The Triune system

[Sriram]

The fact that you don't agree with an established fact makes you look a tad stupid.

An established fact!!? Reaalllly?!  Lol!

[Leonard James]

An established fact!!? Reaalllly?!  Lol!

Yes, really!  Here is your remark that prompted my post :-

"The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!"

You are simply unable to perceive that the complexity of  life HAS arisen from the process of evolution.

I don't know why you have this blind spot, and I hope you will be able to get over it some day.

[Sriram]

Yes, really!  Here is your remark that prompted my post :-

"The very fact that such complexity has arisen with all the millions of emergent properties necessary....is enough evidence for a direction. Such complexity arising out of random processes...is ridiculous!"

You are simply unable to perceive that the complexity of  life HAS arisen from the process of evolution.

I don't know why you have this blind spot, and I hope you will be able to get over it some day.

You do realize that I am not questioning 'evolution' itself.....don't you?   

I am questioning the random process that you people are touting as the mechanism for evolution.

[Leonard James]

You do realize that I am not questioning 'evolution' itself.....don't you?   

I am questioning the random process that you people are touting as the mechanism for evolution.

Human sperm and egg are produced in a totally random way. None of the thousands of sperm produced in one ejaculation are genetically identical and I think the same applies to the eggs awaiting fertilisation.

The resulting fertilised egg is then exposed to the random conditions of its surroundings, both before and after birth.

On what grounds do you question the "randomness" of the process?

[Stranger]

Point is that I don't agree that complexity can arise due to this so called 'process'. Now that's simple too......you know!!   

Unfortunately, since you offer no evidence and no reasoning to support your opinion, there is no reason at all for anybody else to take it seriously.

You do realize that I am not questioning 'evolution' itself.....don't you?   

I am questioning the random process that you people are touting as the mechanism for evolution.

Your stubborn ignorance is showing again. The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.

[Sriram]

Unfortunately, since you offer no evidence and no reasoning to support your opinion, there is no reason at all for anybody else to take it seriously.

Your stubborn ignorance is showing again. The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.

You do realize...I hope....that evolution can happen without your brand of Natural Selection. It really can!!

[Shaker]

You do realize...I hope....that evolution can happen without your brand of Natural Selection. It really can!!

Really really really really?

Where's your evdence for this?

[Stranger]

You do realize...I hope....that evolution can happen without your brand of Natural Selection. It really can!!

Evidence? Reasoning?

Silly to ask, I guess.

[Sriram]

In other words...you guys never understood all along that I have no objection to 'evolution' per se.....and that it was only the random nature of your brand of Natural Selection that I was objecting to?!     Amazing!!!

You people really do have your heads full of religious baggage so that the moment someone objects to something in science you go into a tizzy and start assuming that they are entirely anti-evolution, anti-science, pro religion......and so on.

No wonder you guys keep going around in circles!!

PS: I have already stated many times that the rise of complexity is itself evidence against random events causing evolution. Now...don't tell me NS is not random. If the environmental changes are random...and act on random mutations.....NS has to be random too. 

[Stranger]

In other words...you guys never understood all along that I have no objection to 'evolution' per se.....and that it was only the random nature of your brand of Natural Selection that I was objecting to?!     Amazing!!!

Still stubbornly ignorant. I'll repeat:-

The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.

PS: I have already stated many times that the rise of complexity is itself evidence against random events causing evolution. Now...don't tell me NS is not random. If the environmental changes are random...and act on random mutations.....NS has to be random too.

I'm not going to explain it again - go read a book for a change.

Just stating that something is evidence, doesn't turn it into evidence.

[torridon]

PS: I have already stated many times that the rise of complexity is itself evidence against random events causing evolution. Now...don't tell me NS is not random. If the environmental changes are random...and act on random mutations.....NS has to be random too.

You might have stated it many times, but I don't recall that you have justified it, unless I missed that somewhere.  Just repeating assertions does not make them true.  What makes you think that complexity cannot arise out of simpler underlying factors ?

[Sriram]

Still stubbornly ignorant. I'll repeat:-

The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly what you are arguing against. You also don't seem to get that this is not something that we (here on this message board) are making up. It is the theory that originated with Darwin 150 years ago and which has been supported by the evidence since. People have disagreed about details and brought new insights to it, but it is fundamentally unchanged.

I'm not going to explain it again - go read a book for a change.

Just stating that something is evidence, doesn't turn it into evidence.

SKS,

Ok....let me repeat.....

1. Evolution is just 'change'.  'Evolution'...does not mean 'Evolution by Natural Selection'.  Do you get it? Everything evolves over time. Cars have evolved, computers have evolved, planes have evolved, civilizations have evolved, music has evolved, cultures have evolved, languages have evolved....and so on. And all this evolution has had Intelligent direction behind it.  All these things have moved in specific directions of increasing complexity from simpler beginnings.  So...biological evolution is only one more instance of evolution.  Evolution does not automatically mean random processes.  I hope this is clear to begin with!!

2. Biological evolution happens there is no doubt. But just as there was Lamarckism before Darwin....evolution can have many explanations. Darwinian NS is only one of them. It need not be final and conclusive.  Nothing ever is. So...don't try this Argument from Authority.

3.  Charles Darwin (I have given quotes earlier.... refer to them) was not an atheist and intended Natural Selection as a mechanism similar to Artificial Selection. I have quoted this many times but you people have selective eye sight.  Just as AS has direction and specific goals NS was also assumed to have goals. Also, Darwin did believe in acquired characteristics getting passed on to progeny.

4. It was later....in neo-Darwinism touted by such people as Weismann and Wallace....that NS (the random mutations brand) became mainstream. The Weismann Barrier as it is called...rejected Lamarckian ideas. In other words...what you refer to as Darwinian NS is actually neo Darwinism........!

5. Today, research in Epigenetics has  brought back the possibility of Lamarckian explanation of evolution as a clear possibility. If you don't now about this....read up on it.  Don't have a blind spot on this.

6. Coming back to Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution....it is a random process because genetic mutations are random and environmental changes are also random. Randomness cannot give rise to complexity. That is common sense. Its for you to prove that it can.

7. Such basic instincts as Survival and Procreation Instincts being present from the earliest times....point to survival and procreation being basic objectives in evolution, without which evolution cannot happen at all. It is therefore not a random directionless process.

8. Because of the above....the neo darwinian NS that you people are so fond of, cannot be an explanation for evolution.  Alternative processes are possible....and should be examined. 


Now, all of you can holler to high heaven about all this being rubbish and what not......but I am clear about what I have said and stand by it.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

1. Evolution is just 'change'.  'Evolution'...does not mean 'Evolution by Natural Selection'.  Everything evolves over time. Cars have evolved, computers have evolved, planes have evolved, civilizations have evolved, music has evolved, cultures have evolved, languages have evolved....and so on. And all this evolution has had Intelligent direction behind it.  All these things have moved in specific directions of increasing complexity from simpler beginnings.  So...biological evolution is only one more instance of evolution.  Evolution does not automatically mean random processes.  I hope this is clear to being with!!

In what way are other usages of the word relevant to this discussion?

3.  Charles Darwin (I have given quotes earlier.... refer to them) was not an atheist and intended Natural Selection as a mechanism similar to Artificial Selection. I have quoted this many times but you people have selective eye sight.

The quotes you gave did not support your claims.

Natural selection is similar to artificial selection, just not in the way you'd like.

In both cases  there are variations that are then selected. Either consciously chosen (artificial) or just by the environment (natural). The variations don't happen in order to please a human breeder and they don't happen in order to survive in the environment. In both cases, however, some variations are passed to the next generation. This really isn't hard.

Here (again) is Darwin's own definition of natural selection:

Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

5. Today, research in Epigenetics has  brought back the possibility of Lamarckian explanation of evolution as a clear possibility. If you don't now about this....read up on it.  Don't have a blind spot on this.

6. Coming back to Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution....it is a random process because genetic mutations are random and environmental changes are also random. Randomness cannot give rise to complexity. That is common sense. Its for you to prove that it can.

7. Such basic instincts as Survival and Procreation Instincts being present from the earliest times....point to survival and procreation being basic objectives in evolution, without which evolution cannot happen at all. It is therefore not a random directionless process.

8. Because of the above....the neo darwinian NS that you people are so fond of, cannot be an explanation for evolution.  Alternative processes are possible....and should be examined.

This has all been gone over before. You still have zero evidence, whereas the actual theory of evolution has been collecting evidence for over a century.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Darwin,

Artificial selection has bugger all to do with environment, right! yes/no?

Artificial selection is a quick process, by quick I mean, sometimes it can be measured in a man's life time, not always but some times.

Natural Selection has everything to with environment, right! yes/no?

Natural selection can be a quick and a slow process, right! yes/no?

Gonnagle.

PS: I wonder if Rhiannon and Shaker have noticed any difference in there teeth.

[Stranger]

Dear Darwin,

I'm pretty sure he doesn't post here - being a bit dead an' all.

I'll do my best.

Artificial selection has bugger all to do with environment, right! yes/no?

Well, if you stretch the definition of the environment enough to include a person doing the selection, then there is literally no difference between artificial selection and natural selection.

In artificial selection the environment of a population is totally dominated by said person and their conscious goal. In natural selection, all sorts of environmental factors determine which individuals survive and reproduce.

Artificial selection is a quick process, by quick I mean, sometimes it can be measured in a man's life time, not always but some times.

The speed of either natural or artificial selection depends on several factors. Most notably perhaps, the individual lifetime of organisms in the population. Populations evolve, not individuals; a change can't spread through a population without a new lot of individuals.

More Darwin - as you asked (my emphasis):-

We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants would almost immediately undergo a change, and some species might become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement.


As much Darwin as you want:-
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

First of all a big thank you for your efforts, it is slowly sinking in

Secondly, Darwin does post here, everytime someone mentions anything to do with evolution he posts.

Just one question from your post, are you stretching the definition of environment to far?

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Just one question from your post, are you stretching the definition of environment to far?

Too far for what?     

[OK - this is me, not Darwin.] I think you can view artificial selection as a special case of natural selection. I say that because an important part of any population's environment consists of the other species that live alongside it and interact with it. Most obviously, they may be predators, prey or they may compete for the same prey. Having evolved to produce conscious manipulators of the population is just a special (and unique, as far as we know) case.

The point that I was trying to make was that the underlying mechanism is the same, in the sense that there is variation of individuals in the population and then something determines which pass on their genes and which don't.

The something can be just the combined effects of climate, predators, availability of food and so on, or the deliberate actions of a human.

[torridon]

Ditto with sexual selection.  If you fancy that girl next door with the big b***ies and huge b*^m, that is still a form of natural selection at the end of the day, manifesting through emotions and behaviours.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Artificial and Natural, I may be hung up on these two words, step away from the book Gonnagle

Anyway as way of thanks I will leave you with this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY

This when you can really use the terms awe and wonder.

But a question, what does Dawkins mean when he talks about Starlings flocking,

Group mind? No, local units obeying local rules.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Anyway as way of thanks I will leave you with this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY

This when you can really use the terms awe and wonder.

But a question, what does Dawkins mean when he talks about Starlings flocking,

Group mind? No, local units obeying local rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbUPfMXXQIY