When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution applies to populations rather than individuals. In evolutionary terms, success broadly means producing more viable offspring than the population average. In the population as a whole, the main contributions in this respect will come from the genetically fitter individuals. That's basically what evolutionary fitness means.

But random mutations, the ultimate source of all genetic novelty (according to ToE)- apply to individuals do they not?

Sure, superior designs will tend to out perform, outlast, and be replicated in greater numbers than inferior ones. That's why we see more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos.

The problem remains- how do you produce the superior designs before they can be selected?

We might want to select slight individual lucky mutations for future pay off, but nature has no such anticipation- the advantage has to be significant, right here, right now, yet significant advantages are very hard to come by through chance.

'micro-steps' at some point just don't work, an insignificant advantage is just that- an insignificant advantage= insignificant selection pressure.

 

[Bradskii]

e.g. a rabbit born with an incredibly lucky mutation which makes it run twice as fast as it's siblings, may just as likely die of disease before reaching sexual maturity.

Well, I never considered that. I always assumed that, by some incredible stroke of luck, the rabbit might have survived long enough to make baby rabbits. Because they're pretty good at it. They breed like...um...rabbits.

You really know very little about the matter, Guy. And it's a constant struggle on my part not to spend time educating you about the process and pointing out the many mistakes you make. For two reasons.

One, I'd feel a little guilty, because part of me, the not so nice part, likes showing off and I'd have plenty of opportunity to effectively say 'look how much I know about the subject compared to this guy'. In other words, shooting fish in a barrel is a lot of fun - but not very sportsman-like.

And two, you haven't the slightest interest in admitting that you are wrong and there's no chance of you wanting to learn. So this 'Show me where I'm wrong' isn't a genuine question. It's a challenge. It's like one of the fish saying 'Go on then, take your best shot!'

But here's some advice. Check out some sites on the basics of evolution and play the devil's advocate with yourself. Argue against your own position. See if you can't work out how rabbits might evolve a better fit with their environment. Give it a go and tell us how you got on.

You take the opposing case and I'll could take your position. See where it goes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, I think you are applying thoughtful skepticism here. So what do biologists say in response to this concern of yours?

Thanks but I'm not taking credit for identifying the problem, I'd say there were plenty of skeptics along this line who had been conducting the empirical scientific experiments for thousands of years before Darwin- they were not called biologists though but 'farmers'. There are observed limits to natural variation/ micro-evolution, biological form tends to be range bound, not floating on a genetic breeze.

This is corroborated in the fossil record also were we see very sudden appearances in geological terms followed by vast periods of stasis and or degradation/ extinction. Acknowledged to some extent at least by the punctuated equilibrium school of evolutionary biology. Certainly not the slow incremental continual improvements originally predicted.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, I never considered that. I always assumed that, by some incredible stroke of luck, the rabbit might have survived long enough to make baby rabbits. Because they're pretty good at it. They breed like...um...rabbits.

You really know very little about the matter, Guy. And it's a constant struggle on my part not to spend time educating you about the process and pointing out the many mistakes you make. For two reasons.

One, I'd feel a little guilty, because part of me, the not so nice part, likes showing off and I'd have plenty of opportunity to effectively say 'look how much I know about the subject compared to this guy'. In other words, shooting fish in a barrel is a lot of fun - but not very sportsman-like.

And two, you haven't the slightest interest in admitting that you are wrong and there's no chance of you wanting to learn. So this 'Show me where I'm wrong' isn't a genuine question. It's a challenge. It's like one of the fish saying 'Go on then, take your best shot!'

I think I understand your position, it's a little like playing Jazz- when you make a mistake you can always pretend you missed the note on purpose

But here's some advice. Check out some sites on the basics of evolution and play the devil's advocate with yourself. Argue against your own position. See if you can't work out how rabbits might evolve a better fit with their environment. Give it a go and tell us how you got on.

You take the opposing case and I'll could take your position. See where it goes.

Ironically that's what I already did, I was a staunch atheist and advocate of Darwinism for decades. I had a skeptical friend who was a surgeon and I could not believe he could be so 'ignorant' of such a convincing mainstream biological theory. I'd worked on a lot of software from flight sims to chess games and figured I could at least demonstrate the simple power of the Darwinian algorithm to him.

Again I lack your self assurance, I've changed my mind once already and may again, but I did prove to myself that there is a little more to this than I had appreciated.

The question of life is far too interesting and complex for anyone to claim a full understanding, rather I find that claim usually denotes the opposite.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is not an accurate description of the fossil
record as anyone who has done any ACTUAL
study would know.
You are repeating creationist site garbage that is
written for the purpose of misinforming.

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.
[]
Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.
[]
A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

^ this was all written by David Raup, paleontologist and curator at the Chicago Field Museum, which I lived near to for many years and visited many times. He was arguably one of the most qualified people on the planet to speak on this subject, and I was very interested in his opinions even before I became skeptical myself.

 

[Bradskii]

Ironically that's what I already did, I was a staunch atheist and advocate of Darwinism for decades.

That is simply not a credible claim by any stretch of the imagination, indicated by your complete lack of understanding of the subject. You say that you've advocated for evolution for decades (and the fact that you refer to it as Darwinism is an immediate give away) and yet the rabbit might have died before he had lots of bunnies that could run very fast? Gimme a break...

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is simply not a credible claim by any stretch of the imagination, indicated by your complete lack of understanding of the subject. You say that you've advocated for evolution for decades (and the fact that you refer to it as Darwinism is an immediate give away) and yet the rabbit might have died before he had lots of bunnies that could run very fast? Gimme a break...

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

Note that Dawkins himself identifies as a Darwinist.

So I'm 'dishonest' and 'ignorant'- then let me tell you just what I think of you!

I think you are a perfectly intelligent, honest person capable of critical thought, I like to think I was also when I shared your opinion. Good people can disagree- anger only clouds judgement.

I admit I did feel some of your animosity towards skeptics, because I was so certain I was correct- anyone who disagreed 'must' be lying or ignorant. I used to argue just as passionately as you do I can assure you.

But there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer- I think maybe that's the only thing that could have made me think twice.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Terrif! You know how to use a creationist quote mine.

Good demo of just what I said.

I can't speak for creationists but I'm sure they would quote Raup, they agree on much.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just admit you got it from a quote mine

Again I have been familiar with Raup's ideas for a long time from his work in Chicago where I lived and the museum he was connected with- heard of Sue the dinosaur? It's one of the finest museums for fossils around

Aside from accusations, if anyone has any substantive counter argument to Raup's observations I'd be interested in that. I've no interest in trading insults- I'm not offended it's just boring to me- have a good night and take care,

I appreciate the thoughtful debate points some have made here.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Belk]

I think I understand your position, it's a little like playing Jazz- when you make a mistake you can always pretend you missed the note on purpose




Ironically that's what I already did, I was a staunch atheist and advocate of Darwinism for decades. I had a skeptical friend who was a surgeon and I could not believe he could be so 'ignorant' of such a convincing mainstream biological theory. I'd worked on a lot of software from flight sims to chess games and figured I could at least demonstrate the simple power of the Darwinian algorithm to him.

Again I lack your self assurance, I've changed my mind once already and may again, but I did prove to myself that there is a little more to this than I had appreciated.

The question of life is far too interesting and complex for anyone to claim a full understanding, rather I find that claim usually denotes the opposite.

No one is an advocate for "darwinism". Your claims are not credible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But random mutations, the ultimate source of all genetic novelty (according to ToE)- apply to individuals do they not?

Yes, of course, so what?

Sure, superior designs will tend to out perform, outlast, and be replicated in greater numbers than inferior ones. That's why we see more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos.

The problem remains- how do you produce the superior designs before they can be selected?

Random variation.

We might want to select slight individual lucky mutations for future pay off, but nature has no such anticipation- the advantage has to be significant, right here, right now, yet significant advantages are very hard to come by through chance.

The advantage doesn't have to be significant immediately - the vast majority of variation has no significant immediate effect - this is what results in genetic drift. But that novelty is available in the genome for other changes to make use of.

As has been said before, genetic code isn't like a computer program - it is far more robust to small changes; a sequence change in a coding gene will cause that gene to produce a protein that may fold slightly differently, and that may change the efficiency of what it was doing or give it some completely new activity in the body.

But coding genes are only about 2% of the human genome, some of the rest is regulatory, but a large part is non-functional, repeated sections, reversed sections, 'broken' genes, etc. There's plenty of scope for novelty.

The most complex and sophisticated organisms that have many specialised organs with complex interdependencies, tend to be less resilient to major changes, so have evolved more effective genetic repair mechanisms for the particularly sensitive 'highly conserved areas, and mechanisms to detect and abort offspring with serious developmental problems.

'micro-steps' at some point just don't work, an insignificant advantage is just that- an insignificant advantage= insignificant selection pressure.

You're not seeing the bigger picture - insignificant changes can provide the basis for a significant change.

In evolutionary terms, something is an advantage if it has significant benefit. There aren't really 'insignificant advantages', those changes would be neutral. But neutral changes don't affect the selection pressure. Selection pressures are the challenges of the environment.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter, the evolution of Mind in Matter; but evolution is a word which merely states the phenomenon without explaining it. For there seems to be no reason why Life should evolve out of material elements or Mind out of living form, unless we accept the Vedantic solution that Life is already involved in Matter and Mind in Life because in essence Matter is a form of veiled Life, Life a form of veiled Consciousness. And then there seems to be little objection to a farther step in the series and the admission that mental consciousness may itself be only a form and a veil of higher states which are beyond Mind. In that case, the unconquerable impulse of man towards God, Light, Bliss, Freedom, Immortality presents itself in its right place in the chain as simply the imperative impulse by which Nature is seeking to evolve beyond Mind, and appears to be as natural, true and just as the impulse towards Life which she has planted in certain forms of Matter or the impulse towards Mind which she has planted in certain forms of Life. As there, so here, the impulse exists more or less obscurely in her different vessels with an ever-ascending series in the power of its will-to-be; as there, so here, it is gradually evolving and bound fully to evolve the necessary organs and faculties."The Life Divine " Aurobindo p. 5

 

[Astrid]

"We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter, the evolution of Mind in Matter; but evolution is a word which merely states the phenomenon without explaining it. For there seems to be no reason why Life should evolve out of material elements or Mind out of living form, unless we accept the Vedantic solution that Life is already involved in Matter and Mind in Life because in essence Matter is a form of veiled Life, Life a form of veiled Consciousness. And then there seems to be little objection to a farther step in the series and the admission that mental consciousness may itself be only a form and a veil of higher states which are beyond Mind. In that case, the unconquerable impulse of man towards God, Light, Bliss, Freedom, Immortality presents itself in its right place in the chain as simply the imperative impulse by which Nature is seeking to evolve beyond Mind, and appears to be as natural, true and just as the impulse towards Life which she has planted in certain forms of Matter or the impulse towards Mind which she has planted in certain forms of Life. As there, so here, the impulse exists more or less obscurely in her different vessels with an ever-ascending series in the power of its will-to-be; as there, so here, it is gradually evolving and bound fully to evolve the necessary organs and faculties." Aurobindo p. 5

file:///C:/Users/pmayo/Downloads/21-22TheLifeDivine.pdf

Of course one noun explains nothing.
The THEORY of evolution does explain it.
Highly evidenced / confirmed by all the hard
sciences.

Unlike claims for which there is zero evidence
whatever.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Of course one noun explains nothing.
The THEORY of evolution does explain it.
Highly evidenced / confirmed by all the hard
sciences.

Unlike claims for which there is zero evidence
whatever.

I don't think there is any question about evolution other than whether or not it is consciously directed.