Is evolution hanging on ?

[Bobbin]

I was going to let this thread go as there is only so much one can say - if the person you're talking to is determined to ignore what you're saying, is there any point trying to explain it in a different way? Again? But **** it, I just can't let it go unanswered.

I know you think you're being clever with your meaningless 'analogies' which are not actually analogous in any way to the topic at hand.
The role of food in decision making is not in any way analogous to the role of natural selection in evolution.
Natural selection does not 'have an effect' on the process, it IS the process. Genetic variation, directed or not, is a necessary part of the process, but is not the entire process.

Perhaps the issue is that you forget that evolution does not happen on an individual level over the space of a generation but happens over many many generations and thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years? I don't know where the basic misunderstanding is for you but you just don't get it.
When you say: mutation drives evolutionary changes in such a way that the genome mutates away from phenotypes that induce evolutionary stress, well you may be correct (the evidence is not clear) but that still is only a part of the process and the complete process is evolution by natural selection. Even if everything you say about the genome having this magical ability to think and reason and make decisions to mutate in specific ways, based on environmental stresses, is true - even then it's still just a part of the over-riding process of natural selection.
So, to be clear:

Would you agree that genetic variability, on it's own, is necessary but not sufficient for evolution?

You've claimed, for example, that "directed mutations work in the absence of natural selection" - but directed mutations in the absence of natural selection will not lead to evolution, not without the rest of the process.

So off the bat, we need to agree that genetic variability (whether random or directed) is necessary but not sufficient for the process of evolution to take place.

Is that one point something we can agree on?

If I understand you correctly then even I might disagree there Evolution (As a law) occurs without Natural Selection. Evolution probably doesn't even care about Natural Selection. Evolution just occurs. They are distinctly different processes. Natural Selection is probably necessary for complexity as an outcome of Evolution though.

Maybe you're referring to the Theory of Evolution somehow? That may incorporate the mechanisms to derive the complexity we see today. (Again #notanexpert)

Although to be fair I get the sense both are ultimately directed by the same fundamental laws of nature. But I'm really on my own mission here

But don't mind me, show me a forehead slap and carry on if you wish if I misunderstood completely

 

[Bobbin]

Does food play any part in your decision making? When speaking of what causes your behaviour, should we point to food as the reason? I mean, if you starve, you can't think, right?

What I am saying is that the speciation happens even without natural selection because mutation drives evolutionary changes in such a way that the genome mutates away from phenotypes that induce evolutionary stress. Epigenetic cues about the environment serve as indicators as to what kinds of stresses the individual is suffering such that the information is passed onto their children and their children turn out differently from their parents and hopefully better adapted to deal with the environmental stresses that have been plaguing the adult. In this way, the genome as a whole seeks out advantageous phenotypes the same way our telescopes go about looking for points of light in the night sky. There's some kind of algorithmic process in our DNA that treats un-stressed individuals as data points with a very high signal to noise ratio and tries to seek out the signals in the genomic noise. It is my personal belief that the real benefit to sexual reproduction is that it allows the genome to have two datapoints to work from to engage in comparisons of relative fitness in terms of which phenotype is antagonising which stress responses in the environment.

So yes, natural selection exists and has an effect on this process, but "Darwinian evolution" the process is not. The real process is a million times more amazing than that. Much like the explanation for your decisions in life is a million times more amazing than "because food", even if "because food" has a grain of truth to it.

I do like that idea to be honest. To date my only justification for this was for the whole immune system thing. But what you said there makes it a lot more interesting!

 

[Xarog]

Natural selection does not 'have an effect' on the process, it IS the process. Genetic variation, directed or not, is a necessary part of the process, but is not the entire process.

It can't BE the process and also BE PART of the process. If it IS the process, then there's nothing else in the process.

Perhaps the issue is that you forget that evolution does not happen on an individual level over the space of a generation but happens over many many generations and thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years? I don't know where the basic misunderstanding is for you but you just don't get it.

Evolution happens way, way faster. It can happen in a single generation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ws-salmon-change-genes-single-generation.html
http://news.rice.edu/2015/06/15/evolution-study-finds-massive-genome-shift-in-one-generation/

Would you agree that genetic variability, on it's own, is necessary but not sufficient for evolution?

You've claimed, for example, that "directed mutations work in the absence of natural selection" - but directed mutations in the absence of natural selection will not lead to evolution, not without the rest of the process.

But they will happen without natural selection being in play. That's the point. Directed mutations cause genetic drifts and speciation in the absence of natural selection. If it was possible to give every life form an infinite source of energy such that no one would need to compete to survive, evolution would still happen.

Brainless amoeba can still co-operate well enough in their multi-cellular stages to make intelligent decisions about their surroundings. If DNA is complex enough to manifest ordered information processing capabilities in a thing such as a "brain" and can do this generally in all life forms, even bacteria and amoeba, it must also be complex enough to utilise those same processing principles within itself. Although the process is far far removed from what we would call "thinking", there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that DNA thinks for itself at least to some degree.

 

[C4Cat]

If I understand you correctly then even I might disagree there Evolution (As a law) occurs without Natural Selection. Evolution probably doesn't even care about Natural Selection. Evolution just occurs. They are distinctly different processes. Natural Selection is probably necessary for complexity as an outcome of Evolution though.

Maybe you're referring to the Theory of Evolution somehow? That may incorporate the mechanisms to derive the complexity we see today. (Again #notanexpert)

Although to be fair I get the sense both are ultimately directed by the same fundamental laws of nature. But I'm really on my own mission here

But don't mind me, show me a forehead slap and carry on if you wish if I misunderstood completely

Evolution is not a law. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but I'm interested to clarify.

Of course evolution and natural selection are both constructs, that is to say conceptual.
They are concepts which describe the process of how heritable characteristics of biological populations change over successive generations.
I don't know what you mean by 'evolution' and 'natural selection' are distinctly different processes though.
Natural selection is a construct which describes how the process of evolution occurs. Not the nitty gritty details but the overview.
Since all language uses constructs, whatever we talk about refers to the construct, not the thing itself, if that makes sense.
With that said, how exactly does evolution occur without natural selection? All our observations and evidence thus far confirms that natural selection takes place.

 

[C4Cat]

It can't BE the process and also BE PART of the process. If it IS the process, then there's nothing else in the process.

I said natural selection IS the process and genetic variation is a PART of the process.

How on earth did you get confused by such a simple statement?

Evolution happens way, way faster. It can happen in a single generation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ws-salmon-change-genes-single-generation.html
http://news.rice.edu/2015/06/15/evolution-study-finds-massive-genome-shift-in-one-generation/

Don't roll your eyes at me! Genetic variation can and does happen in a single generation.
Evolution though, is by definition, changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
It's ongoing, not what happens between this generation and the next. You will not see a new species emerge between one generation and the next, will you?
But OK, even if it does sometimes happen fast, I was just trying to figure out where your intellectual block is here... not really relevant how fast it happens

But they will happen without natural selection being in play. That's the point. Directed mutations cause genetic drifts and speciation in the absence of natural selection. If it was possible to give every life form an infinite source of energy such that no one would need to compete to survive, evolution would still happen.

Brainless amoeba can still co-operate well enough in their multi-cellular stages to make intelligent decisions about their surroundings. If DNA is complex enough to manifest ordered information processing capabilities in a thing such as a "brain" and can do this generally in all life forms, even bacteria and amoeba, it must also be complex enough to utilise those same processing principles within itself. Although the process is far far removed from what we would call "thinking", there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that DNA thinks for itself at least to some degree.

As I said, even if it's true that that DNA thinks for itself at least to some degree - I don't know about overwhelming evidence, I don't know of any evidence of this, but for the sake of argument, I'll accept that DNA is able to think.

Please explain though how directed mutations alone can cause genetic drifts and speciation.

You didn't answer my question.
Do you agree that genetic variability (whether random or directed) is necessary but not sufficient for the process of evolution to take place?

 

[Xarog]

I said natural selection IS the process and genetic variation is a PART of the process.

How on earth did you get confused by such a simple statement?

You can say natural selection IS the process, but we are talking about Darwin's conceptualisation of the process if you will recall. You kept saying that genetic variation and mutation etc. was not a part of his theory. Now you are telling a different story.

Evolution though, is by definition, changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It's ongoing, not what happens between this generation and the next. You will not see a new species emerge between one generation and the next, will you?

To quote from the Daily Mail article:

Salmon born in hatcheries can evolve in just a single generation, according to new research.

The change in their genetic make-up is so dramatic that it sometimes makes them unable to breed with wild fish.

That is defacto speciation. Positive proof of concept.

Please explain though how directed mutations alone can cause genetic drifts and speciation.

Phenotypes which result in stressed but successful individuals are rejected by the genome in favour of phenotypes which result in unstressed and successful individuals. Unfavourable mutations are actively repressed in future generations. The genome drifts away from bad solutions and towards good ones.

You didn't answer my question.
Do you agree that genetic variability (whether random or directed) is necessary but not sufficient for the process of evolution to take place?

I did answer your question. I disagree. Directed mutation is by itself a necessary and sufficient condition to enable the process of evolution to take place.

 

[Splinter]

I said natural selection IS the process and genetic variation is a PART of the process.

How on earth did you get confused by such a simple statement?

Ol xaarog's only skills are in confusing semantics and forum fillibusting...

 

[C4Cat]

You can say natural selection IS the process, but we are talking about Darwin's conceptualisation of the process if you will recall. You kept saying that genetic variation and mutation etc. was not a part of his theory. Now you are telling a different story.

Nope, sorry. I said genetic mutation as we know it was not a part of his theory.
Variation most definitely is, and I repeated that multiple times.
I even quoted Darwin on this in an earlier post:

The following is a quote from Darwin which encapsulates the essence of natural selection:
"Variation is a feature of natural populations and every population produces more progeny than its environment can manage. The consequences of this overproduction is that those individuals with the best genetic fitness for the environment will produce offspring that can more successfully compete in that environment. Thus the subsequent generation will have a higher representation of these offspring and the population will have evolved."

Variation is a necessary part of the process but how that variation occurs is not specified by Darwin. Whether it's random mutations or directed mutations is not part of his theory, just that variation occurs.
So no, I'm not telling a different story, you're just still confused about what natural selection according to Darwin actually is

Phenotypes which result in stressed but successful individuals are rejected by the genome in favour of phenotypes which result in unstressed and successful individuals. Unfavourable mutations are actively repressed in future generations. The genome drifts away from bad solutions and towards good ones.

I did answer your question. I disagree. Directed mutation is by itself a necessary and sufficient condition to enable the process of evolution to take place.

You've just contradicted yourself. You say directed mutation is by itself a necessary and sufficient condition to enable the process of evolution while at the same time talking about favourable mutations being passed on to future generations and unfavourable mutations being actively repressed in future generations so clearly heredity is also required.
That's two things: both directed mutation and heredity are required for evolution to take place.
Right?

 

[Xarog]

Nope, sorry. I said genetic mutation as we know it was not a part of his theory.
Variation most definitely is, and I repeated that multiple times.
I even quoted Darwin on this in an earlier post:

Variation is a necessary part of the process but how that variation occurs is not specified by Darwin. Whether it's random mutations or directed mutations is not part of his theory, just that variation occurs.
So no, I'm not telling a different story, you're just still confused about what natural selection according to Darwin actually is

Sigh.

Natural selection in the way that you are using it here is the implication that the only thing determining the traits that survive versus those that don't is the environment. This is simply not the case. You cannot keep shifting natural selection to mean only the environmental conditions which result in some individuals not propegating their genetic code and then at the same time cling on to the broader materialistic interpretation as the overarching paradigm for the theory.

I do not deny that this does happen in reality, I just dispute that this aspect of reality is required for evolution to occur. It isn't. The fact that people die before they are able to procreate is not what is driving evolutionary trends in species.

You've just contradicted yourself. You say directed mutation is by itself a necessary and sufficient condition to enable the process of evolution while at the same time talking about favourable mutations being passed on to future generations and unfavourable mutations being actively repressed in future generations so clearly heredity is also required.
That's two things: both directed mutation and heredity are required for evolution to take place.
Right?

Lol, wut? Directed mutation means that one thing is changed into another thing. You want to say now that the connection between the one thing and the another thing is "heredity" and thus separate, now?

The thing that you cannot seem to get your head around is that the environment is not the active agent driving evolution. The environment is a passive agent affecting evolution. The genome itself is driving evolution. It's natural self-selection. Newton might have been correct that massive bodies gravitate towards each other, but ultimately his description of it bears almost no resemblance to Einstein's description of it. What evolution is, and the principles Darwin thought it ran on are simply two different animals. That doesn't mean he did not make many astute observations based on his own interpretation.

Edit:

The following is a quote from Darwin which encapsulates the essence of natural selection:
"Variation is a feature of natural populations and [-]every population produces more progeny than its environment can manage. The consequences of this overproduction is that those individuals with the best genetic fitness for the environment will produce offspring that can more successfully compete in that environment.[/-] Thus the subsequent generation will have a higher representation of these offspring and the population will have evolved."

I struck out the part that was wrong. The "thus" does thus not follow. And I somehow doubt Darwin ever said "genetic".

 

[C4Cat]

Sigh.

Natural selection in the way that you are using it here is the implication that the only thing determining the traits that survive versus those that don't is the environment. This is simply not the case. You cannot keep shifting natural selection to mean only the environmental conditions which result in some individuals not propegating their genetic code and then at the same time cling on to the broader materialistic interpretation as the overarching paradigm for the theory.

I do not deny that this does happen in reality, I just dispute that this aspect of reality is required for evolution to occur. It isn't. The fact that people die before they are able to procreate is not what is driving evolutionary trends in species.


Lol, wut? Directed mutation means that one thing is changed into another thing. You want to say now that the connection between the one thing and the another thing is "heredity" and thus separate, now?

The thing that you cannot seem to get your head around is that the environment is not the active agent driving evolution. The environment is a passive agent affecting evolution. The genome itself is driving evolution. It's natural self-selection. Newton might have been correct that massive bodies gravitate towards each other, but ultimately his description of it bears almost no resemblance to Einstein's description of it. What evolution is, and the principles Darwin thought it ran on are simply two different animals. That doesn't mean he did not make many astute observations based on his own interpretation.

Edit:


I struck out the part that was wrong. The "thus" does thus not follow. And I somehow doubt Darwin ever said "genetic".

Don't speak on by behalf, I have never said that the only thing determining the traits that survive versus those that don't is the environment. Nope not me and not Darwin either. So no strawmen allowed. I also never said the environment is the active agent driving evolution. Nope, wasn't me, I don't know who you're arguing with but it's not me.
It's really REALLY SIMPLE - I have to shout because I'm tired of repeating myself:
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome.
It is as simple as that. As far as I can tell, your theory satisfies all 3 of those and is, therefore a theory of evolution by natural selection.

Regarding the quote I posted, I apologise, I can't find the original source, but I did find this which is even better:

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter III: Struggle for existence
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter3.html

 

[Xarog]

Don't speak on by behalf, I have never said that the only thing determining the traits that survive versus those that don't is the environment. Nope not me and not Darwin either. So no strawmen allowed. I also never said the environment is the active agent driving evolution. Nope, wasn't me, I don't know who you're arguing with but it's not me.
It's really REALLY SIMPLE - I have to shout because I'm tired of repeating myself:
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome.
It is as simple as that. As far as I can tell, your theory satisfies all 3 of those and is, therefore a theory of evolution by natural selection.

Regarding the quote I posted, I apologise, I can't find the original source, but I did find this which is even better:


Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter III: Struggle for existence
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter3.html

I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

So if this process is distinct from man's selection, it is also fair to say that it is distinct from the selective power of the genome itself. In other words, the reality of evolution is more complicated than the model Darwin described. "Darwinian evolution" as Dawkins described it is thus refuted. It's not that it couldn't exist, it's just that it's not what actually drives evolution in reality. Evolution is far more elegant and creative than Darwin ever imagined it could be.

And frankly, the marvelous manifestation of human intellect and other wonders of the natural world is far easier to explain using a model where the genome actively seeks out novel solutions to deal with an uncertain environment over time.

 

[Bobbin]

Evolution is not a law. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but I'm interested to clarify.

Of course evolution and natural selection are both constructs, that is to say conceptual.
They are concepts which describe the process of how heritable characteristics of biological populations change over successive generations.
I don't know what you mean by 'evolution' and 'natural selection' are distinctly different processes though.
Natural selection is a construct which describes how the process of evolution occurs. Not the nitty gritty details but the overview.
Since all language uses constructs, whatever we talk about refers to the construct, not the thing itself, if that makes sense.
With that said, how exactly does evolution occur without natural selection? All our observations and evidence thus far confirms that natural selection takes place.

Sorry I guess I'm just confused now... "http://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/"

"In the end, it is all about using it correctly. A law is used to describe an action under certain circumstances (Evolution is a law – it happens but the law doesn’t describe how). A theory describes how and why something happens (Evolution by natural selection, in which there are a host of descriptions for various mechanisms, describes the method in which evolution works). Another example is seen in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2, which describes the action of energy being converted to mass. The theory of special and general relativity, on the other hand, show how and why something with mass is unable to travel at the speed of light (among other things)."

Maybe I will just rather stick to saying Evolution is a fact but not a law (Yet?) but maybe one day it will be Looks like there is a lot of debate on this topic all over the interwebz :erm: the major consensus seems to be because there are no equations to support a predictable result it can't be considered a law (Because it is a Biological study). Pity :/

Anyway I was really just pointing out the fact vs the theory being two distinct things (I prefer looking at it this way). At least in my world evolution is quite undeniable in its consistency with everything else we know about nature.

 

[C4Cat]

So if this process is distinct from man's selection, it is also fair to say that it is distinct from the selective power of the genome itself. In other words, the reality of evolution is more complicated than the model Darwin described. "Darwinian evolution" as Dawkins described it is thus refuted. It's not that it couldn't exist, it's just that it's not what actually drives evolution in reality. Evolution is far more elegant and creative than Darwin ever imagined it could be.

And frankly, the marvelous manifestation of human intellect and other wonders of the natural world is far easier to explain using a model where the genome actively seeks out novel solutions to deal with an uncertain environment over time.

It's like arguing with a creationist or something.

Yes, it is also fair to say that it is distinct from the selective power of the genome itself (if such a thing exists).

I suppose all our theories and knowledge are refuted by the fact we don't know everything.

Yes, the reality of evolution is more complicated that what we currently understand but Darwins theory is not refuted, no, because that part of evolution we do know and understand and can test and have evidence for. Everything else is filling in the details.

Your belief in a genome that can think and reason and shows intelligence is much like a belief in god - you've just moved these creative abilities from the heavens to chemicals. There is no evidence to support your assertion but if you want to believe it go ahead. And frankly, the marvelous manifestation of human intellect and other wonders of the natural world is far easier to explain using a model where god actively designs novel solutions to deal with an uncertain environment over time. See, just because it's an easy explanation doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps one day you'll actually take the trouble to read up what Darwin actually proposed and what his theory of evolution is actually about before arguing against your strawman Darwin. Until you can demonstrate you actually understand Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, something you demonstrate repeatedly that you don't understand, there is no point to your arguing against it.

 

[C4Cat]

Sorry I guess I'm just confused now... "http://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/"

"In the end, it is all about using it correctly. A law is used to describe an action under certain circumstances (Evolution is a law – it happens but the law doesn’t describe how). A theory describes how and why something happens (Evolution by natural selection, in which there are a host of descriptions for various mechanisms, describes the method in which evolution works). Another example is seen in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2, which describes the action of energy being converted to mass. The theory of special and general relativity, on the other hand, show how and why something with mass is unable to travel at the speed of light (among other things)."

Maybe I will just rather stick to saying Evolution is a fact but not a law (Yet?) but maybe one day it will be Looks like there is a lot of debate on this topic all over the interwebz :erm: the major consensus seems to be because there are no equations to support a predictable result it can't be considered a law (Because it is a Biological study). Pity :/

Anyway I was really just pointing out the fact vs the theory being two distinct things (I prefer looking at it this way). At least in my world evolution is quite undeniable in its consistency with everything else we know about nature.

Well the 'laws' of nature are tricky things. The use of the word comes from a time when people still thought god was in control and laid down laws, much like people did, and god maintained and enforced these laws which are eternal, immutable and omnipresent, much like god himself. It's not really an appropriate description in this day and age.

 

[Xarog]

Your belief in a genome that can think and reason and shows intelligence is much like a belief in god - you've just moved these creative abilities from the heavens to chemicals.

No, my beliefs are based on observable evidence that has been collected by science. This evidence includes mechanisms for how the genome would process information, how the information is arranged so that the genome can take advantage of it (epigenetics), and how the quickest evolutionary changes happen in reaction to stressful environments.

I believe in a genome that can think and reason and shows intelligence in its own limited fashion because that genome created me and I can think and reason and show intelligence in my own limited fashion. If something happened once, what is to say that it hasn't also happened in the past?

here is no evidence to support your assertion but if you want to believe it go ahead.

Lies.

And frankly, the marvelous manifestation of human intellect and other wonders of the natural world is far easier to explain using a model where god actively designs novel solutions to deal with an uncertain environment over time. See, just because it's an easy explanation doesn't mean anything.

The key difference, again, is what conclusions the evidence supports.

Perhaps one day you'll actually take the trouble to read up what Darwin actually proposed and what his theory of evolution is actually about before arguing against your strawman Darwin. Until you can demonstrate you actually understand Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, something you demonstrate repeatedly that you don't understand, there is no point to your arguing against it.

Dude, the only one erecting straw men is you. Darwin argued for a version of evolution where nature was the selector, as opposed to human animal husbandry where Man is the selector. Darwin's materialistic explanation explicitly excludes the idea of another agent making such decisions, while there is ample evidence to suggest that the genome is in fact exactly such an agent.

 

[Swa]

Well the 'laws' of nature are tricky things. The use of the word comes from a time when people still thought god was in control and laid down laws, much like people did, and god maintained and enforced these laws which are eternal, immutable and omnipresent, much like god himself. It's not really an appropriate description in this day and age.

You make it sound as if we now know different.

No, my beliefs are based on observable evidence that has been collected by science. This evidence includes mechanisms for how the genome would process information, how the information is arranged so that the genome can take advantage of it (epigenetics), and how the quickest evolutionary changes happen in reaction to stressful environments.

I believe in a genome that can think and reason and shows intelligence in its own limited fashion because that genome created me and I can think and reason and show intelligence in my own limited fashion. If something happened once, what is to say that it hasn't also happened in the past?

That's you belief. There's no real evidence that the genome is a thinking organism and only fringe theories.

 

[Xarog]

That's you belief. There's no real evidence that the genome is a thinking organism and only fringe theories.

If you say so. Apparently you think that the genome is complicated enough to contain the recipe to create a brain which can construct such abstractions in real-time, but isn't complicated enough to reproduce a much more limited version of that same principle within the genome.

https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

How many megabytes of data would it take to store the "code" of DNA? How much of that code would be needed to create an essentially trivially easy feedback loop that is already expressed in pretty much every living organism? A "good gene expression" versus a "bad gene expression" relative to an arbitrary measurement of stress is all it takes to reproduce the kind of intelligent selection system that the researcher set up to "mimic" natural selection.

http://www.nature.com/news/how-brainless-slime-molds-redefine-intelligence-1.11811
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_IQ_score_of_bacteria

So yeah, I think that kind of intelligent decision making system is in the genome too, big woop.

 

[Swa]

If you say so. Apparently you think that the genome is complicated enough to contain the recipe to create a brain which can construct such abstractions in real-time, but isn't complicated enough to reproduce a much more limited version of that same principle within the genome.

https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

How many megabytes of data would it take to store the "code" of DNA? How much of that code would be needed to create an essentially trivially easy feedback loop that is already expressed in pretty much every living organism? A "good gene expression" versus a "bad gene expression" relative to an arbitrary measurement of stress is all it takes to reproduce the kind of intelligent selection system that the researcher set up to "mimic" natural selection.

http://www.nature.com/news/how-brainless-slime-molds-redefine-intelligence-1.11811
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_IQ_score_of_bacteria

So yeah, I think that kind of intelligent decision making system is in the genome too, big woop.

Red herring. It's two completely different things and has nothing to do with complexity. The only thing we have to go on that the genome reacts in an intelligent manner towards stress is ironically your own say so.

 

[Xarog]

Red herring. It's two completely different things and has nothing to do with complexity. The only thing we have to go on that the genome reacts in an intelligent manner towards stress is ironically your own say so.

Um, no.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17917874
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193684/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation

If you really want to play show and tell, I will bury you in supporting evidence.

 

[Swa]

Um, no.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17917874
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193684/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation

If you really want to play show and tell, I will bury you in supporting evidence.

You'll bury me in something that doesn't make the claims you do?