The Triune system

[Shaker]

... we've had Jeff Daniels, now here comes Jim Carrey.

[Sriram]

What Darwin understood through observation was the principle of descent with modification; that creatures produce non-identical offspring and that diversity among siblings will favour some individuals over others in terms of fitness; and scaled up to populations this mechanism neatly accounts for speciation.  What he didn't understand was the underlying biological mechanisms, ie genes and mutations that underwrite heritability, we had to wait for Mendel to come along for that.

Darwin probably thought of NS as Nature's selection (something like God's selection) of specific traits leading to humans. People in later decades have made it absolutely materialistic and come up with this concept of NS as some sort of a process without really being a process.

Ironically.....I am not against the idea of Natural Selection at all! I in fact, believe that there really is a Natural Selection....some sort of a Consciousness within all beings that actually selects traits such that complexity arises and humans evolve.   I am all for it actually.

But what I am against is the use of the term 'Natural Selection' to mean some haphazard throwing up of millions of random variations and then a so called 'selection' without really being a selection. 

[floo]

Just an answer complete cobblers

 with not the slightest bit of evidence. Fairy storys for atheist.

~TW~

A good one coming from you who enjoys Biblical fairy tales.

[Shaker]

Reading Sriram trying to talk about science reminds me of Dr. Johnson's observation on a dog walking on its back legs - it's not done well, you're just surprised to see it done at all.

[torridon]

LOL!!   You are again trying to explain away something very fundamental. You did not agree that the survival instinct  was fundamentally a part of an organisms nature. Now you talk thermodynamics!! 

Its all your (and others) materialistic mindset and your need to offer convoluted and off hand explanations for such extraordinary things as the 'survival instinct'...'procreation instinct'....and the evolution of complexity and humans.

To me it is very clear that there is a natural Intelligence/Consciousness present everywhere which directs evolution. No doubt at all.  (it has nothing to do with religious deities).

Eh ?

I fail to see what it is that is convoluted, all we are doing is explaining mainstream science, there is nothing controversial in that. It is you putting your own spin on things thats requires justification; if you want to call 'survival instinct' what textbooks describe in terms of base energy laws then you are just putting up some private language barrier it would seem.  Terms like 'survival instinct' and 'procreation instinct' more properly apply at the level of higher animals; at the level of simple particles, we should use the correct terminology to avoid confusion.

[Stranger]

Darwin probably thought of NS as Nature's selection (something like God's selection) of specific traits leading to humans. People in later decades have made it absolutely materialistic and come up with this concept of NS as some sort of a process without really being a process.

It was clear already that you know nothing about the modern notion of natural selection and now I suspect you know nothing about Darwin's work, either...

Ironically.....I am not against the idea of Natural Selection at all! I in fact, believe that there really is a Natural Selection....some sort of a Consciousness within all beings that actually selects traits such that complexity arises and humans evolve.   I am all for it actually.

Unfortunately that isn't natural selection. You don't seem to understanding that science defines terms ('energy', 'natural selection') and their meaning is not a matter of personal preference.

If you want to believe what you say, that is a religious position and you have every right to believe it (without evidence) if you want - but calling it 'natural selection' is monumentally dishonest.

[Udayana]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930660-100-evolution-learn-natural-selection/

This is a very interesting article that might shed some light on some of the questions raised in the above discussion, although it is slightly marred by the inability of popular science writers to keep away from wording that gives nature an anthropomorphic slant.

It is behind a firewall, so if you don't have access, imo,, it is worth popping in to the local library to read it in the next issue.

Leader: “Darwin’s beautiful theory must itself be allowed to evolve”: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930663-200-long-live-evolution/

[Shaker]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930660-100-evolution-learn-natural-selection/

This is a very interesting article that might shed some light on some of the questions raised in the above discussion, although it is slightly marred by the inability of popular science writers to keep away from wording that gives nature an anthropomorphic slant.

Unfortunately this has been a besetting problem for evolutionary science going all the way back to Darwin himself and his espousal of the term 'natural selection.' It wasn't and isn't his fault but that of, you might say, what Justin Barrett termed the hyperactive agency detection device - the innate and inherent human tendency to see conscious, intelligent and purposive agency where it doesn't exist. As humans we know what it means to select things, so when a term like natural selection crops up many people innocently leap to asking the question "What's doing the selecting?", with the implication behind the question being that there's a deliberate selection process going on by a conscious agent analogous to human selection. They've been doing this in droves since 1859; they're still doing it now.

A couple of writers of my knowledge - only a couple, and far too few - have used the metaphor of a sieve to describe natural selection, since the sieve is a mindless device which "selects" something (like lumps in flour for example) on a purely blind, mindless, mechanical basis. Shove something like lumpy flour in a sieve; something will drop through; other stuff won't. This is a closer analogy with evolution by natural selection; selection is still going on as we would understand it from our human perspective - lumps of flour bigger than the holes of the sieve stay in the sieve; lumps smaller than the holes of the sieve fall through and therefore look, at first glance, as though they've been consciously and deliberately selected when in fact they haven't been anything of the sort. This reduces to physical laws. But then, ultimately, so does evolution.

Most people have a sieve in their kitchen. If you don't think a sieve is a conscious, purposive agent, why would evolution be?

[Sriram]

I have heard of the sieve bit earlier. But that's nonsense too.

For one thing there is no specific size or shape being sieved. Everything from elephants, lizards, fish and spiders to crotons, apple trees, bacteria are being allowed through.  What selection?

It is in fact wrong to talk of something being selected and something else not being selected.  Dinosaurs were selected...not any more. Mammoths were selected....but not any more. 

What is the time limit to decide whether something is selected or not? 1000 years, 10000 years, 1 million years, 100 million years. How long should it survive to be deemed selected.

It is more appropriate to talk of a big hole not a sieve, through which all species are passing through. Everything is selected for some time (however small) and everything is rejected after some time (however long).

Its more of a snap shot at one point of time. As at this moment, such and such species and organisms are selected. That's all it is. Maybe not by today evening. Some species could be extinct. 

So...the concept of natural selection is 'trying to have it both ways'. You use a anthropomorphic concept of 'selection' as though it is some very clear and definitive process.  Then suddenly it is not a selection at all.....just a reaction to random environmental changes!

People like to say....its not random at all...you don't understand....its Natural Selection! LOL!

Point is that Natural Selection is also random because environmental changes are random. So...random genetic variations ...'selected' through random environmental changes ....is very much random too.   

[Shaker]

Dear me, it's hopeless 

[Sriram]

Dear me, it's hopeless 

Yep...I agree! 

[Shaker]

In that case stop embarrassing yourself by trying to pontificate on a subject of which you're invincibly ignorant.

[Stranger]

I have heard of the sieve bit earlier. But that's nonsense too.

[bizarre waffle]

I'm struggling to understand what strange misunderstandings lie behind this post because you appear to be criticizing some idea that has nothing to do with natural selection.

Why you persist in trying to lecture the rest of us about things you are quite obviously in complete ignorance of yourself, is also a mystery to me.

Nobody (who knows anything about it) is suggesting there is some sort of universal selection criteria that selects for a species; dinosaurs, mammoths etc. - where did you get that idea...?

Each population has its own environment - an important part of which is the other species that live along side it. Most notable amongst them are things that want to eat it, things it wants to eat and things who want to eat the same stuff and live in the same place.

It is characteristics that are appropriate to the environment of the population that are 'selected'.

There is nothing magic about natural selection - it just says that individuals that are better suited to survival and reproduction in the environment will survive and reproduce in the enviroment more than those that are less suited to survival and reproduction in the environment. In that way random changes that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction in the environment, spread through populations.

Is any of this getting through?

It really is a very simple idea.

For those who aren't as allergic to learning as Sriram clearly is and who have a genuine interest:-

Evolution 101
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

[Sriram]

Each population has its own environment - an important part of which is the other species that live along side it. Most notable amongst them are things that want to eat it, things it wants to eat and things who want to eat the same stuff and live in the same place.

It is characteristics that are appropriate to the environment of the population that are 'selected'.

There is nothing magic about natural selection - it just says that individuals that are better suited to survival and reproduction in the environment will survive and reproduce in the enviroment more than those that are less suited to survival and reproduction in the environment. In that way random changes that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction in the environment, spread through populations.

Which is not saying much actually. If you think about it what you are saying is that 'what ever survives ...survives'.   Which is what I have said too. Its just a random occurrence based on random environmental changes.

Why are you therefore trying to paint it as some sort of a clearly defined and definitive process....based on some law of nature?

What is the law that governs NS? What is the predictability? Which are the species 'allowed to pass through the sieve' and which aren't?

[Shaker]

Gordon, for goodness sake get us a facepalm emoticon when you can, please!

[Stranger]

Which is not saying much actually. If you think about it what you are saying is that 'what ever survives ...survives'.

Those traits that are good for survival in the prevailing environment of the population are passed on. Natural selection is about characteristics.

Evolution isn't random in the sense of randomly shuffling DNA and suddenly produced a woolly mammoth, an oak tree or a human. If a change is not advantageous (in the prevailing environment) it will be lost but if it is, it is kept. That excludes a large amount of the random variations.

In that way, all sorts of organisms can develop over time - all under pressure from their environments. There are many complex interactions that drive different populations to evolve in different ways.

For example, you can get "evolutionary arms races" between predators and prey. When some variation makes prey harder to catch, it will quickly spread through the prey population. When some variation then makes the predator better able to catch these new variant prey, that will quickly spread through the predator population and so on and so on...

Is there a goal? No. Can we predict what will emerge over long periods of time? No - it's way too complex.

Why are you therefore trying to paint it as some sort of a clearly defined and definitive process....based on some law of nature?

What is the law that governs NS? What is the predictability? Which are the species 'allowed to pass through the sieve' and which aren't?

Don't blame other people for your misunderstandings. If you want to learn about the real science, it isn't difficult - there is no need for complicated mathematics, unlike much of science. There are many websites and excellent books on the subject.

Just don't try to lecture other people about things you haven't bothered to learn about yourself - it makes you look foolish.

[ippy]

Gonners, Sriram and ~TW~, blind leading the blind leading the blind.

Gonners just doesn't understand evolution and never will no matter by who or how many times he is told, Sriram thinks there's something intellectual about his view on evolution, it isn't, ~TW~'s, well, just an absolute plonker. 

Looks like we're really going to learn something earth shatteringly significant on this thread now they're all here together.

I can hardly wait.

ippy
 

[BeRational]

Which is not saying much actually. If you think about it what you are saying is that 'what ever survives ...survives'.   Which is what I have said too. Its just a random occurrence based on random environmental changes.

Why are you therefore trying to paint it as some sort of a clearly defined and definitive process....based on some law of nature?

What is the law that governs NS? What is the predictability? Which are the species 'allowed to pass through the sieve' and which aren't?

If the environment changes over time, some individuals will be better able to cope and have offspring. The genes that gave them that advantage are then passed on, and THAT is the selection. Selecting genes that just happened to give advantage in that environment!

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Gonners just doesn't understand evolution

Correct old son and I am slowly coming to the concussion that a great many posters who say they do understand evolution are talking through a hole in their erky.

Thing is old chum, I will get it, it may take time, the ones who think they have got it are only deluding themselves.

Further ippy old chap, I am not afraid to challenge it, to turn it up side down, to F*** with it, it is science and science belongs to everyone

Yours, your old pal,

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Correct old son and I am slowly coming to the concussion...

I thing your conclusion mutated.

 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Mutated or mutation, good words, so is junctional diversity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

This evolution stuff is easy.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Stranger,

Mutated or mutation, good words, so is junctional diversity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

This evolution stuff is easy.

Gonnagle.

The concept is really really easy.

I cannot understand why it seem so hard for some to understand.

In all of science, this has to be the simplest to get your head around.

[Sriram]

Those traits that are good for survival in the prevailing environment of the population are passed on. Natural selection is about characteristics.

Evolution isn't random in the sense of randomly shuffling DNA and suddenly produced a woolly mammoth, an oak tree or a human. If a change is not advantageous (in the prevailing environment) it will be lost but if it is, it is kept. That excludes a large amount of the random variations.

In that way, all sorts of organisms can develop over time - all under pressure from their environments. There are many complex interactions that drive different populations to evolve in different ways.

For example, you can get "evolutionary arms races" between predators and prey. When some variation makes prey harder to catch, it will quickly spread through the prey population. When some variation then makes the predator better able to catch these new variant prey, that will quickly spread through the predator population and so on and so on...

Is there a goal? No. Can we predict what will emerge over long periods of time? No - it's way too complex.

Don't blame other people for your misunderstandings. If you want to learn about the real science, it isn't difficult - there is no need for complicated mathematics, unlike much of science. There are many websites and excellent books on the subject.

Just don't try to lecture other people about things you haven't bothered to learn about yourself - it makes you look foolish.

Since you are so knowledgeable about evolution....just answer my questions.

Why is NS not just a reaction (adaptation) to an environment change and why is it a 'selection'?
What is the law governing NS? 
What is the predictability of the selected species?
What is the criterion to decide that some thing has been selected and some thing has not?
Random gene variations should throw up virtually millions of phenotypes out of which some are 'selected' (according to you). Have such millions of mutations actually been observed in every case?    Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....is it random gene variation and NS..... or it it active adaptation to the changed environment? 

PS: The more personal remarks you make the more your weakness is shown, as a rule!

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Correct old son and I am slowly coming to the concussion that a great many posters who say they do understand evolution are talking through a hole in their erky.

Thing is old chum, I will get it, it may take time, the ones who think they have got it are only deluding themselves.

Further ippy old chap, I am not afraid to challenge it, to turn it up side down, to F*** with it, it is science and science belongs to everyone

Yours, your old pal,

Gonnagle.

Gonners, it's not any kind of dogma evolution is a theory that's been around for about 160 years without a significant   challenge, in other words, it's as good as an established fact.

If you get the following book "The Peppered Moth", have a good read it's about as simple as it can get telling how evolution works, give it a go if you still don't get it, well, then give up, but not before you've read it.

Evolution has nothing to do directly with religion it's just a part of the facts of life, emphasis on facts not fancy.   

ippy

[Sriram]

Dear ippy,

Correct old son and I am slowly coming to the concussion that a great many posters who say they do understand evolution are talking through a hole in their erky.

Thing is old chum, I will get it, it may take time, the ones who think they have got it are only deluding themselves.

Further ippy old chap, I am not afraid to challenge it, to turn it up side down, to F*** with it, it is science and science belongs to everyone

Yours, your old pal,

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonnagle,

Actually most people here just pretend to know science.  They have read some books and taken it on authority. Coupled with their need to find atheistic and non mystical explanations....they get locked on to such explanations without thinking about it.

They like being skeptical but only in selected areas....they are themselves carried away by faith in scientific authority. They are as fanatical about their beliefs as religious followers are.

If some famous scientist suddenly rejects some idea or questions some long held scientific 'belief'....you'll find a angry and scornful reaction by all these science enthusiasts. They'll happily condemn the scientist rather than change their view point.  Its their memes fighting for survival. LOL!

Cheers.

Sriram