Why is the Human Body Designed to Die?

[VirOptimus]

First I don't think theres some cosmic force that dictates what mutations are allowed. BUt there are natural processes like development that only produce certain variations. Like for vertebrates two eyes at the front of the head and not 4 eyes or eyes in the back of the head which you would think would be an advantage.

So features like eyes and limbs ect didnt independently evolve like evolution had to stumble on these features randomly over and over. They all stem from the same genetic blueprint that more or less popped into existence relatively quick during the Cambrian period. Its just been a case of switching on and off and recombining pre-existing genetic programs.

So we have this universal genetic blueprint that is varied according to the different environments faced. It is a good working setup and provides life with the features needed. If random mutations are anything they are errors to that good working setup and why organisms have not gained eternal life but rather a deteriorating life.

.....

You dont understand the ToE, not even the basics.

 

[stevevw]

.....

You dont understand the ToE, not even the basics.

Yes I don't understand it according to your version.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes I don't understand it according to your version.

No, according to the scientific version.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did understand your explanation and agree that there can be confirmation bias. But that should not negate the possibility that there is intention and goal directed purpose in living things especially humans. It seemed you were automatically saying that the case is claosed and there is no possibility for a plain reading of the articles I linked.

That is why I then used humans as the example as this is a more straight forward way to see that at least for humans its hard to deny that they have intention, goal directed purpose and consciousness. So its harder to claim any bias. So if humans can have intention and purpose then its just a matter of proving that other creatures also are like humans.

That is what I thought I did with the papers that showed primates and birds as examples of being like humans in their intention and planning. Its a bit unfair to call that confirmation bias when its independent research.

Like I said, you persistently read things into articles, quotes, and posts that are simply not there; I didn't say anything remotely like what you suggest. Further, you clearly didn't understand my post if you think I was suggesting that humans and a small number of other creatures don't show goal-directed purpose with intent. Not only did I previously clarify that these were exceptions to the general case, but I said some time ago that I would be talking about the evolution of life in general, not the few exceptional species that we know to be capable of planning and forethought.

The problem with denying intention, meaning and purpose especially when it comes to humans and trying to make out everything is the result of a program or that we only think we have intention and purpose and are fooling ourselves seems to go against what most people believe. If we really thought it was all a result of a program and we had no control then we would be in a mess. But life doesn't work that way as we have good reasons to have intention and purpose to our lives.

I agree - which is why I've explicitly said there are a few exceptions. Evolution theory, including the Extended Synthesis, is about evolution in general, not just a few conscious, intelligent, cognitively sophisticated creatures.

So I dont think its really about any conformation bias. This can work both ways where some want to make evolution all about programms and mechanisms as well and throw out any talk of intention or purpose in evolution.

You remind me of Catch-22 where Orr says Appleby has “flies in his eyes,” but doesn’t know it, because the flies in his eyes keep him from seeing the flies. "How can he see he’s got flies in his eyes if he’s got flies in his eyes?"

So I think a reasonable position is the middle ground where we need to look at the evidence and be open to all possibilities.

Oh, the irony!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just think its a bit unreal to discount intention and purpose altogether as we are not pre-programmed robots. This would mean we have no control or say in anything and are destined to be tossed and turned by whatever the underlying program has determined or not.

I agree (with certain reservations), which is why I have explicitly not done what you're suggesting. That you think I did simply shows you haven't understood what I've posted.

So I just want to clarify, as you keep saying that intention is often only an attribution it seems you are reluctant to give any creedance to at least humans having any forethought and planning towards an explicit (envisaged) goal. Which creatures do you think have this ability.

I don't keep saying that - I even spent a whole post explaining the difference (#194).

The creatures I'm aware of, besides humans, that have been shown to show clearly intentional behaviours (i.e. goal-directed foresight & planning) are the higher primates & some monkeys, a few species of birds, mainly corvids and parrots, possibly elephants, possibly cetaceans, and octopuses. But, as I already said, it's a continuum within which there is no clear dividing line, and we typically don't have access to information about the brain processes that would allow us to devise clear criteria; we rely on behavioural indicators.

However, we do know that, in general, evolution doesn't use more trait resources than absolutely neccesary, and cognitive flexibility is the most energy-intense resource use. So it pays to assume the minimum cognitive abilities sufficient for survival in a given niche, constructed or otherwise, until there is good evidence of greater cognitive capacity - at which point the question becomes, 'why the extra cognitive capacity?'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First I don't think theres some cosmic force that dictates what mutations are allowed. BUt there are natural processes like development that only produce certain variations. Like for vertebrates two eyes at the front of the head and not 4 eyes or eyes in the back of the head which you would think would be an advantage.

There's a difference between what you would think is an advantage and what is really an advantage and the best use of limited resources in a particular context.

... If random mutations are anything they are errors to that good working setup and why organisms have not gained eternal life but rather a deteriorating life.

That is clearly not the case when the majority of mutations are neutral, and a number of mutations (albeit relatively small) are still providing advantageous refinements for all living things.

 

[stevevw]

No, according to the scientific version.

That claim seems a little vague considering that the science for evolution is being disputed and therefore what you may think is the science may not be correct.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That claim seems a little vague considering that the science for evolution is being disputed and therefore what you may think is the science may not be correct.

What dispute is that?

 

[VirOptimus]

That claim seems a little vague considering that the science for evolution is being disputed and therefore what you may think is the science may not be correct.

No its not disputed. The ToE is incredibly robust.

 

[Ophiolite]

That claim seems a little vague considering that the science for evolution is being disputed and therefore what you may think is the science may not be correct.

Your statement is ambiguous:

• If you mean the methodology of science as applied to evolutionary theory is disputed, I know of no such challenge. If you do, feel free to provide citations.
• If you mean the findings of science in regard to evolutionary theory are disputed, then you are certainly correct. That is how science operates. All findings, observations, experiments, hypotheses, etc are challenged. For example the concept of punctuated equilibrium is promoted by some and disputed by others. The interesting thing about of all of these disputes and challenges and sceptical questions is that all the parties agree on the reality of evolution and upon the bulk of the hypotheses that explain this evolution.

In short, secondary and tertiary aspects of evolutionary theory may be incorrect, or incomplete, but the primary concepts are not disputed in any relevant or meaningful way. Provide citations to support the contrary view - otherwise I'm not too interested in what you might say.

 

[stevevw]

No its not disputed. The ToE is incredibly robust.

What dispute is that?

You should know me by now about what I think is disputed in evolution. The EES for starters questions the prominance of natural selection. There are many who now question random mutations as the source of variation and that mutations are more likely to be non-random and directed towards functional and adaptive changes.

And dont pin me down to the EES alone. There are many people disputing the Darwinian evolution and so they should as its outdated in the light of recent discoveries. Many ideas put forward speak of self-organisation, genetic engineering, and more directed processes which all seem to converge with the ideas of the EES.

These emphasize the role of organisms, behaviour, non-genetic processes, processes of development and the ability of the living cell to regenerate, tap into a vast array of existing genetic information in rearrangments, and activations to adapt to changing environments and repair itself. Rather than the blind and random process of Neo-Darwinism in some hit and miss process which ís an inadequate explanation and doesnt account for what we are seeing. So many challenges that it is too big a subject to go into.

 

[stevevw]

Your statement is ambiguous:

• If you mean the methodology of science as applied to evolutionary theory is disputed, I know of no such challenge. If you do, feel free to provide citations.

I don't dispute scientific methods. But I do have suspicion for the bias in science generally towards materialistic views as explanations for what is happening. But that’s another topic area. The problem is it can taint the way people see the evidence.

For example going back a few pages in this thread the debate was about teleology in evolution. This came down to whether non-human life has the ability to plan and have intentions. But the scientific materialist view will not entertain the idea of teleology or that animals are conscious. But much of the recent dispute with evolution theory has centred on behaviour, culture, and consciousness which the standard physical view of evolution finds hard to explain.

If you mean the findings of science in regard to evolutionary theory are disputed, then you are certainly correct. That is how science operates. All findings, observations, experiments, hypotheses, etc are challenged.

I totally agree.

For example the concept of punctuated equilibrium is promoted by some and disputed by others. The interesting thing about of all of these disputes and challenges and sceptical questions is that all the parties agree on the reality of evolution and upon the bulk of the hypotheses that explain this evolution.

I agree that evolution happens but as I have always been disputing I think that some of the core tenets of evolution are being disputed. Not necessarily discounted all together but their prominence and role in evolution is being questioned.

For example all agree natural selection plays a role but most standard supporters claim it’s the sole cause of all evolution (the adaptivists view) and others say it’s just but one of several causes and not quantitatively dominant (the pluralists view). That organisms themselves can generate their own form of selection by directly intervening and changing environments thus controlling evolutions direction.

It’s the same with random mutations. The Standard go to idea is that variation (mutation) is random where now many are saying it is non-random which makes a big difference to how evolution works (blind and random as opposed to non-random and directed).

In short, secondary and tertiary aspects of evolutionary theory may be incorrect, or incomplete, but the primary concepts are not disputed in any relevant or meaningful way. Provide citations to support the contrary view - otherwise I'm not too interested in what you might say.

Humm, I'm not sure I want to go there. It will open up a can of worms.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm unwatching this thread. I can't keep reading this stuff.

 

[VirOptimus]

You should know me by now about what I think is disputed in evolution. The EES for starters questions the prominance of natural selection. There are many who now question random mutations as the source of variation and that mutations are more likely to be non-random and directed towards functional and adaptive changes.

And dont pin me down to the EES alone. There are many people disputing the Darwinian evolution and so they should as its outdated in the light of recent discoveries. Many ideas put forward speak of self-organisation, genetic engineering, and more directed processes which all seem to converge with the ideas of the EES.

These emphasize the role of organisms, behaviour, non-genetic processes, processes of development and the ability of the living cell to regenerate, tap into a vast array of existing genetic information in rearrangments, and activations to adapt to changing environments and repair itself. Rather than the blind and random process of Neo-Darwinism in some hit and miss process which ís an inadequate explanation and doesnt account for what we are seeing. So many challenges that it is too big a subject to go into.

Your misunderstandings and religious ideas does not mean there are any disputes.

 

[stevevw]

Your misunderstandings and religious ideas does not mean there are any disputes.

Like I said we differ on this but I am not going to get into that in any detail as its not really what the thread is about.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like I said we differ on this but I am not going to get into that in any detail as its not really what the thread is about.

I expect you to post the same wall of texts no matter how many times you are refuted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You should know me by now about what I think is disputed in evolution. The EES for starters questions the prominance of natural selection. There are many who now question random mutations as the source of variation and that mutations are more likely to be non-random and directed towards functional and adaptive changes.

And dont pin me down to the EES alone. There are many people disputing the Darwinian evolution and so they should as its outdated in the light of recent discoveries. Many ideas put forward speak of self-organisation, genetic engineering, and more directed processes which all seem to converge with the ideas of the EES.

These emphasize the role of organisms, behaviour, non-genetic processes, processes of development and the ability of the living cell to regenerate, tap into a vast array of existing genetic information in rearrangments, and activations to adapt to changing environments and repair itself. Rather than the blind and random process of Neo-Darwinism in some hit and miss process which ís an inadequate explanation and doesnt account for what we are seeing. So many challenges that it is too big a subject to go into.

OK, nothing to see here. We already dealt with all that.

 

[stevevw]

I expect you to post the same wall of texts no matter how many times you are refuted.

You aint exactly a good judge to be determining what should be refuted or not. You have never made any arguement nor backed up what you claim. Just unsupported assertions.

 

[VirOptimus]

You aint exactly a good judge to be determining what should be refuted or not. You have never made any arguement nor backed up what you claim. Just unsupported assertions.

Thats not how it works.

 

[stevevw]

OK, nothing to see here. We already dealt with all that.

not so much that, its just the wrong place to do it. I know what would happen as it becomes a long debate and would take over the thread and yes we have gone down that path before. But at least that was in the right thread.