Life throughout the universe still Darwinian?

[Synthetix]

Watching a Richard Dawkins video, I noticed him say that he has the assumption that life elsewhere in the universe would still be darwinian in nature. It would have gone thru evolution and natural selection just as life on earth has. I completely agree.

If I find more links about this I'll post them, feel free to post your own.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/darwin-evolution-and-alien-life/

 

[just george]

Darwinism is a theory that many people (and not just the religious types) dispute rather strongly. Soooooooo it wouldn't be fair to ask if life in the rest of the universe is "still" darwinian. Just sayin

 

[Synthetix]

What are some inconsistencies you find with darwinism?

 

[GodOfOrder]

Well natural selection seems to be correct, and it is a principle you can see wherever you look, even in economics. One adapts to best meet a certain situation and then thrives, if the situation changes again, one must then adapt again, or die. It is a principle that is utterly pervasive in nature.

As a seemingly universal principle, it would seem obvious that it would also take place wherever life existed.

 

[Duxwing]

Watching a Richard Dawkins video, I noticed him say that he has the assumption that life elsewhere in the universe would still be darwinian in nature. It would have gone thru evolution and natural selection just as life on earth has. I completely agree.

If I find more links about this I'll post them, feel free to post your own.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/darwin-evolution-and-alien-life/

That's science for you: it works anywhere, anytime, all the time.

-Duxwing

 

[Sorlaize]

Watching a Richard Dawkins video, I noticed him say that he has the assumption that life elsewhere in the universe would still be darwinian in nature. It would have gone thru evolution and natural selection just as life on earth has. I completely agree.

It's a universal pattern that is very fundamental to the nature of our evolution. To the point that's the only word we have to describe it. There *is* no other construct to say as a word, that's a simple word.

However there are other factors that determine the rate at which biological life forms and progresses .. ours might be slow in comparison as well as fast .. you'd have to take everything into account. Planet size; and what that then snowballs into effect. Maybe the first things that could walk or crawl still have limbs of fish-like form on them, because they haven't had to do much natural selection to survive the species on a small planet. Or maybe a small planet half our size doesn't get diverse enough biodiversive interaction in plants over time to produce such variety in forms.

Maybe we're on one of something like 100 very-well-"positioned" planets within the entire universe in terms of essentially the "DNA" and starting state of the planet, and as such it "just emerges" that human life is provided with the means to evolve on ours.. our social structures being a "second part" of evolution not so much attributable to mankind as we'd like to think it is in exclusion to reality itself. I would indeed say that everything we do is a ("computational") process of reality.. so why not social dynamics as well as biological evolution?

In such other scenarios we would see different lifeforms emerge in response to their environment through natural/sexual selection .. however at slightly different rates which means a lot over time. Add to that the nature of our social structure highly based/influenced on the nature of individual existence: for example the inability to share ideas directly. Now, we know deep sea organisms exist which are joined up and acting as a floating community of smaller organisms to provide general functions, for example. So what about such a thing appearing on land in a planet slightly dissimilar to ours?

You'd have different social paradigms and different entire structures of organisms and their food chains .. you might have really tall 3d jungles full of stuff. You might have an entire planet full of creatures with multiple pinholes as eyes to let light in and protect from mud and sand that would get in the way of seeing. You might have such features that simply don't need to evolve past basic function (so not being complex like our eyes). You'd have planets that consist of large spreads of stages of organ evolution across different types of creatures, rather than a single one like our human being, that exists everywhere.

Unlike the little green men we like to imagine exists, all extremely suspiciously featuring the same symmetric limbs as ours and rough body scale as ours despite living on a planet many 1000s of light years away (and don't forget our human organism did infact evolve AROUND / BASED ON this planet, so it's not alien knowledge from inside this universe at least), real aliens would look much different to us because they would have needed to evolve to a different atmosphere and visual environment and most importantly, physical environment. EVEN ON OUR OWN PLANET BELOW US organisms including fish communicate by using light for everything. So why would an alien from a very distant planet communicate with hand gestures and thus have hands? (Critical thinking blows every belief apart. There's objective facts, and there's hoping. Two very different things.)


..yeah I'd like to see Dawkins write something like that heh.

 

[Cognisant]

Darwinism can still be superseded by intelligent design though as individuals our appearance and immunity may change on the level of the human species evolution has pretty much ceased, y'know nobody's going to develop stripes because if we need camouflage we wear appropriate clothing, indeed in the next few generations it seems fairly likely that genetic and body modification technologies will progress to a point where "human" becomes a vague term.

A couple of hundred years from now there might not be anyone recognizably human left.

 

[Duxwing]

Darwinism can still be superseded by intelligent design though as individuals our appearance and immunity may change on the level of the human species evolution has pretty much ceased, y'know nobody's going to develop stripes because if we need camouflage we wear appropriate clothing, indeed in the next few generations it seems fairly likely that genetic and body modification technologies will progress to a point where "human" becomes a vague term.

A couple of hundred years from now there might not be anyone recognizably human left.

This future world would still be Darwinian: Darwinian, but with massive selection pressures and ludicrously rapid adaptation.

-Duxwing

 

[SLushhYYY]

Of course life would be Darwinian else where. Why would Earth be special in that regard? However, with different weather condition's and differing evolutionary stepping stones, life elsewhere would be very, very different than what we could ever imagine. Maybe not in terms of chemical structure, but definitely through natural selection.

The beauty is that our civilization is merely thousands of years old. Who's to say that there isnt a million year old civilization that is so far beyond the grasps of human intuition, we probably wouldn't even be able to communicate. Beings that had learned to live together without war, nuclear weapons and manage to survive their civilization.

 

[Cognisant]

Unlike the little green men we like to imagine exists, all extremely suspiciously featuring the same symmetric limbs as ours and rough body scale as ours despite living on a planet many 1000s of light years away

Then again aliens may be shocking similar to us, several features have evolved on this planet multiple times and independently in parallel, y'know being a vertebrate has distinct advantages over being an invertebrate, lungs are a pretty standard way to breathe a gaseous atmosphere, now if you're a vertebrate with lungs a ribcage is of obvious benefit, as would extended endoskeletal limbs, then something like hands and something like feet, etc.

Everything about the way we are is that way because it works, and it's been proven to work, so on a similar planet subject to similar conditions you could expect similar lifeforms, and particular ecological niche has shaped us this way so it's not entirely crazy to think somewhere there might be simians like us and that they evolve intelligence, develop tool use, and become a civilisation.

Furthermore just as simian aliens are of particular interest to us we would be of particular interest to them, so if there's a range of intelligent civilisations out there and they're communicating then no doubt if a non-simian civilisation finds us they'll let the simians know and then their biologists and equivalent of anthropologists will want to study us just like how we study apes.

It is however unlikely that either we or they will find each other attractive... Then again I've seen some pretty messed up shit on the internet and if that's a direct result of cognitive flexibility then chances are they've got messed up people too, and referring back to my point about genetic and body modification, well as I said human becomes a vague term.

 

[Cognisant]

This future world would still be Darwinian: Darwinian, but with massive selection pressures and ludicrously rapid adaptation.

Rather ludicrously rapid adaptation and a total lack of selection pressure I think, after all if people can eventually change everything about themselves then for all it matters traits aren't heritable anymore, so there's no selection, only adaptation.

 

[Duxwing]

Rather ludicrously rapid adaptation and a total lack of selection pressure I think, after all if people can eventually change everything about themselves then for all it matters traits aren't heritable anymore, so there's no selection, only adaptation.

The selection pressure is the will of the humans concerned.

-Duxwing

 

[SLushhYYY]

Everything about the way we are is that way because it works, and it's been proven to work, so on a similar planet subject to similar conditions you could expect similar lifeforms, and particular ecological niche has shaped us this way so it's not entirely crazy to think somewhere there might be simians like us and that they evolve intelligence, develop tool use, and become a civilisation.

There is nothing best about having 2 arms and 5 fingers. We all just evolved from an ancient fish that had 5 bones in its fins.

There is also nothing best about having 2 eyes, its just an easier evolutionary pathway, minimal evolutionary enhancement for the sake of parallax.

There are billions if not infinite ways for life to "work".

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not saying it must happen, just that convergent evolution can happen and when we're talking about something as specific as intelligence and tool use it seems more probable that the aliens in question are going to be superficially similar to us, y'know they probably couldn't disguise themselves as human, but they'll likely have arms, legs, hands, heads, eyes, mouths, etc, and if their species is derived from quadrupeds (as most of our land based ones are) it seems likely that they'll have evolved bipedalism for the same reasons we did, heck they might even be good climbers, I mean trees haven't changed much in forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution


Speaking of not having changed much, sharks and fish in general are pretty much the same as they've always been, they're certainly more sophisticated than earlier species but I challenge you to come up with a better design that isn't a recognisably fishy shape.

Now if aliens have five fingers, that would be an interesting coincidence.

 

[Architect]

The scientific community has universally accepted Darwinism, or natural selection. Predicated on the simple law or fact of our universe that 'nothing succeeds like success', I don't understand how somebody could argue with it or believe that it doesn't hold true elsewhere. Do they have a counter example where failure consistently gets rewarded over success?

 

[GodOfOrder]

The scientific community has universally accepted Darwinism, or natural selection. Predicated on the simple law or fact of our universe that 'nothing succeeds like success', I don't understand how somebody could argue with it or believe that it doesn't hold true elsewhere. Do they have a counter example where failure consistently gets rewarded over success?

The scandinavian european states...

The american education system...

modern day culture...

 

[Cognisant]

I was just going to say government

 

[Duxwing]

The scientific community has universally accepted Darwinism, or natural selection. Predicated on the simple law or fact of our universe that 'nothing succeeds like success', I don't understand how somebody could argue with it or believe that it doesn't hold true elsewhere. Do they have a counter example where failure consistently gets rewarded over success?

Actually, if the failure were rewarded, then it too would be success.

-Duxwing

 

[Nezaros]

There is nothing best about having 2 arms and 5 fingers. We all just evolved from an ancient fish that had 5 bones in its fins.

There is also nothing best about having 2 eyes, its just an easier evolutionary pathway, minimal evolutionary enhancement for the sake of parallax.

There are billions if not infinite ways for life to "work".

But we do know that it's an evolutionarily efficient structure. It may not be ubiquitous but at least we can say it's more likely. Now the question is, what if there exists some non-carbon based life? That might introduce some design features we could never imagine in us.

 

[The Introvert]

The only problem I have with this is that we are assuming all life in this universe is governed by the same rules as we.

Although I still do not think it would be overstepping the boundaries of Darwinism to assume that alternate life-forms would also occupy a similar system (of natural selection), I still caution a definitive "yes"; I think this caution is also exemplary of the sciences as a whole.

The best scientists do not forge an answer, stick to it, and try to prove it; they form a question, often change it, and try to disprove it.

 

[Duxwing]

But we do know that it's an evolutionarily efficient structure. It may not be ubiquitous but at least we can say it's more likely. Now the question is, what if there exists some non-carbon based life? That might introduce some design features we could never imagine in us.

The design features would only be present at the microscopic scale: an arm is an arm regardless of its particular chemical composition.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

The design features would only be present at the microscopic scale: an arm is an arm regardless of its particular chemical composition.

-Duxwing

Alternate chemical compositions may incite alternate mechanical functions.

Hell, I would be shocked if it didn't. A structure is simply a larger view of a lot of little structures. Changing the little structures (ie the chemical composition) should change the whole picture, no?

 

[Duxwing]

Alternate chemical compositions may incite alternate mechanical functions.

Hell, I would be shocked if it didn't. A structure is simply a larger view of a lot of little structures. Changing the little structures (ie the chemical composition) should change the whole picture, no?

A brick of lead is as much a brick as a brick of iron. Nevertheless, one might observe different glandular functions and the like, but locomotion should remain the same... hm... my Ne-sense is tingling... I feel like I'm missing something here...

Case 1: Earth and Other World are mechanically the same and chemically the same
Case 2: Earth and Other World are mechanically the same but chemically different
Case 3: Earth and Other World are mechanically different but chemically the same
Case 4: Earth and Other World are mechanically different and chemically different

Since we're assuming chemical difference, we can eliminate Cases 1 and 3, leaving us with cases 2 and 4. One might conceive, as you pointed out, that other sorts of functions could arise from having a different chemical make up: glands could be different, eyes could have different colors, etc. Yet the selection pressure for an arm will, provided that the population in question isn't wiped out, produce a creature with an arm. So both Cases 2 and 4 could be true. I recede my blanket statement of Case 2; indeed, both are highly likely true if the Other World's life forms are sufficiently varied to produce many millions of species, each with their own adaptations and chemical structures.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Spoiler

A brick of lead is as much a brick as a brick of iron. Nevertheless, one might observe different glandular functions and the like, but locomotion should remain the same... hm... my Ne-sense is tingling... I feel like I'm missing something here...

Case 1: Earth and Other World are mechanically the same and chemically the same
Case 2: Earth and Other World are mechanically the same but chemically different
Case 3: Earth and Other World are mechanically different but chemically the same
Case 4: Earth and Other World are mechanically different and chemically different

Since we're assuming chemical difference, we can eliminate Cases 1 and 3, leaving us with cases 2 and 4. One might conceive, as you pointed out, that other sorts of functions could arise from having a different chemical make up: glands could be different, eyes could have different colors, etc. Yet the selection pressure for an arm will, provided that the population in question isn't wiped out, produce a creature with an arm. So both Cases 2 and 4 could be true. I recede my blanket statement of Case 2; indeed, both are highly likely true if the Other World's life forms are sufficiently varied to produce many millions of species, each with their own adaptations and chemical structures.

-Duxwing

But this is an assumption based on similar chemical interactions occurring, and producing similar mechanical functions. It is assuming that environmental factors are similar - and that these factors, or pressures, affect the structure in a uniform manner.

Sure, I suppose you could have similar structures with different chemical compositions.

But, you could also have radically different structures with the same (different) chemical compositions.

For instance: yes, a brick of lead is as much a brick as a brick of iron. But let's say that both bricks are now in a tub of water . Over time, the iron will rust, the lead will not. Different chemical makeups change the physical structures. Now, obviously, this is a dramatic example (and let's be honest, somewhat meaningless ) but you get the point.

 

[Architect]

The scandinavian european states...

The american education system...

modern day culture...

In the natural world, I should say. Humans are good at defying natural laws.

Actually, if the failure were rewarded, then it too would be success.

-Duxwing

Precisely.

 

[Sorlaize]

Then again aliens may be shocking similar to us, several features have evolved on this planet multiple times and independently in parallel, y'know being a vertebrate has distinct advantages over being an invertebrate, lungs are a pretty standard way to breathe a gaseous atmosphere, now if you're a vertebrate with lungs a ribcage is of obvious benefit, as would extended endoskeletal limbs, then something like hands and something like feet, etc.

Not with the vast complexity of the universe allowing for variations of planets that support life. Each variation is a major, huge variation in human terms. At one point the human fetus has gills like a fish. We share much of our DNA with animals because that complexity describes the building and aging of the biological body itself rather than mostly being made up of that of human mind.

We only think of symmetrical and vertebrate organisms because it's all that has emerged, and so it's all that we know. Given a lot of time, there's much more creativity at play than any human would ever have. The very structures of our existence down to the molecular compounds are consequential. What about organisms with eyes like flies? Just look at our insects. They emerge from function. Flies are small because they travel a lot and to be generally adaptable over what to eat/recycle they are also irritable, so they move between sources of food. Flies can get in anywhere there is air circulation! It's not a conscious design but rather, the only thing that was able to stem off biological life evolution and last in our atmosphere/environment. Even slightly different/hotter planets will have fundamentally different rules for environmentally responsive evolution.

Hands and feet may not be so superior as we think, particularly in different gravity environments or terrains. They're highly developed, but they're particularly suited to our environment. What's to say you can't have a hand on your chest too? A roll body shape to roll around on the terrain? Our skulls are actually evolved curved to protect against blows from above with rocks or whatever. You can visualize that the weak skulls would be cracked open and the organism dies. Evolution is "just" the effective survival of the fittest, which is again, completely open to the environmental and social paradigms in place, including sexual selection which.. beauty is defined *by* the forms we need to sexualize. It's not objective; part is species memory.

Land/sea is also really important to consider. How chillingly significant is it that we have also *required*, to exist, a planet with both land and sea based evolution all this time, so as to take advantage of both for the global stable food chain and biodiversity, that can resist surface-level destruction by mankind? What civilizations on slightly dissimilar planets would die here in such a period of momentary stupidity and short-sightedness?

It is however unlikely that either we or they will find each other attractive

:P

in all honesty they will have to look more alien than deep sea monsters. Unless the messengers are designed *for* human contact..

https://www.google.com/search?q=deep+sea+monsters&tbm=isch

These are a great inspiration for outside-the-box design.

 

[Sorlaize]

seems likely that they'll have evolved bipedalism for the same reasons we did

only with the same gravity pull (planet size); energy availability and organism size. If we were hobbits or smaller we'd expend less energy moving around.. which changes population carrying size which changes everything else. Maybe you don't *need* your own pair of legs to move around-- we've created vehicles, but what about planets where animals make good public transport?.. important consideration. Maybe you have organisms band together in constructs alternate to ours and more like family. Not initially but, over time, they'd come to value different things as they had different environments to us. As human beings we've always been equipped to roam all livable parts of the Earth. What if the terrain was fundamentally different? What if communication was more well developed (maybe b/c of (initially early) population count) ?

Because don't forget the form of existence then dictates the social paradigm .. we need food and air and water, and we have lungs, because we can't draw energy other ways; those needs might be something that can be engineered away on other planets with a species at our stage. Which would change the social reality.

 

[Duxwing]

But this is an assumption based on similar chemical interactions occurring, and producing similar mechanical functions. It is assuming that environmental factors are similar - and that these factors, or pressures, affect the structure in a uniform manner.

Sure, I suppose you could have similar structures with different chemical compositions.

But, you could also have radically different structures with the same (different) chemical compositions.

For instance: yes, a brick of lead is as much a brick as a brick of iron. But let's say that both bricks are now in a tub of water . Over time, the iron will rust, the lead will not. Different chemical makeups change the physical structures. Now, obviously, this is a dramatic example (and let's be honest, somewhat meaningless ) but you get the point.

That's what I just said. Nevertheless, I agree.

-Duxwing

 

[Sorlaize]

If we really wanted to know whether aliens exist or not with a chance of visiting us, we'd hire/prioritize people that can think in non-human terms about life. Science is actually, in practice, bent to the will of human thought and consideration.

We don't prioritize this because we haven't realized it's even a possibility. We are that primitive in our global social development.

also

 

[The Introvert]

That's what I just said. Nevertheless, I agree.

-Duxwing

Ah, sorry. I saw your layout and kind of just assumed you were disagreeing lol.

 

[just george]

What are some inconsistencies you find with darwinism?

Because there is solid evidence that indicates that there is a missing spiritual component that guides life, and not the raw, edisonian view that matter is just matter and life comes from random bumps between particles.

For example, the quantum entanglement effect, which is where the mind of the researcher changes the outcome of experiments. How can mind affect matter so profoundly? If mind affects matter, so too shouldnt it affect evolution?

Then there was an experiment done quite recently where a bacterium was placed into a petri dish that lacked any food for it to consume. The expected outcome was that the bacterium would die, right? Since it would be impossible to evolve to be able to consume something that it couldnt within one generation, right?

Well the bacterium spontaneously produced the gene it needed in one generation, and ate food in the petri dish that it should not have been able to.

That experiment alone destroyed the notion of darwinian competitive selection, because the organism evolved massively by what seems to be its own free will (or magic beans. pick one).

So sure, some people are happy to believe that we evolved from fish. I have personally seen things in this world that are a bit too strange for me to believe that all of this happened by random chance, according to the pattern described by Darwin. Simply put, I think he made an assumption, and was wrong.

 

[Absurdity]

Then there was an experiment done quite recently where a bacterium was placed into a petri dish that lacked any food for it to consume. The expected outcome was that the bacterium would die, right? Since it would be impossible to evolve to be able to consume something that it couldnt within one generation, right?

Well the bacterium spontaneously produced the gene it needed in one generation, and ate food in the petri dish that it should not have been able to.

That experiment alone destroyed the notion of darwinian competitive selection, because the organism evolved massively by what seems to be its own free will (or magic beans. pick one).

Provided the experiment can be reproduced.

Source?

 

[Sorlaize]

there was an experiment done quite recently where a bacterium was placed into a petri dish that lacked any food for it to consume. The expected outcome was that the bacterium would die, right? Since it would be impossible to evolve to be able to consume something that it couldnt within one generation, right?

Well the bacterium spontaneously produced the gene it needed in one generation, and ate food in the petri dish that it should not have been able to.

That experiment alone destroyed the notion of darwinian competitive selection, because the organism evolved massively by what seems to be its own free will

You can say a bacterium has free will, or you can say the random chaotic static caused it. Points of view which can ultimately convey nothing much inandof themselves. The reality is that there can't be a human free will within that space of operation. It means nothing to us and our definition of human-level intelligence. But sure, why not say that (organism's reaction) holds some significance-- although we will base it all on our subjective notions of what intelligence and intelligent life should constitute. It's all we can do, because there's no standard for such a thing until it's defined.

What is right and what species should be given the reign of the planet? Open to interpretation, philosophically, and I think you have to link things up empirically/objectively to go into that.

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

We will most certainly acknowledge "less intelligent" life better in the future, and potentially coexist "better" but also maybe not:

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

I have personally seen things in this world that are a bit too strange for me to believe that all of this happened by random chance, according to the pattern described by Darwin. Simply put, I think he made an assumption, and was wrong.

The two perspectives don't conflict. They are two perspectives that have held.. sure we can apply ideas of self-consciousness and intelligence the the behaviour of molds for example. They are intelligent in "finding how to multiply most efficiently" through a process of trial and error over time -- it's our human element of explaining that which is faulty. In reality there's no correct way to frame it. There is just cause and effect. Pure function.

When you're fitting in an intelligent process of the behaviour of animals for example, or insects like flies, with scientific analytical models .. the same applies. They are systems because their behaviour can be described and modified easier, and they are much simpler cognitively than us; however; it can also be said that for them, subjectively, their frame of reference means everything.. flies get "angry" and that is sadly all we can do to understand these processes. We are so very biased in our comprehension.

 

[The Introvert]

If this is what he is referring to, then it disproves neither the theory of evolution nor "competitive selection" (which isn't even relevant in the experiment).

 

[Duxwing]

Because there is solid evidence that indicates that there is a missing spiritual component that guides life, and not the raw, edisonian view that matter is just matter and life comes from random bumps between particles.

For example, the quantum entanglement effect, which is where the mind of the researcher changes the outcome of experiments. How can mind affect matter so profoundly? If mind affects matter, so too shouldnt it affect evolution?

First, you're confusing quantum entanglement with the collapse of quantum wavefunctions: quantum entanglement refers to the seemingly faster-than-light 'communication' (to use the word loosely) between isolated particles. Second, you've misunderstood the collapse of quantum wavefunctions:

In the collapse of quantum wavefunctions, despite many analogies to the contrary, the mind of the observer has no effect on the experiment. Rather, the tools used to observe the quantum wavefunction cause it to collapse. Therefore, "mind," as you put it, has no effect on matter; instead, a delicate quantum state is shattered by human probing, kind of like explorers destroying countless tiny animals by blazing a trail through the jungle.

Third, why does there need to be a spiritual component to the world at all? One can easily imagine a monistic cosmos. At the risk of sounding like Doctor Freud, I suspect that your entire argument implicitly hinges upon your assumption that a spiritual world must exist.

Then there was an experiment done quite recently where a bacterium was placed into a petri dish that lacked any food for it to consume. The expected outcome was that the bacterium would die, right? Since it would be impossible to evolve to be able to consume something that it couldnt within one generation, right?

Well the bacterium spontaneously produced the gene it needed in one generation, and ate food in the petri dish that it should not have been able to.

That experiment alone destroyed the notion of darwinian competitive selection, because the organism evolved massively by what seems to be its own free will (or magic beans. pick one).

Evolution has no speed limit. Indeed, all the organism did was get very lucky and thrive. Also, given your lack of a source for this (rather extraordinary) claim, I'd like to see the experiment repeated and described in scientific journals.

So sure, some people are happy to believe that we evolved from fish. I have personally seen things in this world that are a bit too strange for me to believe that all of this happened by random chance, according to the pattern described by Darwin. Simply put, I think he made an assumption, and was wrong.

Now I'm not a fan of just listing off fallacies like a college logic teacher, but I feel that this lesson is warranted:

Argumentum ad hominem: The emotional state of those who believe in an idea has no impact on that idea's veracity.
Argument from Ignorance and Non Sequitur: Your inability to understand a phenomenon has no impact on the nature of that phenomenon, and evolution does not occur "by random chance". It occurs by the agglomeration of certain random phenotypical variations which have proved more useful in a given environment. To analogize this admittedly technical concept, consider a person with a big bucket of dice who throws each one. Once each die settles, he either puts it in one pile if it comes up with a value of 1 or another pile if it's any other number. All the 'ones' are what an observer would note as extant species, and all the other numbers are unseen because they are in another pile-- extinct, if you will. Indeed, the species we see today is the product of enormous sampling bias.
Freestanding assertion: what assumption?

-Duxwing

 

[Synthetix]

So sure, some people are happy to believe that we evolved from fish.

Placoderm, 480 million years ago, vertebrates jaws develop.

 

[just george]

Provided the experiment can be reproduced.

Source?

Google "epigenetics". In short, environment affects cells and organisms. Some people think that it doesn't disprove Darwins theory, while others (like myself) do.

Really the debate comes down to the driving force of evolution, and whether or not the mechanism of genetic change affects the whole theory.

 

[just george]

You can say a bacterium has free will, or you can say the random chaotic static caused it. Points of view which can ultimately convey nothing much inandof themselves. The reality is that there can't be a human free will within that space of operation.

The phenomenon of psychosomaticism is well established. As is the placebo effect. Clearly there are some things going on that stem from thought (which makes it all the more complicated because I havn't heard a decent explanation of what thought is fundamentally). I think it fair to connect thought with spirit, will, mind etc.

So, if you have clear evidence that the thoughts of an organism affect that organism tangibly, then a logical person would suspend belief in random chaos and say the only thing that is fair within our paradigm - "Im not sure".

It means nothing to us and our definition of human-level intelligence. But sure, why not say that (organism's reaction) holds some significance-- although we will base it all on our subjective notions of what intelligence and intelligent life should constitute. It's all we can do, because there's no standard for such a thing until it's defined.

And even if we do define it, with a limited intelligence set that is a subset of a greater one, would the definition be accurate? Im not sure.

What is right and what species should be given the reign of the planet? Open to interpretation, philosophically, and I think you have to link things up empirically/objectively to go into that.

I don't think that the universe is quite that straightforward or pyramidal. I don't think that the word "should" should be applied to life. Life is an absolute thing, that either can or cannot. Should implies some sort of moral judgement, which imo does not apply.

The two perspectives don't conflict. They are two perspectives that have held.. sure we can apply ideas of self-consciousness and intelligence the the behaviour of molds for example. They are intelligent in "finding how to multiply most efficiently" through a process of trial and error over time -- it's our human element of explaining that which is faulty. In reality there's no correct way to frame it. There is just cause and effect. Pure function.

No. The behaviour fits a model of function driven by cause and effect, but does not exclude consciousness. The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

When you're fitting in an intelligent process of the behaviour of animals for example, or insects like flies, with scientific analytical models .. the same applies. They are systems because their behaviour can be described and modified easier, and they are much simpler cognitively than us; however; it can also be said that for them, subjectively, their frame of reference means everything.. flies get "angry" and that is sadly all we can do to understand these processes. We are so very biased in our comprehension.

In that, we agree

 

[Duxwing]

Google "epigenetics". In short, environment affects cells and organisms. Some people think that it doesn't disprove Darwins theory, while others (like myself) do.

Really the debate comes down to the driving force of evolution, and whether or not the mechanism of genetic change affects the whole theory.

Epigenetics is the study of things that affect genetic code that don't occur in the genetic code (e.g., epigenetic markers affecting gene experssion, DNA damage, etc.); all those things are deterministic and therefore part of evolution. I conjecture that you've assumed a dualistic free will influencing genetic expression much a like one might imagine an angel writing a letter. Unfortunately for your argument, you'd have to prove that humans have truly free will first because the current (and well supported) theory is that the human mind is a deterministic chemical reaction.

Of course, you might argue that Lamarckian "use it or lose it" phenomena could occur, thereby affecting allele expression within the lifetime of a single individual. Yet you'd still need evidence to support such a claim, evidence that you have yet to produce-- just like your source for the experiment *elbow poke*.

-Duxwing

 

[just george]

If this is what he is referring to, then it disproves neither the theory of evolution nor "competitive selection" (which isn't even relevant in the experiment).

It isn't. Thanks for jogging my memory - the information that caused my initial post was from an oral lecture, not an article.

 

[just george]

Epigenetics is the study of things that affect genetic code that don't occur in the genetic code (e.g., epigenetic markers affecting gene experssion, DNA damage, etc.); all those things are deterministic and therefore part of evolution. I conjecture that you've assumed a dualistic free will influencing genetic expression much a like one might imagine an angel writing a letter. Unfortunately for your argument, you'd have to prove that humans have truly free will first because the current (and well supported) theory is that the human mind is a deterministic chemical reaction.

Of course, you might argue that Lamarckian "use it or lose it" phenomena could occur, thereby affecting allele expression within the lifetime of a single individual. Yet you'd still need evidence to support such a claim, evidence that you have yet to produce-- just like your source for the experiment *elbow poke*.

-Duxwing

Duxwing, bloody slow down Im trying to respond 1 by 1 dammit

Also I get a sense that you look at the world through a strong prism of science. Ie if you cant replicate it, model it, or get enough people to agree with you, then it isn't true. I don't see truth like that. Truth is singular, and certainly not a democratic outcome.

 

[just george]

First, you're confusing quantum entanglement with the collapse of quantum wavefunctions: quantum entanglement refers to the seemingly faster-than-light 'communication' (to use the word loosely) between isolated particles. Second, you've misunderstood the collapse of quantum wavefunctions:

In the collapse of quantum wavefunctions, despite many analogies to the contrary, the mind of the observer has no effect on the experiment. Rather, the tools used to observe the quantum wavefunction cause it to collapse. Therefore, "mind," as you put it, has no effect on matter; instead, a delicate quantum state is shattered by human probing, kind of like explorers destroying countless tiny animals by blazing a trail through the jungle.

I am not confusing the two thankyouverymuch.

By your own words, you've said that the probing of the human mind shatters a delicate quantum state. What quantum state? How was it shattered? What aspect of mind shattered it? What is the mechanism?

What you've said is contradictory.

Third, why does there need to be a spiritual component to the world at all? One can easily imagine a monistic cosmos. At the risk of sounding like Doctor Freud, I suspect that your entire argument implicitly hinges upon your assumption that a spiritual world must exist.

Not that it must exist, but that it may. That thought alone is enough to give me pause about believing something absolutely.

Evolution has no speed limit. Indeed, all the organism did was get very lucky and thrive. Also, given your lack of a source for this (rather extraordinary) claim, I'd like to see the experiment repeated and described in scientific journals.

The organism got lucky. Really. How do you know, without reviewing the evidence? Statements statements assumptions assumptions, young duxwing

Now I'm not a fan of just listing off fallacies like a college logic teacher, but I feel that this lesson is warranted:

Sometimes lessons go the other way

Argumentum ad hominem: The emotional state of those who believe in an idea has no impact on that idea's veracity.

True, but the emotional state of those who believe in an idea may prematurely halt an investigation that would give rise to a greater truth. That kind of thinking is the source of "scientific consensus" and thinking that "the science is settled". In my mind, the science is never settled, or it wouldnt be science.

Argument from Ignorance and Non Sequitur: Your inability to understand a phenomenon has no impact on the nature of that phenomenon, and evolution does not occur "by random chance". It occurs by the agglomeration of certain random phenotypical variations which have proved more useful in a given environment. To analogize this admittedly technical concept, consider a person with a big bucket of dice who throws each one. Once each die settles, he either puts it in one pile if it comes up with a value of 1 or another pile if it's any other number. All the 'ones' are what an observer would note as extant species, and all the other numbers are unseen because they are in another pile-- extinct, if you will. Indeed, the species we see today is the product of enormous sampling bias.

The argument was made from ignorance, it was made to demonstrate ignorance.

To use your example with the dice, one person may count the dice, assign each a number, and determine a species. However, that person did not consider (or closely examine) why the dice fell in that way. What role did gravity play? Why?

Freestanding assertion: what assumption?

-Duxwing

The assumption that evolution is not affected (or driven by) intent.

 

[Duxwing]

Duxwing, bloody slow down Im trying to respond 1 by 1 dammit

Also I get a sense that you look at the world through a strong prism of science. Ie if you cant replicate it, model it, or get enough people to agree with you, then it isn't true. I don't see truth like that. Truth is singular, and certainly not a democratic outcome.

*is sitting cross legged on a small blanket, eyes closed, batting each reply away with a flick of his finger*In time, young one, you will learn the ways of the Force. Let it be your guide. *slowly exhales through pursed lips, and, with equal peace, breathes in through his nose*

I've found the other worldviews lacking in their ability to produce useful predictions about the world that is presumably around me. Private revelation must feel awesome, but it doesn't prove anything, supernatural elements are fundamentally unprovable (rendering belief in them fundamentally illogical) and pure intuition is like taking a pebble to a boulder fight: you'll get crushed by logic and evidence every time.

Yet I don't look upon the ineffable as false, only ineffable. For instance, I don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a God; if one existed, he, she, or it would exist beyond human comprehension. And I most certainly, on the off chance that you might think so, do not lack appreciation for the human experience. It is at times wonderful and at others terrible, but I'm not one to dismiss it as boring or useless. Part of being a scientist is having a humble appreciation for the concepts yet beyond one's grasp, for the elegant truths that lie in store like candies hidden by, for lack of a better word, a rational God. Perhaps it is a purely psychological phenomena that drives me to understand this cosmos, in which, in the words of Carl Sagan, "we float, like a mote of dust, on the morning sky".

Indeed, the philosophy of the Enlightenment appealed to me as a young boy. It promised safety: certainty in Truth and knowledge. Yet I know full well that such certainty is the ephemeral illusion of a mind hungry, even desperate, for an understanding of its nature and surroundings. When I don't understand something, I most certainly feel nervous; I want to reach out with my mind at take it apart like one might disassemble a toaster as a small child, to render it nothing more than the sum of parts, to once again be at peace. I've never known why I feel this way, and in a way, I don't want the illusion to stop.

Nevertheless, I acquiesce to your claim of foundationalism. We can never truly know anything, and I approach philosophy with the same detachment with which I approach art. I just find philosophy particularly more moving, more beautiful, more dramatic, and more meaningful than any piece of art. It's part of whom I am, whom I've been, and whom I'll forever be: Duxwing, the eternal contemplator.

-Duxwing

 

[just george]

dux, can you please, please for the love of God (who may or may not exist etcetc lets not go there) stop using colored text - your posts are like the United Colors of Benneton, and are causing the step mother of all headaches to manifest behind my face

 

[Duxwing]

dux, can you please, please for the love of God (who may or may not exist etcetc lets not go there) stop using colored text - your posts are like the United Colors of Benneton, and are causing the step mother of all headaches to manifest behind my face

You mean these colors? Don't worry, I can stop whenever I want! *quickly turns away and nibbles on a crayon* See?! *nervous laugh* I'm perfectly fine! *OM NOM NOM NOM!*

All kidding aside, I will stop using colored text when discussing with you. *gives george an Advil, an ice pack, and a cup of chicken soup*. Get well soon!

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

I am not confusing the two thankyouverymuch.

By your own words, you've said that the probing of the human mind shatters a delicate quantum state. What quantum state? How was it shattered? What aspect of mind shattered it? What is the mechanism?

What you've said is contradictory.

No, there is no contradiction, for the mind does not do the shattering: the tools do.

Not that it must exist, but that it may. That thought alone is enough to give me pause about believing something absolutely.

And I could be the world's smartest dog. Does that give you pause about my posts? No, and it shouldn't; idle conjecture about possible truths is just that, idle conjecture.

The organism got lucky. Really. How do you know, without reviewing the evidence? Statements statements assumptions assumptions, young duxwing

I would have reviewed the evidence had you provided the study that you'd cited, even still, survival by luck is the most likely answer.

Sometimes lessons go the other way

*puts on a cheesy French accent* We shall see about zat! En garde!

True, but the emotional state of those who believe in an idea may prematurely halt an investigation that would give rise to a greater truth. That kind of thinking is the source of "scientific consensus" and thinking that "the science is settled". In my mind, the science is never settled, or it wouldnt be science.

The assertion of incomplete study must be substantiated before we consider it in our model, and the argument for evolution can be evaluated on its own merits. Also, the possibility that new evidence could prove the current model wrong is always there; it's just highly unlikely.

The argument was made from ignorance, it was made to demonstrate ignorance.

And how does proving your ignorance help your point, exactly?

To use your example with the dice, one person may count the dice, assign each a number, and determine a species. However, that person did not consider (or closely examine) why the dice fell in that way. What role did gravity play? Why?

Surely, you misunderstood. I was trying to explain why we don't see extinct species, not speciation itself.

The assumption that evolution is not affected (or driven by) intent.

The burden of proof lies on those who assert, and since a monistic model is simpler, you must prove that will affects evolution. Scientists didn't assume that will plays no role, either, they just didn't assume that it did.

-Duxwing

 

[SLushhYYY]

Arguing against evolution is more absurd than arguing that there is a 7 armed, 4 eyed, 45 foot human like, bipedal beast parading its way on a planet somewhere in the universe. The ignorance is beyond comprehension.

 

[Synthetix]

Arguing against evolution is more absurd than arguing that there is a 7 armed, 4 eyed, 45 foot human like, bipedal beast parading its way on a planet somewhere in the universe. The ignorance is beyond comprehension.

Never know, the universe is a massive place. Although I doubt evolution/natural selection would result in such a creature. The possibility is greater than zero, but it's extremely unlikely.

 

[Sorlaize]

So, if you have clear evidence that the thoughts of an organism affect that organism tangibly, then a logical person would suspend belief in random chaos and say the only thing that is fair within our paradigm - "Im not sure".

Not sure what your point is here. Random chaos can operate alongside thoughts. It just becomes more complex to think about. If everything affects everything, that becomes something complex to think about; it was never a case of "this theory or that one".

It means nothing to us and our definition of human-level intelligence. But sure, why not say that (organism's reaction) holds some significance-- although we will base it all on our subjective notions of what intelligence and intelligent life should constitute. It's all we can do, because there's no standard for such a thing until it's defined.

And even if we do define it, with a limited intelligence set that is a subset of a greater one, would the definition be accurate? Im not sure.

It would be accurate to us to define something that we happen to find accurate enough. Look at animal rights. We define the concept of intelligence based on human intelligence, and we're not (individually) willing to appreciate "lesser" lifeforms as equal to us so why would we in the wider sphere of humanity?

It's never about being right. Intelligence; rights; whatever.. they're concepts that change over time, with the nature of human civilization.

What is right and what species should be given the reign of the planet? Open to interpretation, philosophically, and I think you have to link things up empirically/objectively to go into that.

I don't think that the universe is quite that straightforward or pyramidal. I don't think that the word "should" should be applied to life. Life is an absolute thing, that either can or cannot. Should implies some sort of moral judgement, which imo does not apply.

That's why I find myself putting certain words in quotes. But that isn't required here because we are judging life in a human way; it's all we are going to be doing. There will be a 'should' because we are defining it by existing, and it's only the human definition that ever comes into play. Objectively that's all that comes into play: what we care about and what we value. Because human civilization is the opinion in the room with the gun.

The two perspectives don't conflict. They are two perspectives that have held.. sure we can apply ideas of self-consciousness and intelligence the the behaviour of molds for example. They are intelligent in "finding how to multiply most efficiently" through a process of trial and error over time -- it's our human element of explaining that which is faulty. In reality there's no correct way to frame it. There is just cause and effect. Pure function.

No. The behaviour fits a model of function driven by cause and effect, but does not exclude consciousness. The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Right, cause and effect never excludes consciousness because consciousness *is* operating on top of cause and effect. But that doesn't change the fact we will choose to frame reality in whichever way it suits human thinking / the human condition. You don't think about the intelligence built into the cellular structures of the food you eat. You think about it as food. And the same applies where we see things in nature and in society that look like human intelligence .. those arbitrary things may be given temporary value. In certain cases (like with saying mold growth is an intentional form of survival) we are picking and choosing a function of some arbitrary intelligence that appears particularly human in nature and saying "oh look, doesn't that similar aspect make it totally the same as human intelligence?" ..which of course it's not. And in such cases, yeah, there are models of intelligence there which we could appreciate, but the truth of that is it's very difficult for us to stay suspended in thought like that, so because of that nature we put such things under a category of "arbitrary functions" and label them relative to humans. (Just look at the headers / section titles here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant) To say bacterias are conscious is useless to the human reference we use to navigate the world.

Bacteria and protozoa like paramecia are below that line, so, in this view, they would not be conscious. They would be more like proto-conscious—something like a primitive sub-conscious or dream state.

..it's pretty useless because when you start talking on that level you are talking REALLY complex. We are only interested in human-level worldly interactions and intelligence.

 

[Sorlaize]

To use your example with the dice, one person may count the dice, assign each a number, and determine a species. However, that person did not consider (or closely examine) why the dice fell in that way. What role did gravity play? Why?

Freestanding assertion: what assumption?

The assumption that evolution is not affected (or driven by) intent.

Indeed there's never an answer. Because the answer depends on the observer, and we aren't truly interested in answering, but living.

Intent is yet another of those concepts plucked out of thin air by human intrigue. It doesn't explain anything in the broader picture; it's a small part of what we want to make sense to us. Intent is (as mentioned above) part epigenetic technically; intent is spread across parts of intelligence built into the structures we are using today like computers; like biological organisms themselves if we're talking about primordial man. Intent is a small knife by which we can cross-section some of that process of evolution scientifically, but ultimately it's a human label we are trying to fit on a massively complex process of reality functioning over time. There's never going to be a useful answer that applies to modern society and modern rationalizations for living day-to-day. We are so very confused about how we behave as a civilization, that it's shocking.


So, going back to an earlier point and a response-

So sure, some people are happy to believe that we evolved from fish. I have personally seen things in this world that are a bit too strange for me to believe that all of this happened by random chance, according to the pattern described by Darwin. Simply put, I think he made an assumption, and was wrong.

Placoderm, 480 million years ago, vertebrates jaws develop.

As I said, nothing is cleared up, even if we can build abstract models of what's happening. Because, we're only interested in the human element of all of history; all of everything that ever happened. Reality doesn't care for our terms; it has more complex things at the base of functioning which defy our ability to recognize and grab hold of. If you want to truly find answers, you have to stop talking in human terms and model the world in a more abstract way, which is the process of (physically) changing your mind to appreciate new forms of knowledge. You have to *become* the knowledge.