on the planet and highly adept at surviving starvation.
                              OK I'll wear that one. I read your original statement as other similar animals or dissimilar ones. But you're still wrong. Hibernating bears can go for up to six months with no food intake.

                              No one said humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet. That doesn't change the fact that there are environments where more intelligence doesn't equate to better survival chances. You still refuse to grasp the simple concept.
                              Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 02-10-2014, 09:50 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                Unless a person is ignorant or dishonest (or both), to go from a simple common ancestor to millions of species absolutely demands that there be a humongous increase in genetic complexity that then becomes manifest in phenotypes. I mean, it is obvious to anyone that an elephant, a whale and a human are more complex than a paramecium. In other words, there is indeed a progression from "inferior" to "superior" in terms of increased complexity.
                                These are still not "inferior" or "superior." As the relative populations, environmental adaptability, and range of inhabitation all demonstrate (when comparing paramecium and elephants), a more complex creature has a much more difficult time adapting to its environment, a much narrower range of environments that it can be suited for, and is far more vulnerable to a change in its niche.

                                Also, as this is a discussion of science, not a game of dozens, the insults (general or specific) are unnecessary. Please refrain from using them in your replies to me.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X