Evidence for Evolution: resources

[alloytoo]

Alloytubby, you are a joke matey. You think you can detect something using reductionism. That alone should let you think twice about your own comprehension. But no, you soldier on, asking how to detect something that does not exist.
Look, I don't go trying to detect whether the universe is surrounded by tellytubbies, because quite frankly I don't believe it is. This betrays my bias unfortunately trying to detect something that does not exist in my opinion is daft and crazy. Trying to find out whether our reality is based on mind, intentionality, truth and reason is a different story and can hardly be compared to pink unicorns. If someone conflates the two, it betrays their total philosophical ignorance of the matter. Your question asking how to detect something that does not exist only betrays your bias, made up mind and philosophical ignorance. nothing more.

You've conflated a great many things including attributing my quote to yourself.

This correspondence is close I don't care to correspond to someone of your dubious character.

Rather not quote mine the Bible like you always do.

How exactly does reference to the nineth commandment constitute quotemining? Most scholars consider the verse Exodus 20:16 to be self explanatory.

However to allay any consideration of quote mining, here's a useful explanatary link.

 

[alloytoo]

....this is getting a bit pointless.

At the risk of being accused of quotemining by "...." boy:

I agree.

 

[rwenzori]

<stupid stuff snipped>

BTW, indeterminism is a good argument for free will.

LOL! You only just realised that?? C'mon slowpoke, try to keep up here.

 

[TelePhrone]

Kwaak.

 

[Phronesis]

You've conflated a great many things including attributing my quote to yourself.

Coming from the troll that conflates reductionism with a tool for detecting something.... Go smoke some more of that stuff you just had .
While you are at it, try and provide some scientific evidence that you actually have a mind. We are all still waiting for that aloytubbles...

How exactly does reference to the nineth commandment constitute quotemining? Most scholars consider the verse Exodus 20:16 to be self explanatory.

Of course. I was just waiting for your next little quotemine from the Bible. Was hoping you were going to quote something positive...

However to allay any consideration of quote mining, here's a useful explanatary link.

One would think you posting a link explaining to you what quotemining is, one would have thought that quotemining the Bible and telling others what it is is a bit off limits. No surprises however.

LOL! You only just realised that?? C'mon slowpoke, try to keep up here.

That's weird, you seem to be making arguments for indeterminism now and strenghtening arguments for free will. What happened, are you turning from a "crap happens" Defecatory Fatalist into a "crap happens because of free will" Defecatory Fatalist? What is next, going for psychological realism? Or is anti-realism still your favorite crap that happens?

Oh, where is that other example of something that does not have a cause? An indeterminate system does not imply that there is no cause for it being indeterminate because as you know that is just one massive argument from ignorance... again, but you knew that.

 

[rwenzori]

That's weird, you seem to be making arguments for indeterminism now and strenghtening(sic) arguments for free will.

Actually, to be pedantic, your statement "indeterminism is a good argument for free will" is not quite correct except for the negation of "determinism is a good argument against free will". How random sh|t that happens results in free will is as unclear as... er.. well, how wave function collapse in microtubules results in consciousness. LOL!

I'll leave you with a quote and a question. The quote, from Russell:

The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.

The question - are you bunking nagmaal again this Sunday you norty boy?

 

[Phronesis]

Actually, to be pedantic, your statement "indeterminism is a good argument for free will" is not quite correct except for the negation of "determinism is a good argument against free will".

Intentionality and free will not for you it seems. No evidence you say? Or are you like that other comedian/"logician" that says intentionality is not even a theory? Guess you can't come to the conclusion that you are the author of your own actions as well. No scientific evidence, or not quite the correct concept there?

Fair enough, just don't come and plead that your intentions are to develop a sound philosophy of being for yourself. The terms "self-refuting" and "incoherent" should raise a few alarm bells if you try.

How random sh|t that happens results in free will is as unclear as... er.. well, how wave function collapse in microtubules results in consciousness. LOL!

You are presuming randomness without qualifying what it actually is and without denying the fact that arguing something to be completely random might turn out to be a massive argument from ignorance as a result of not being aware of all the variables in a system.'

I'll leave you with a quote and a question. The quote, from Russell:

The same guy that said:
"Where determinism fails, science fails." (Determinism and Physics, p.18).

Read up on Russell's Theory of Causal Lines and the rest. Far cry from your utterly unscientific and quite frankly, hilarious assertion that "crap happens".

Please walk into any lab and yell like a mad man that "crap happens and there is no cause for it". That IS the core of your beliefs it seems. Who knows, maybe scientists and philosphers will agree with that....crap.

 

[rwenzori]

Please walk into any lab and yell like a mad man that "crap happens and there is no cause for it". That IS the core of your beliefs it seems. Who knows, maybe scientists and philosphers will agree with that....crap.

Lollers! You still waffling on about terms and concepts you don't understand?

Anyway, it's not crap that happens - it's sh|t that happens. Crap is what YOU post.

The labs you are referring to - might they be the ones at places like Max Planck Institute for Physics ( as so named way back then ) - ask for Werner's ghost.

If your "labs" have Schrodinger kittehs in boxes, are they alive? Or dead? Or both LOL? I'll tell the SPCA about you.

And PLEEEEEZ try to understand intentionality. Your abuse of the term is quite embarrassing.

 

[Phronesis]

Lollers! You still waffling on about terms and concepts you don't understand?

Oh, you mean your crap, I am sorry, sh|t understanding of simple concepts such as causality... (me just parroting you old chop)

Anyway, it's not crap that happens - it's sh|t that happens.

My bad, I thought crap could be used as a synonym... apparently not... well according to you anyway.

The labs you are referring to - might they be the ones at places like Max Planck Institute for Physics ( as so named way back then ) - ask for Werner's ghost.

Seriously, take a shot, walk into any lab and yell like a mad man that "crap happens and there is no cause for it". Try it, heck why don't you publish it.

And PLEEEEEZ try to understand intentionality. Your abuse of the term is quite embarrassing.

The only embarrasment here is the person shouting how others don't undersand concepts while not actually showing people he does either. How silly of you rainman.

Evidence that rwenzori rainman is actually a taoist ? Your pic rainman...

Wu wei must make so much sense to you, and scientific by your standards.

 

[Phronesis]

How not to explain evolution.

If the rate of mutation is 1 in a million and the life span of a creature is 1 year, you would have one change every million years. Now if there are a million creatures you will have a million changes over a million years. That is not taking into account offspring, which will increase the amount of changes in the million years.

This means that any chance that is found to be benefiting the creature, could be passed on to the next generation. The Selection process.

The selection process? Natural selection does not select, it does nothing. The process is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes. A benefit may or may not be passed on and it does not imply that the benefit is the best or even better solution.

So if there was a few hundred thousand ape men, selective processes would have cause the ape men to choice certain traits over others more often, and slowly over a long period of time, millions of years, a new species would have arisen out of this. Each new generation getting better than the last one, until we go to where we are today.

Each new generation getting better than the last one? This is just flat out wrong. Things do not get better and natural selection does not select FOR anything better than the previous condition. Beneficial traits get passed on, or it may not. Beneficial traits may not be better than the previous solution, it just means it is beneficial, not better.

"Better" implies that something started off bad and is becoming better. This implies that there is some sort of direction for a process that is believed (by some anyway) to be directionless. A fish born without sight may survive better in a cave and thus sightlessness may turn out to be beneficiary, however that does not imply sightlessness is better.

An ape might be born with the abilities to think he can reason and survive better with other apes who think they can reason, however that does not imply the trait of "thinking you can reason" is better.


More bad evolutionary logic:

What you should be talking about is species evolution (and I'm no expert, I am only remembering what I have read and been taught) where there is a gradual change of a species over thousands, hundreds and millions of years. Certain species change very little eg sharks and crocodiles and this is speculated to have occured due to many mechanisms. In my personal opinion a change in eviromental requirements is a strong driver and if you are a top predator and you kill very well, why change the recipe.

Well, this can also mean a global maximum has been reached for a particular species for a particular environment.

On the other hand certain species needed to adapt in many different ways so that they could prosper in their environment. It is theorised that Neanderthals were much more prosperous than early Homo sapiens but due to our more advanced brains we were able to out compete them on an intellectual level.

All species need to adapt, not just certain species. Adaptation on an intelectual level is not natural selection, but artificial selection. Organisms that are able to choose are capable of artificial selection. Adaptations as a result of choice is artificial selection, not natural selection.

 

[rwenzori]

All species need to adapt, not just certain species. Adaptation on an intelectual level is not natural selection, but artificial selection. Organisms that are able to choose are capable of artificial selection. Adaptations as a result of choice is artificial selection, not natural selection.

You really need to work on your English.

 

[Phronesis]

You really need to work on your English.

Apparently there is evidence to suggest that people who have issues with their living father or original father that did not care too much for them and passed away, are more prone to suffer from the lack of comprehension of simple sentences and even more so if the grammar and structure are not perfect. They call this effect the "rainman effect" and say this is partly due to the fact that wu wei is more prevalent in these individuals. There is as much scientific evidence for this as is for the existence of rwenzori's mind.

 

[rwenzori]

Apparently there is evidence to suggest that people who have issues with their living father or original father that did not care too much for them and passed away, are more prone to suffer from the lack of comprehension of simple sentences and even more so if the grammar and structure are not perfect. They call this effect the "rainman effect" and say this is partly due to the fact that wu wei is more prevalent in these individuals. There is as much scientific evidence for this as is for the existence of rwenzori's mind.

Whatever.

 

[BinaryJack]

Adaptation on an intelectual level is not natural selection, but artificial selection. Organisms that are able to choose are capable of artificial selection. Adaptations as a result of choice is artificial selection, not natural selection.

I need to have something clarrified please before I continue?
Natural adaptation is caused by outside stimuli?

 

[Phronesis]

Define "natural adaptation". Is it different from an "artificial adaptation"? How so?

 

[BinaryJack]

Define "natural adaptation". Is it different from an "artificial adaptation"? How so?

I am asking you in response to your post...
sorry I should have used the word "selection" as in natural selection

Originally Posted by Phronesis
Adaptation on an intelectual level is not natural selection, but artificial selection. Organisms that are able to choose are capable of artificial selection. Adaptations as a result of choice is artificial selection, not natural selection.

 

[Phronesis]

Sorry, I don't quite get what you are trying to ask .

 

[BinaryJack]

Sorry, I don't quite get what you are trying to ask .

errr...
Please clarrify natural vs artifical selection.
You state that the 2 are mutually exclusive and that choosing to adapt is not part of natural selection but artificial selection.

 

[Phronesis]

Natural selection: The necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes. Natural selection does not choose between outcomes.

Artificial selection: The outcome of a choice exercised by an agent that is the author of the choice. The manipulation of information represents the actions of an agent.
For example, this sand dune is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.

This caslte is as a result of artificial selection and represents the actions of an agent.

It is also the outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes, however the outcome of the above could have been different as a result of the choice exercised by the agent... such as this one, and not necessaliy the above one.

 

[Phronesis]

How is this for a misldeading title:
More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science
Turns out, if you actually read it, it kind of becomes pro-ID in the sense that it supports the preadapted evolution scenario and the ”simulation argument”.

The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.

“It hasn’t been possible up until this point to trace any of those proteins back to a bacterial ancestor,” said Dalhousie University cell biologist Michael Gray, one of the researchers who originally described the origins of mitochondria, but was not involved in the new study. “These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”

“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”

Add this one as yet another preadaptation that biased evolutionary trajectories towards a few end-points.

With the massive amount of preadaptations, the biased nature of evolution, the memetic algorithms, the machinery of life and the fine-tuned cosmos, is it any wonder certain beings, like us, emerged?
What is the best way to search for an optimal solution in ALL possible fitness landscapes? Designing memetic algorithms to search a fitness landscape for the best, optimal solution sounds like a good designing tool. Give it time and the most optimal solution for a particular fitness landscape will emerge…as a result of a few fine-tuned algorithms and laws .

Sounds like a pro-ID, "simulation argument"-type hypothesis is brewing…