Evolution

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Orthogonal » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:12 am

Aristarchus wrote:Your links/studies do not state any empirical evidence for mutations, and this is why the language in them use words like "suggest." What is being found empirically is that information can be lost, rearranged, or added. That is all.


That is the stripped down definition of what mutation is, is it not? What else do you call this empirical observation other than a mutation?

Aristarchus wrote:This is not empirical evidence. It is simply based upon a preferred scientific conceptualization and applying it to the observed data...
You don't know the exact source of the FOXP2 gene, but you're sure it evolved over time from mutations, and yet, you do not source this contradictory claim? You even punctuate your positing with, "I don't know" - twice. With all due respect, but I believe I must establish at this point in our discussion that we're not even on the level playing field of science, but rather, seeking to identify logical constructs. I must also state that you do provide evidence for one of my main themes and interests about how science comports to conceptualizations and not true observations.


Point well taken, and this brings up a different, but related point. Not to derail the topic, but I have recently become aware of Thread Theory as proposed by Bill Gaede. He has a very interesting approach that rocks theoretical physics to its core regarding conceptualizations, observations and rigorous definitions. I've never considered this same approach to Evolution and biological sciences, but it is worth pursuing. I have probably taken for granted the model conceptualizations of evolution and not considered their interpretations in light of observations.

Having said that, I do not know of any other mechanism that would explain the appearance of the FOXP2 gene (among other unique human genes). It certainly did not surreptitiously appear and lay dormant for hundreds of thousands of years. Do you have a hypothesis on its origin? Or do you make no claim as to its origin?

Aristarchus wrote:Really? What other species is seeking questions about its origins or its role in nature on a metaphysical level? What other species defends ideals and ideas? What other species examines the specifics of what constitutes scientific methodology?


That's not what I was referring too. Human's have clearly adapted a higher level of brain functioning than any other species on the planet. Abstract thought is unique to humanity. I was specifically referring to how an animal behavior or psychology can influence its evolutionary selection, but reading further into it I was inferring that other species have shown traits or characteristics that we would call "emotion" on a more primitive level. Several animal's have demonstrated what we would call compassion and mourning for loss. Its hard to fully qualify since we are unable to directly communicate with them, but from a human perspective these traits are observable as primitive levels.
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:31 pm

Orthogonal,
Your question about the meaning of mutation is valid, but here again, the standard evolutionary model requires that NEW bits of information be added and accumulated over time, all viable [by definition of "survival"]; and further that these new information bits are responsible for all the changes in every kingdom, phylum, class, or order of organism alive or that has ever lived. The sources of these mutations are variously assumed to be environmental toxins, cosmic rays, The changes of microevolution have to do with the activation of, recombination of, or rearrangement of previously existing information. While such rearrangements or reactivations may result in the appearance of different characteristics than typically found in a population, they can not be considered as truly NEW information that would lead to any type of macroevolution/phylogeny. And it must begin spontaneously from collisions of just the right chemicals in the right ratios and chirality, a combination not known to exist anywhere in the universe, incl. on the ancient earth, where the enthusuasm of evolutionists leads to its presumption... The extremely low degree of probability of even a single viable protein assembling by chance has been computed by various evolutionary researchers to be on the order 10^-160 to 10^-500. Considering the # of particles in the universe was estimated by Einstein to be on the order of 10^80, this low probability is virtually/statistically zero. Nevertheless, "since here we are today, it must have happened", right? In addition to the low probability, there is no known mechanism by which such mutations [always observed to be deleterious], can accumulate in any kind of beneficial way. The Neo-Darwinists insist that this must be random and undirected, while Darwinists simply say that "hey, given billions of years, anything can happen, right?" On top of that, several groups must undergo this random yet relentless accumulation of new traits in concert with each other in order to assure an interdependent and symbiotic living system... life as we know it. From this viewpoint, [macro]evolution is an absurd proposition, or at least a proposition requiring a great deal of faith.
Last edited by webolife on Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Aristarchus » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:19 pm

Orthogonal wrote:That is the stripped down definition of what mutation is, is it not? What else do you call this empirical observation other than a mutation?


My bad. I was multi-tasking at the time and did not complete my thought. Yes. It is an example of mutation in the sense of explaining Down Syndrome & Non-Disjunction. Following the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the two latter are examples of organization to disorganization. Evolution based on this this is a contradiction.

Orthogonal wrote:Or do you make no claim as to its origin?


Correct. I make no assumptions about its origin, because to do so would be to start off with a false premise. Furthermore, any evolutional theory based on mutation of the FOXP2 gene would not satisfy the presumption of origin:

However, human FOXP2 differs from gorilla, chimp and rhesus macaque in two further amino acids (and thus differs from mouse in three amino acids out of 715). So, in 75 million years since the divergence of mouse and chimpanzee lineages only one change has occurred in FOXP2, (and that equates to 150 million years of evolution as we don't know whether the mutation occurred in the mouse or the primate lineage) whilst in the six million years since the divergence of man and chimpanzee lineages two changes have occurred in the human lineage.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm



Orthogonal wrote:Abstract thought is unique to humanity.


Ergo, humans are unique in the Animal Kingdom on this planet.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:02 pm

webolife wrote:The sources of these mutations are variously assumed to be environmental toxins, cosmic rays,


Ah, forgive the typo... This was a misedit on my part. The sentence should have gone on to read "... UV or other radiation, all agents of depletion of information as they interact with DNA strands. Even if one assumes and argues that the depleted DNA produces a new trait, this is no mechanism for the continual addition/accumulation of NEW info required by [macro]evolution."
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Orthogonal » Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:09 pm

Aristarchus wrote:Ergo, humans are unique in the Animal Kingdom on this planet.


You are unique, just like everyone else :D . I never disputed humanities unique qualities, they are self evident. I was discussing with JaJa whether humans are the most "evolutionary advanced" as an objective criteria, but I can see where you are coming from when I originally referenced "human exceptionalism".
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:11 am

Orthogonal wrote:I know you are trying to argue that human's dominance is a result of their "evolutionary advancedness", and that may be true, but it does not logically follow

I asked you to tell me how you are separating dominance from evolutionary advanced. I'm not arguing anything about "evolutionary advancedness" because it is my view that the theory belongs in the garbage bin with religion and politics... and probably most of modern cosmology.
Does this mean the Orca is the second most evolutionarily advanced species on the planet?

Could be - I did see an Orca out of the ocean and pushing a trolley around Walmart the other day as it was balancing on its tail fin carrying a hand bag with it's free flipper.
Perhaps I'm just not very creative

I think you are very "creative"... but I'm afraid the point is not even worth arguing.
There is no "knowing" in the mechanism. It just IS.

The question was this: "What would be the underlying feature/quality of a mechanism that allows it to be selective"
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:27 pm

There is no "rationality" in the mechanism.... yet here we are, so it must be right! Thus saith the evolutionary paradigm. One could say, "who cares?" and be justified [I'm hoping this is not JohnMT's position?], except that evolutionary [eugenic] thinking has perpetuated some of the most horrific and genocidal regimes in the last century, from Stalin to Hitler, to [name your favorite fascist here], all of whom believed that "survival of the fittest" would lead to a purging of "bad blood" from the population. Those inferior humans, after all, are no more than advanced animals in a long line of evolutionary peons awaiting extinction...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:03 am

webolife wrote:There is no "rationality" in the mechanism.... yet here we are, so it must be right!

I did wonder if I am being a little inequitable towards Orthogonal and his/her defence of the theory but then I realised I am trying to make sense of statements such as this:
Orthogonal wrote:If an environment is relatively stable, we would expect the species to also remain fairly constant over long periods of time. This is why we don't see massive changes in bacteria since they are so well adapted to a specific niche

Why would a mechanism stop making changes. Why would the changes slow down if an environment was relatively stable, at least enough to allow species to remain fairly constant when according to Orthogonal...
There is no "knowing" in the mechanism. It just IS

Saying a mechanism stops making changes or slows down to such a degree that species will remain relatively stable or constant over long periods of time, just because IT DOES... is [...]. It also contradicts this:
Orthogonal wrote:The first proto-cells had near infinite paths of progression with little or no competition

In part I agreed with this because I said:
jaja wrote:A machine doesn’t care if a niche is filled because it is simply coughing out near-infinite combinations in a blind process

Orthogonal also posited:
Mutation is random, natural selection is not.

By definition: (non-random) selectiveness means to be choosy, picky or fussy - which is where I am struggling with this assertion...
There is no "knowing" in the mechanism. It just IS

Like I said previously (like a record player that's stuck) what is the underlying quality/ability of a mechanism that enables it to be selective, i.e. to choose/know when to stop/or slow down the evolution of a species, or to know/realise that an environment is relatively stable - when in reality, a mechanism (like a random number generator) that is blind to everything (having no ability to know anything) would simply keep on coughing out number combinations regardless of whether its combinations are useful or detrimental to species, the environment, niche factors or anything else for that matter.

Hence my question, why don't we see ALL species (macro and microscopic) in continual states of change. A mechanism doesn't/cannot give a hoot about what is being churned out and saying that the mechanism is somehow 'selective' just because it IS is a cop-out of the highest order... as bad as:
Everything IS a transitional stage

... and I am the one playing word games or using semantics.
Orthogonal wrote:...What you are asking for is a movie from beginning to end. This does occur, but the spacing of the "move frames" cannot be controlled. I can show you a picture of me as a baby, at 10yrs, and an adult. I would be "evolving" from one state to the next, but you only get a few snapshots to prove it. This is about as good as it can get.

I'll leave you with an apt quote:
“The evolution of the brain not only overshot the needs of prehistoric man, it is the only example of evolution providing a species with an organ which it does not know how to use”

Arthur Koestler
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JohnMT » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:55 pm

'webolife' wrote:

There is no "rationality" in the mechanism.... yet here we are, so it must be right! Thus saith the evolutionary paradigm. One could say, "who cares?" and be justified [I'm hoping this is not JohnMT's position?], except that evolutionary [eugenic] thinking has perpetuated some of the most horrific and genocidal regimes in the last century, from Stalin to Hitler, to [name your favorite fascist here], all of whom believed that "survival of the fittest" would lead to a purging of "bad blood" from the population. Those inferior humans, after all, are no more than advanced animals in a long line of evolutionary peons awaiting extinction...


Hi all,

As to your above remark "who cares" 'webolife', I am completely justified by asserting that I do care very much indeed and always have done, hence my previous posts on this subject.

As I have repeatedly said before, there is no evidence whatsoever of so-called 'Evolution' having occurred at all.
If there is, then please tell me!
On this, I am open to the entire Forum to refute my assertions.

It is a pitiful shame it seems to me, that this most disastrous ASSUMPTION (and that is all it is...just a mere assumption) called 'Evolution' is perpetually taught in Schools, Colleges and Universities etc Worldwide (and of course the mostly ill-educated and ignorant Media etc), as if being an actual FACT, which plainly and quite logically, it is not.
Bold statement for sure, but in my understanding, it is undoubtedly the truth.

So where are we going with this Thread entitled 'Evolution'?

Are we as it appears, to assume that 'Evolution' is an actual fact, then to further discuss the matter from that particular unproven standpoint, or should we perhaps examine the apparent machinations and origins etc (if indeed there are any) of what this weird and comparatively recent phenomenon called 'Evolution' actually is?

To my mind (and no disrespect to any posters at all), if we have been 'conditioned' to accept 'Evolution' to be an actual fact (courtesy no doubt of the many Darwinian devotees once schooled/indoctrinated over many years in so-called 'higher education', such as the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens etc...Yawn!), then we might just as well go along with these so-called 'experts' and accept the notion that 'Gravity' rules the Universe and that the 'Big Bang' is equally a fact...afterall, during their many debates and delibertions etc (and I have heard many of them ), that is all they assume too.
Curiously, during these sometimes lengthy discussions/debates etc, there has been no mention at all of the dominating 'Electric Force' whatsoever!

How misinformed can one be!?

No disrepect to the originator of this Thread, but it seems to me that perhaps the Title should be 'Origins', then perhaps we might get some real answers from many well-informed posters...or at least a very interesting discussion.

Just a few thoughts and of course no offence intended to those that actually do believe in 'Evolution' ;)

Cheers,

John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:40 pm

JohnMT wrote:there has been no mention at all of the dominating 'Electric Force' whatsoever!

Urzeit, Robert Becker, The body electric, electrostatic fields, spontaneous evolution
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JohnMT » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:21 pm

Hi JaJa,

You wrote (and curiously without further explanation?):

JohnMT wrote:
there has been no mention at all of the dominating 'Electric Force' whatsoever!


I was of course referring to the many debates by the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins etc.
Indeed during their many deliberations, they have never referred to the 'Electric Force' at all!
That is an absolute fact.
How curious.

Also, and sadly lacking within their rather meagre and ill-informed so-called 'Presentations' (purely intellectually-based of course, due to many years of learning how to defeat an argument...and don't they talk well...which in my experience is what the Americans in particular love to hear...never mind the subject...it is the authoratively-speaking 'Oxford Accent' they came actually to hear), nor do any of these apparently "highly educated" guys refer to 'Catastrophism' at all!

You would note, should you read within their apparent 'Logic', that these above so-called "intellectual experts" only follow the current 'mainstream thinking' in Astronomy and Cosmology etc of the day, which as you know is being continually revised almost day by day anyway???

In essence, such proponents of 'Evolution' (and Dawkins/Hitchens are regarded even within the scientific community as being the best proponents on the subject, indeed in the entire world!) are really only guessing with their stupid suppositions and are hence in reality, perpetually stuck within the quagmire of intellectual ignorance, which unfortunately pervades this world.

Quite frankly, their deliberations and unenlightened ideas are not only just a Joke, but also an insult to our intelligence too...but interestingly, don't their books sell well.

This to me bespeaks enormously of the numerous ignoramuses that abide amongst us, for (courtesy the Media etc), they all believe this 'Evolution' LIE...and a LIE it is! ( no offence at all intended towards any current posters, for this is only my brief summize on the subject and indeed, my belief too, based on considerable experience)

However, to conclude this short post, my opinion is that so-called 'Evolution' is a complete and absolute current-day MYTH, devoid of any natural explanation whatsoever.

Velikovsky himslf was much closer to the truth than these guys ever will be.

Like I suggested earlier, perhaps 'Origins' might be a suitable discussion to pursue.

All the above is of course just my opinion, but is itelf based on many years of in-depth thinking and research.

Cheers all, :D

John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Orthogonal » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:14 pm

JaJa, considering we keep coming back to the same questions, lets recap Evolution in regards to all the questions you posed. My intention is to keep this post on a "bird's eye view" of the theory and then if further questions remain we can dig into those a little deeper. I will mostly be re-treading ground covered in this thread but perhaps laying it out in a cohesive format.

Mutation is random, Natural selection is not. This seems to be the crux of the matter in your inquiry

From a very general point of view. Mutation represents the near infinite possibilities that life can take. Mutation is always occuring and affects different species at different rates. Natural selection is the boundary conditions for what is possible. It does not "know" what it is selecting, it is the environment selecting what is or is not viable. i.e. food sources, climate, geology and competition or cooperation with other species. When starting from a "blank slate", mutation allows life to pursue many, many avenues of potential success as life would evolve numerous generalists and specialists to fill the biosphere (think Cambrian explosion). Over time, even if the rates of mutation remain high, competition for resources will become more fierce as niches are filled. Natural selection has become very restrictive and makes it difficult for speciation to occur broadly at this point even if mutation rates are still high. This is the "slowing" I was referring too before. It does not stop, but due to the complex network of the biosphere and food chain, there are few avenues for a mutation to really benefit or push a species into so we see less speciation overall. In this situation, speciation will only occur in isolated cases where a species enters a new environment or it occurs broadly on all life over some long-term geological or climatological change. But nature is not static, mass extinction events introduce huge voids in the food chain and reintroduce opportunity for speciation. It is very common to find broad speciation after extinction level events, almost like a mini-cambrian explosion, although no ELE has ever brought about a speciation event like the very first one.

Whether you accept mutation as an evolutionary mechanism or not is a different discussion all together, but that is the major thrust of it as I've outlined.

I asked you to tell me how you are separating dominance from evolutionary advanced. I'm not arguing anything about "evolutionary advancedness" because it is my view that the theory belongs in the garbage bin with religion and politics... and probably most of modern cosmology.


I don't know what purpose it would serve for me to make this distinction then since you would just discard it anyway. I'm not entirely sure what we're even debating anymore. :?

I think you are very "creative"... but I'm afraid the point is not even worth arguing.


hilarious :roll:




In regards to some of webolifes comments. Yes, many mutations are deleterious and are thus selected against. Typically, any mutation that affects protein production is deleterious. Very few are neutral or beneficial to the host. When speaking of mutation as a positive towards evolution, it typically happens when there is a duplication error of a gene. The original gene remains performing its normal job and any mutation to it would likely be deleterious, however the copied gene is a source of new information and potentially beneficial attributes. The copied gene may not even be active in the species at the time and can thus go about many changes without harming the host. Occasionally a mutation will activate that copied gene and do something to the host. In the case that it is beneficial, it is now a new attribute that can spread through the population. (Like citrate digestion for E. Coli as I linked to before). The accumulation of these mutations is what brings about phenotype changes.
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:57 am

JohnMT wrote: I was of course referring to the many debates by the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins etc.
Indeed during their many deliberations, they have never referred to the 'Electric Force' at all!
That is an absolute fact.
How curious.

John please accept my apology I assumed you were referring to the content of the thread. I have no idea why the "Electric Force" isn't considered - probably the same reason consciousness is dismissed as an epiphenomenon and mechanisms can be selective just because they can. Not my view of course.
JohnMT wrote:Like I suggested earlier, perhaps 'Origins' might be a suitable discussion to pursue

I agree. Get rid of the nonsense that is the Big Bang and it leaves open a very curious question about origins - how does anything originate within an environment that has no beginning, middle or end?
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:40 am

JohnMT and JaJa, I get and mostly agree with pretty much everything you are saying [few minor points of semantics].
Orthogonal, you have made my point as well as I could. "Mutations" are rarely if ever seen as neutral or beneficial, yet this is the only mechanism by which the variations you are suggesting could happen in evolution. So humans are the accumulation of billions of "errors" [aka mutations] since the first procaryotes, you say. Thus a theory that presupposes that even though it has a nonviable mechanism, it is responsible for humans and every other complex and interdependent organism. "Selection" can only occur on pre-existing info, which enters by means of mutation, which you admit is not beneficial to the organism, so the "selective": process will result thereby in no evolution, unless you postulate and assume that occassional mutations accumulate over time. This assumption IS evolution, and evolution is this assumption, a religious belief, if you will. However, the topic of the thread is about the prevalent theory/paradigm of modern and post-modern biology, so it is not at all defunct as an issue. "Evolution" has been clouding and hindering the advancement of knowledge for over a century, and needs to be exposed. If we are to try to counter this with an EU perspective, it serves us well to know what we are countering, n'est-ce pas?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby starbiter » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:55 am

easeplay on'tday orgetfay ethay izardslay........................... please don't forget the lizards



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html



ewnay onditionscay, ewnay eaturescray............................. new conditions, new creatures


ETTERBAY uitedsay eaturescray............................ BETTER suited creatures
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests