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 09, 2011 6:45 pm

I seem to be getting numerous replies for every one of my posts so I'll do my best to respond, but I apologize if I miss some arguments, I'm not trying to be evasive.

JaJa wrote:Unfalsifiable speculation doesn’t prove a theory is right.

I never claimed it did.

JaJa wrote:Those near infinite pathways (if true) would still be open despite competition – hence near infinite possibilities – an almost endless number of crossroads. If one path is shut because of competition then another door will always be open due to near-infinite possibilities.


Let me first start by saying what I should have said a long time ago. I am not an evolutionary biologist, I just play one on internet fora. 8-) I may very likely misspeak or say something completely wrong, and if so I will happily eat crow.

The notion of punctuated equilibrium is what comes into play here. When there are openings in any niche, it is filled by whatever lifeform can adapt or take advantage the quickest. After this happens, the ecosphere remains fairly stable and evolution happens very slowly. For example, This is why predators and their traditional prey are so well adapted to each other with both offensive and defensive mechanisms. However, when a species is transplanted either by nature or by human accidentally, it can wreak havoc on the system since there may be no natural predator, or a particular species has no natural defense and is killed off quickly. Whenever there is a large disruption like a natural disaster or an extinction level event the balance is destroyed. Whether this is large or small, there is now an opening for rapid evolution to occur to fill the void.


JaJa wrote:If these little critters have endured 3.5 billion years and there is zero evidence of them in transitional stages either now or then how can we even consider they came from something else.


Everything IS a transitional stage. The difficulty in assembling detailed evolutionary changes in a species is manifold. Fossilization requires very specific circumstances to occur, there are innumerable species we will never know existed because they lived in environments that were not conducive to fossilization. There is a fair amount of luck in finding fossils and extracting them is very time consuming. Many are currently inaccessable or we just don't have the resources to track them down.

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.


JaJa wrote:We are not evolving into something else despite filling our niche to the point we might actually destroy ourselves - prokaryotes and eukaryotes multiply and die off the same as us. There is no evidence they evolve into something else to utilize another niche or space when theirs becomes full. There is also no evidence (to my knowledge) that any species on this planet is undergoing change and turning into something else - considering evolution is an ongoing process I would expect this.


In regards to evolution, typically, the larger a population is (a fully breeding population, i.e. no isolated groups) the less likely any disruptive mutation is able to flow through the species and induce a change. Small populations have the greatest potential to change.

Just so I know what I'm dealing with, I mentioned earlier how Lions and Tigers can breed to create a Liger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger. I would call this evidence of past macro evolution. Would you call this micro evolution? Or is it neither and just an interesting coincidence?

JaJa wrote:In your above comment you are basically accrediting intelligence to what is supposed to be a machine-like process akin to a random number generator. A machine doesn’t care if a niche is filled because it is simply coughing out near-infinite combinations in a blind process – hence I expect to see the little critters or those things small enough to have super-fast metabolisms still churning out those random numbers or at least trying to.


I'm not going to get into human consciousness, there is just way too much speculation and we don't have enough data to really scratch the surface here.

webolife wrote:"You can't rewind the tape," Stephen Jay Gould was famous for saying. It's a nice dodge for the "how" question of evolution. Most evolutionists parrot this by saying something like, "As lucky as we are, we're here, so it must have happened." As if that is all that is needed to defend this mechanismless and evidenceless process.

Aristarchus wrote:I think you need to explain further on what you actually mean, "is a natural tendency." In addition, how did you derive what you stated in the first part of your sentence, and then conclude, "I don't think its warranted." It appears to be a non sequitur.


When I said it "is a natural tendency", I was speaking more colloquially. The comment was in reference to humans being the "top of the evolutionary tree". Without getting too philosophical, it is almost universally espoused that humans are "special". This tendency is usually fed by theistic beliefs but not always. With the advent of modern technology and creature comforts its almost like people think of humans, oh I don't know the right wording, as some extrinsic class outside of animals that is looking down on the world. Life just IS, the Universe IS, there is no deeper meaning, objectively.

This ties into webolifes comment. There is no evasion by evolutionary biologists here. There is no preferred direction to evolution. There is no idealized or ultimate state that life is driving towards. In regards to mechanismless process, that is a baseless assertion. The mechanisms are well defined. Whether or not they are true for macro-evolution is something yet to be fully proven due to the long-term nature as proposed by evolution.

If electrostatics are another mechanism to induce rapid change, that may very well be the case and I have no problem accepting that if true. It seems that this has gotten very little attention by the mainstream and I'm curious as to why it is not further studied? The links published earlier describe some very basic experiments and results should be very easy to replicate, get some grad students on it. This would have monumental implications for biological engineering. If electrostatics can be proven to affect macro-evolution, that does not prove evolution wrong, it would just be added as a new mechanism to the theory. It's not like there's some conspiracy to keep it hidden from the world, it's likely due to the fact that in a "gravity only universe" electric phenomena are not usually considered outside of Technology.

JaJa wrote:Speaking of which - considering you are very familiar with electrostatics I would be very interested to hear your views on electrostatic fields and spontaneous or rapid evolution. I'm sure I read on a TPOD that gravity might have been different with the dinosaurs - indicating a change in earths electric environment. Also, it makes more sense to me to assume sudden and rapid changes in evolution as this would account for the extraordinary lack of transitional fossils - wouldn't you agree?


I've only just heard about electrostatics inducing rapid evolution. I would like to study it a little more before commenting further. I've also read the TPOD's regarding gravity and dinosaurs and find them interesting, I have yet to draw any conclusions about that.


webolife wrote:Be sure not to mention spontaneous generation,... or the inescapable interdependence of organisms upon each other [ie. life as we know it].


huh? Spontaneous generation is speculative. And of course life is interdependant, there are numerous symbiotic relationships and dependencies called the food chain. I don't know where you got this from. I was talking about the first appearance of life, there was NO inter-dependencies, just the first original ancestor.

webolife wrote:2. "very easy... to evolve from prokaryote to eukaryote." Never mind the tremendous information jump for genes to build any or all of the cell organelles and regulate their very specific functions. Never mind that the process of protein synthesis for even the simplest of life forms [even viruses, if they are considered] is irreducibly complex.


I'm not interested in playing word games with you. Yes there are tremendous information jumps, that was kind of the point I was making about the two cell types being vastly different and suited for different types of evolutionary progress. The current theory states that the earth is 4.5B years old (I know this is probably garbage, I am sympathetic to the EU and understand this), but complex life forms are only about ~500M years old. The first 4B years was the proto-cell and the evolution to prokaryote and eukaryote. There was ample time for this formation to occur. It is not know which came first, if one came from the other or if they developed separately. My point was that if one did come from the other, we would could potentially reproduce this in the lab. This would be further compounded with difficulty due to the fact that no species alive today would be representative of the first pro/euk cells.

How do you think this occured? Lighting struck a bacteria and out popped an ameoba?


Phew, now I'm tired.
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:08 pm

I can provide a simple reply here by saying that you are consistently mixing up the ideas of microevolution [the liger example is about hybridization, but the variation that produced lions and tigers in the first place is certainly an example of microevolution, aka adaptation through natural selection] and macroevolution [bacteria to man, aka phylogeny]. Most evolutionary literature perpetuates this mix-up by simply using the word "evolution" and not distinguishing between for example Darwin's finches [the "origin of species", microevolution] and his speculative conclusions [phylogeny, macroevolution]. A persistent argument I hear is that "the world's museums are full of evidence for evolution", but this evidence supports only microevolution, not macro, and the unsuspecting reader/learner is misled thereby.
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 09, 2011 8:10 pm

Yes, a Liger is hybridization, I should have clarified by saying that the Tiger and Lion are examples of past macro evolution since they have a common ancestor. The Liger is proof of their close, but diverging genetic link. You can call it microevolution all you want, but this is just one of the phases in the process to macro evolution. This process continues and we see further links from how close bears, cannines and felines are as they once shared a common ancestor.

I need to do a better job of proof-reading my posts it seems. :oops:
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:17 am

Orthogonal wrote:Let me first start by saying what I should have said a long time ago. I am not an evolutionary biologist, I just play one on internet fora. I may very likely misspeak or say something completely wrong, and if so I will happily eat crow.

How would you like that crow cooked... well-done, medium or rare?
Ok, this is where I'm going to need to spend a little more time to properly address all points. Evolutionary theory does NOT claim that animal's evolved from bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Evolution_of_prokaryotes

The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes [...]

In other words all living organisms must have evolved or diverged from some form of bacteria according to the current model of evolution.
The notion of punctuated equilibrium is what comes into play here. When there are openings in any niche, it is filled by whatever lifeform can adapt or take advantage the quickest. After this happens, the ecosphere remains fairly stable and evolution happens very slowly [...]

You are accrediting perspicacity to a random number generator coughing out endless combinations.
Everything IS a transitional stage [...]

Yes all perfectly packaged and ready-made for display. The rest of your comment sounds more like wishful thinking rather than a line of reasoning.
What you are asking for is a movie from beginning to end

No not at all. I would consider the random and unintelligent number generator as a viable theory when I see evidence of endless random number generation within each species both large and (especially) the very small, i.e. attempts to become something else.
In regards to evolution, typically, the larger a population is (a fully breeding population, i.e. no isolated groups) the less likely any disruptive mutation is able to flow through the species and induce a change.

Again you are attributing perceptiveness to a blind process. There are no barriers when there are near infinite possibilities. Like bacteria the system will grow (from all pathways) and expand until it runs out of space and resources at which point it will consume and destroy itself – like cancer, unless of course the process is not akin to a random number generator but more like intelligent design.
I'm not going to get into human consciousness, there is just way too much speculation and we don't have enough data to really scratch the surface here.

At least consciousness is self-evident despite claims it is an illusion unlike evolution that isn’t self-evident and claimed to not be an illusion.
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:27 am

Orthogonal wrote:When I said it "is a natural tendency", I was speaking more colloquially. The comment was in reference to humans being the "top of the evolutionary tree". Without getting too philosophical, it is almost universally espoused that humans are "special".


I'm not asking from you for anything colloquial of philosophical.

Orthogonal wrote:This tendency is usually fed by theistic beliefs but not always.


This doesn't relate to what I previously stated. I specifically noted the following:

Aristarchus wrote:For example, Homo sapien sapiens share with Neandertals the gene for language, i.e., the FOXP2. However, Neandertals lived in very small family groups and were never able to organize into greater communities as found in the tribal units of Homo sapien sapiens. Thus, in Neandertals' groupings, the children did not have the longer developmental stages of learning as in the Homo sapien sapiens' children. What resulted was that the longer developmental stages of the latter produced more effective communication skills that created the organization of larger groups that were able to develop into societies. Explain the natural tendency of such a development, and also how this would relate to something unwarranted.


Orthogonal responding to webolife wrote:You can call it microevolution all you want, but this is just one of the phases in the process to macro evolution. This process continues and we see further links from how close bears, cannines and felines are as they once shared a common ancestor.


This statement from you does not even comport with the biological definition of macromutation as it relates to evolution:

A macromutation is a mutation of large phenotypic effect; one that produces a phenotype well outside the range of variation previously existing in the population.

Mutations with effects in early stages of development can have large phenotypic consequences. The homeotic mutations of fruitflies (Drosophila) are clear examples: homeotic mutations typically transpose part of the body from one region to another. In antennapedia legs grow out of the antennal sockets instead of antennae.

At an abstract level, it is easy to imagine how homeotic mutations work. There is presumably a set of genes encoding for the growth of a leg and another set specifying where these leg-genes are switched on. Mutations in the position-specifying genes could result in the genes encoding for leg growth being switched on in the wrong place.

Most biologists, including Richard Dawkins, doubt that macromutations are important in evolution.

The top image is of a normal Drosophila, but the other two have experienced macromutations: one has an extra pair of wings while the bottom one is wingless.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridl ... ations.asp

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 Orthogonal » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:37 am

JaJa wrote:The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes [...]
In other words all living organisms must have evolved or diverged from some form of bacteria according to the current model of evolution.


This is just kind of semantics here, I've already established that the very beginnings are not well explained or understood. Animals did not evolve from anything we would call bacteria today. Bacteria = Prokaryote, but Prokaryote does not necessarily equal bacteria, at least in the earliest stages.

While we're on the subject, I would like to hear from any of you on your hypothesis of this. How did the first cells come into existence? How did Prok/Euk cells come into existence or diverge from one another? Perhaps another thread?

JaJa wrote:You are accrediting perspicacity to a random number generator coughing out endless combinations.


Mutation is random, natural selection is not.


Aristarchus wrote:I'm not asking from you for anything colloquial of philosophical.


Ok, but that was kind of the gist of my argument in the first place. I'm not sure what you were getting at with your point. Yes, humans share numerous traits with other species in the homo genus, there are also other unique traits not shared. The hypothesis that Neanderthals were killed off was never fully validated. It is now being hypothesized that humans and neanderthals hybridized at some point. The FOXP2 gene was one of the primary factors in this hypothesis, among others, to come out of genome sequencing analysis. I know JaJa or Webolife will just come in here and complain that the theory is just being retrofitted to accomodate new data, but that is missing the mark. The theory explains the broad general process, the details found through data analysis is what constructs the specific phylogenies which are subject to change.


Aristarchus wrote:This statement from you does not even comport with the biological definition of macromutation as it relates to evolution:


Macromutation != Macro-evolution. We haven't really discussed macromutation specifically in regards to standard evolutionary theory in this thread. It is commonly accepted that micro-mutation is the primary mechanism in evolution, but macro-mutation is still the subject of debate. What I was inferring in my argument from Lions and Tigers is that we see very similar physiologies and genetic makeups within these genus and family species. Webolife says that these are evidence of micro-evolution only and not macro-evolution. Fair enough. When this process is worked back we see the similarities of cannines and felines. The specific phylogenetic differences are now much larger than a Lion and Tiger, but at the time the two diverged, the original cannine ancestor and feline ancestor where no more different physiologically and genetically than that of a Lion and Tiger today. Evolution does not predict what they will become in the future, but that there is a possibility of them to diverge to the point that a Lion and Tiger "Family" class could have the same phylogenetic macro-evolutionary difference as a cannine and feline do today.
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:10 am

Hmm, I will have to just agree with a previous comment that this is just wishful thinking. One can line up any/all the similarities in the world and claim evolutionary relationship. Certainly canines and felines are more similar than, say, canines and elephants. Or rodents and whales, yet based on a certain bone indentation, evolutionists currently consider these two creatures to be evolutionarily related. It is a desperate grasp at straws. All you have to do ignore the major distinctions, genetics, physiology, etc. or claim that a macro-mutation is responsible, despite the evidence from observations of macro-mutations that they are predominantly deleterious, and regardless of one's judgement on that facet, disappear in the genepool... in the case of most acclaimed macro-mutations [eg among mammals] one must postulated that identical macro-mutations occurred in both mated male and female organisms.
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 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:23 am

Maybe we're just talking past each other, perhaps you can explain to me what you think the process of speciation is. It seems to me from my bird's eye view of our discussion (I can only infer what you think based on your arguments against evolution, maybe this is a topic for another thread), is that you are not opposed to evolution per se, but rather the mechanisms currently proposed are inadequate to explain everything. You seem to be arguing that standard evolutionary theory is only able to only explain a subset of biodiversity and lacks the capacity to explain broad divergences. Electrostatics has been proposed in this thread as one possible mechanism with the ability to explain these gaps. Anything else I'm missing?
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:20 pm

You seem to have the main point I'm making, which is that microevolution is an inadequate, most of the time even opposing, mechanism for macroevolution; although I would say also that electrostatics could only be a mechanism for certain types of microevolution, and has no basis to claim phylogenetic gaps. The "talking past" issue is unfortunately what I think happens a great deal in the communication of evolutionary theory... for at least the last century, since Huxley defended Darwin to the current exclusion of alternative views in the educational system, evolutionists have talked past their audience by failure to distinguish the observations and mechanism of microevolution from the lack of evidence and mechanismless leap of faith called macroevolution. They also use sound-bites like "Evolution just means change, who can object to that?" to silence any opposing views.
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 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:24 pm

Orthogonal wrote:The hypothesis that Neanderthals were killed off was never fully validated. It is now being hypothesized that humans and neanderthals hybridized at some point.


Nope. That is not the conclusion that was reached. What has been stated in a recent study is the following:

For the data reported in Krause et al. (2007), we find that, depending on which of the assumptions are met, the controls performed may not be sufficient to rule out contamination. By this, we are not suggesting that Neanderthals do not carry the derived FOXP2 variants, but simply that additional experiments appear to be needed in order to gain greater confidence in the findings of Krause et al. (2007) and hence in any interpretation.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/7/1257.full



The Krause paper concluded:

In conclusion, the current results show that the Neandertals carried a FOXP2 protein that was identical to that
of present-day humans in the only two positions that differ between human and chimpanzee. Leaving out the
unlikely scenario of gene flow, this establishes that these changes were present in the common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals. The date of the emergence of these genetic changes therefore must be older than that estimated with only extant human diversity data, thus demonstrating the utility of direct evidence from Neandertal DNA sequences for understanding recent modern human evolution. Whatever function the two amino acid substitutions might have for human language ability, it was present not only in modern humans but also in late Neandertals. Ongoing in vivo and in vitro experiments should help to delineate these functions.


As for the second part of your positing:

Orthogonal wrote:The FOXP2 gene was one of the primary factors in this hypothesis, among others, to come out of genome sequencing analysis.


Wrong again. What the Human Genome Project Information concluded, with updated information on their page from Feb 2010, was the following:

Neanderthals inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia starting about 230,000 years ago. They cohabited with modern humans for thousands of years before becoming extinct about 29,000 years ago. Since 1999, several DNA samples have been extracted from Neanderthal fossils and sequenced, allowing scientists to compare large sections of the Neanderthal genome with that of modern humans. This is possible because DNA fragments can survive for 50,000 to 100,000 years.

Neanderthal DNA sequences were found to be about 99.5% similar to the modern human genome, indicating that modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago. The genetic difference between Neanderthals and modern humans, however, was on average about three times greater than the genetic difference between any two modern humans. Studies of the mtDNA of nearly 80,000 people found no traces of mutations known to be common in Neanderthal mtDNA. These differences indicate no significant interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans after the two species diverged.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/H ... tion.shtml



Orthogonal wrote:Macromutation != Macro-evolution. We haven't really discussed macromutation specifically in regards to standard evolutionary theory in this thread. It is commonly accepted that micro-mutation is the primary mechanism in evolution, but macro-mutation is still the subject of debate.


May I suggest that you use the following search query: "The process of macro-evolution is strongly linked to the macro-mutation operator."

This paper presents the structure of the NHCS of artificial creatures and the associated macro-evolution process. The first part shows an overview of the agent model ETIC, (Lattaud, 1997), used to develop these animats.The second section defines the concept of NHCS and the evolution methods using the macro-mutation operator. The next chapter describes experimental results obtained on an artificial life application. Then, the conclusion discusses results and presents future works about NHCSs.

http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~kovacs/lcs.ar ... 99a.pdf.gz



This is based off the following:

According to the neo-Darwinian theory of macroevolution, major evolutionary transitions such as the origin of mammals from reptiles - well documented in the fossil record - occur in gradual adaptive stages. However, macroevolution may proceed by developmental macromutations as well as by gradual adaptation.


This is not to dispute that there is not a debate, but it should be placed in the context that it exists between the Darwinists and NeoDarwinist, with the latter rejecting macromutations role in evolution. And, of course, this also places in doubt the confidence in which you're making your assertions.
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 Orthogonal » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:56 pm

I admit that I am not up to date on the current studies. I will look into the links you posted, thanks. Aristarchus, perhaps you can take a step back and explain your intentions behind your line of questioning. I'm not quite sure what you are really arguing.

Aristarchus wrote:For example, Homo sapien sapiens share with Neandertals the gene for language, i.e., the FOXP2. However, Neandertals lived in very small family groups and were never able to organize into greater communities as found in the tribal units of Homo sapien sapiens. Thus, in Neandertals' groupings, the children did not have the longer developmental stages of learning as in the Homo sapien sapiens' children. What resulted was that the longer developmental stages of the latter produced more effective communication skills that created the organization of larger groups that were able to develop into societies.Explain the natural tendency of such a development, and also how this would relate to something unwarranted.


My initial train of thought on talking about "Human Exceptionalism" was merely to point out that homo sapien sapiens are just one possibility among billions in which life can take, there was nothing more than that. It should be inferred from my original comment that those who believe humans are the "top of the evolutionary tree" believe that Human Exceptionalism is a natural tendency. I think that is non-sense. I don't claim to know where each of the individual traits or characteristics come from or how they manifested themselves over time. I am merely arguing that for someone to posit that humans are "special" or the "top of the evolutionary tree" is unwarranted, that it is a subjective assertion.
Orthogonal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JohnMT » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:51 pm

webolife wrote:

Clarification, JohnMT? Are you saying that you think any framework built on the concept of "origins" is irrelevant or immaterial or...? Since you based one of your comments on my illustration of the complexity inherent in bacteria, I am wondering where you are going with this? If it is a question of origins, then It would appear you are right on thread here, since evolution is fundamentally built around this concept.


With respect to yourself and other posters, all I am saying is that during my many years of in-depth study and research, the entire concept of so-called 'Evolution', which is what this thread is all about, is entirely irrelevant.

In other words this so-called 'Evolution Thing', is completely defunct and in my opinion, there is nothing to discuss.

Further, there is no proof whatsoever, that 'Evolution' has actually occurred, whether on the Macro or the Micro scale.

As to 'origins', yes there is indeed a 'framework' as you say, but it has nothing to do at all with 'Evolution'.

Trust in brief, that I have have explained myself sufficiently.

Cheers,

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

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:09 pm

Orthogonal wrote:I am merely arguing that for someone to posit that humans are "special" or the "top of the evolutionary tree" is unwarranted, that it is a subjective assertion.

The fact that human beings 'think' they have rule over the world because they control the food chain, technology and other species on the planet they have placed themselves "top of the metaphorical evolutionary tree" by default. This is not a subjective assertion - it is an objective fact. Do I think humans deserve to be in this position - no.
This is just kind of semantics here

No it wasn't.
Mutation is random, natural selection is not.

So the key mechanism of evolution is based on selectiveness. How does a 'mechanism' KNOW what it is selecting?

My thoughts:

Every living organism consists of billions upon billions of cells which organise themselves to form living tissue, functional organs, operational systems and complex bodies in the shape of cats, dogs, lions and humans. Some thing is facilitating this cell organisation that gives bio-diversity. The common denominator is DNA which facilitates signals to instruct cells how to behave and organise themselves into structures. What is the some thing. In my opinion it is light and the information carried therein. Hence DNA re-programming with laser light and rapid changes with electrostatic fields.
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Aristarchus » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:10 am

Orthogonal wrote:Aristarchus, perhaps you can take a step back and explain your intentions behind your line of questioning. I'm not quite sure what you are really arguing.


I know that you're responding to three different people on this topic, so I understand that you might have missed it, but I believe I articulated it earlier on this topic:

Aristarchus wrote:Thus, in Neandertals' groupings, the children did not have the longer developmental stages of learning as in the Homo sapien sapiens' children. What resulted was that the longer developmental stages of the latter produced more effective communication skills that created the organization of larger groups that were able to develop into societies. Explain the natural tendency of such a development, and also how this would relate to something unwarranted.

It does appear that one could argue that there is a development of consciousness acting upon Homo sapien sapiens to manifest within an environment that has been cultivated to nurture this kind of social evolution. I could explain this further, but I really need to know where you're taking your argument.


In my view the kind of social evolution that takes place on the human scale does offer a unique role for the latter in the Animal Kingdom.
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 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:11 pm

JohnMT,
Indulge me one more question, if you don't mind.
Once I am confident that I understand what you are saying, I think I may agree with you 95%.
The 5% I'm wondering about right now is the microevolution not having occurred. Are you asserting that it is your position that selective strains such as MRSA or subspecial variations such as lions and tigers have "not occurred", or are you simply emphasizing that fact that this type of [micro]"evolution" does not produce anything significantly "new" information-wise? I would have great pause to understand you if it were the former, but agree with you the remaining 5% if it is the latter. Regardless of that answer, it seems to me that the vehemence of your declarations affirms the "relevance" of the issue.
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

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests