Consciousness & evolution

[Stranger]

Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.

I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.

You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.

That is the difference between our way of thinking.

It isn't a different way of thinking, it's you (apparently) just stubbornly refusing to even try to understand. Of course things that are useful for survival do, in fact, survive more than others, and, given random variation, useful traits will appear from time to time. That is all the explanation needed for why organisms today have lots of useful survival features. No intelligence needed. Well, none for the process to take place, and very little to understand it. Why not give it a go? Go on, dare to think outside your comfort zone!

[Outrider]

Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.

Yes.

I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.

Probably.

You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.

No. Once again, natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance, it's a rigorous (life and death in many instances, including the scenarios envisioned in this example) selection conducted continuously over generations of offspring, it's about as far from 'chance' as you can get. The original variations upon which the selection may act are, functionally, random so far as we can tell, but once the variations are in place the selection is anything but 'chance'.

That is the difference between our way of thinking.

To be blunt, that we appear to understand the broad sweep of how the neo-Darwinian model of evolution works, and you appear not to. You continue to equate natural selection with random chance.

O.

[Enki]

Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.  Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.

What this incident seems to be an example of is the ability of humans to create imaginary scenarios in their own head, hence the idea that the step, in some imaginary way, had some sort of personality. I immediately thought of how young animals can stalk inanimate objects and even pounce on them? Are they showing similar use of imagination? It's certainly a good learning strategy to hone their survival skills. And then, I found this fascinating article which deserves to be read in its entirety.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130207-can-animals-imagine

The evidence suggests that the ability to imagine is not unique to humans and its origins could well be in the fact that it aided survival learning techniques. As far as the blaming aspect is concerned, I see no reason to think that this is not simply an extension of this aspect stemming from the complexity of the human brain and the complexity of human language. I wonder, for instance, how often a mother/father has said to their child "naughty step" when the child has tripped over it!

[Sriram]

Yes.

Probably.

No. Once again, natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance, it's a rigorous (life and death in many instances, including the scenarios envisioned in this example) selection conducted continuously over generations of offspring, it's about as far from 'chance' as you can get. The original variations upon which the selection may act are, functionally, random so far as we can tell, but once the variations are in place the selection is anything but 'chance'.

To be blunt, that we appear to understand the broad sweep of how the neo-Darwinian model of evolution works, and you appear not to. You continue to equate natural selection with random chance.

O.

I understand the Neo Darwinian model....but I don't agree with it.  Fundamentally, in this model, the reason any trait appears is random. NS acts only on phenotypes that happen to arise by chance. 

Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise. They arise in response to environmental requirements. There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.

Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS.  That is having the cake and eating it too!

Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.

[Stranger]

I understand the Neo Darwinian model...

No, it's blindingly obvious from your posts that you don't. You may think you do, but that isn't the same thing at all.

Fundamentally, in this model, the reason any trait appears is random. NS acts only on phenotypes that happen to arise by chance. 

And that is absolutely all that is needed. Traits that aid survival are bound to arise and then natural selection takes over. It will also, of course, stamp out unhelpful traits.

Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise. They arise in response to environmental requirements. There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.

Now you're showing again that you don't understand. Phenotypic plasticity is not evolution, it is the product of evolution.

Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS.  That is having the cake and eating it too!

In what possible way is that "having the cake and eating it too"? It is obvious, and backed up by endless evidence.

Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.

It isn't the 'object' of evolution. It's just what inevitably happens as a result of it. If all life doesn't die out, the resulting life will be good at survival. It doesn't need some mysterious explanation, it's practically a truism.

Come on Sriram, step outside your comfort zone, just a little bit, and think about it!

[Outrider]

I understand the Neo Darwinian model....but I don't agree with it.  Fundamentally, in this model, the reason any trait appears is random.

Arguably, no; however, the proximate cause is likely happening on a scale that makes the environmental factors which will exert selection functionally irrelevant. It's random with respect to the macroscopic activity the organism is encountering.

NS acts only on phenotypes that happen to arise by chance.

Functionally, yes; absolutely, possibly (arguably probably) not.

Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise. They arise in response to environmental requirements.

No, it doesn't; they arise, in terms of the environmental influences, in most instances randomly. They persist in response to the environmental pressures, but they arise regardless.

There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.

I have seen no evidence of that whatsoever; I'd be interested to see some creditable science that suggests that.

Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS.  That is having the cake and eating it too!

That really depends on if the response is a cultural one (i.e. tribalism, mating rituals) or something phsyiological (i.e. long necks, webbed feet).

Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.

If survival became an objective, yes; however, survival is overwhelmingly more often simply a result, there is no planning, there are just organisms that survival preferentially because of a functionally random trait emerging or diminishing.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise.

Phenotypic plasticity (as you call it) - not a term I recognise although I have spent about 35 years largely studying changes in phenotype at a cellular level. I assume you mean the ability of a cell or organism to adapt its phenotype in response to an environmental stimulus. Yup - it occurs all the time, but it is the product of evolution, but the cause of it.

They arise in response to environmental requirements.

Not they don't - they arise randomly via standard genomic mutations and it there is an evolutionary advantage (as will often be the case if it allows the organism to be better adapted to a changing environment) they will persist and be selected for via standard evolutionary natural selection processes.

There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.

'Intelligence' - better described as adaptability, arises through evolutionary processes - there is no 'intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system'. The system simply favours traits that are heritable and confer better likelihood of survival - nothing more, nothing less.

Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS.

Indeed they do - many of those people may be scientists and it is an argument based on overwhelming evidence.

That is having the cake and eating it too!

No it isn't - it is perfectly consistent with the basic principles of evolution by natural selection.

Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.

No there isn't - as it is self evidence that if a trait supports survival it will ... err ... survive, provided that it is heritable. There is no intent, merely a basic mechanism.

[Sriram]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity

*********

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.

Phenotypic plasticity refers to the observation that a given genotype expresses different phenotypes in different ecological settings.

Phenotypic plasticity refers to the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes depending on the environment in which it resides.

Morphological plasticity, also called phenotypic plasticity, refers to the potential of organisms to change specific anatomical traits in response to different environments independent of their genotype.

*********

Clearly Phenotypic plasticity does not arise randomly.... 

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity

*********

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.

Phenotypic plasticity refers to the observation that a given genotype expresses different phenotypes in different ecological settings.

Phenotypic plasticity refers to the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes depending on the environment in which it resides.

Morphological plasticity, also called phenotypic plasticity, refers to the potential of organisms to change specific anatomical traits in response to different environments independent of their genotype.

Yes I know what you mean by it. What I was pointing out is that it isn't a term widely used by researchers who study the adaptation of phenotype to environmental stimuli or changes. Why do I know this - well because I am a professional academic researcher with 35 years of experience studying just that, and have published well over 100 research journal articles on the topic. Yet I've never used the term myself nor, to my recollection, have I heard any one of my esteemed research colleagues use the term.

*********

Clearly Phenotypic plasticity does not arise randomly....

Nope - it arises randomly through mutations in the genome and if advantageous and heritable will be retained. Standard evolution.

[Stranger]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity

*********

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.

Phenotypic plasticity refers to the observation that a given genotype expresses different phenotypes in different ecological settings.

Phenotypic plasticity refers to the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes depending on the environment in which it resides.

Morphological plasticity, also called phenotypic plasticity, refers to the potential of organisms to change specific anatomical traits in response to different environments independent of their genotype.

*********

Clearly Phenotypic plasticity does not arise randomly....

I don't think anybody apart from you is confused about what it is. What you don't seem to understand is that phenotypic plasticity is something (a collection of traits) that evolved in the normal way. It isn't how things evolve.

[Sriram]

A Arctic fox that is white in winter and brown in summer is due to random variation?? A chameleon that changes color by the minute is due to random variation??

[ProfessorDavey]

A Arctic fox that is white in winter and brown in summer is due to random variation??

Yup - a mutation that results in alterations in pigment colour, probably linked to temperature or some other environmental cue. Quite likely at some point another mutation may have occurred that resulted in white colouration in the summer and brown in the winter. Can you begin to see why that one might not have been selected for via natural selection, while the reverse will have been.

A chameleon that changes color by the minute is due to random variation??

The ability to change colour to blend into a background is so mind bogglingly useful in survival terms if it derives in the manner you suggest, why wouldn't all sorts of species have developed it. That they haven't is very strong evidence that the trait is the result of chance mutation rather than deliberate adaptation.

[Stranger]

A Arctic fox that is white in winter and brown in summer is due to random variation?? A chameleon that changes color by the minute is due to random variation??

The change in colour isn't a random variation, the ability to change colour in response to the environment came about through random variation and selection, just like any other ability that is useful for survival.

[Sriram]

But polyphenism is not due to change in genotype (mutation). With the same genotype changes in phenotype happen. The Arctic fox is one instance. 

[Stranger]

But polyphenism is not due to change in genotype (mutation). With the same genotype changes in phenotype happen. The Arctic fox is one instance.

You really are totally confused about this. Polyphenism itself (the actual ability to produce more than one phenotype from a single genotype) is something that evolved by genetic variation and natural selection.

See: Polyphenism - Evolution.

A mechanism has been proposed for the evolutionary development of polyphenisms:

• A mutation results in a novel, heritable trait.
• The trait's frequency expands in the population, creating a population on which selection can act.
• Pre-existing (background) genetic variation in other genes results in phenotypic differences in expression of the new trait.
• These phenotypic differences undergo selection; as genotypic differences narrow, the trait becomes:
  
  • Genetically fixed (non-responsive to environmental conditions)
  • Polyphenic (responsive to environmental conditions)

Evolution of novel polyphenisms through this mechanism has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Suzuki and Nijhout used an existing mutation (black) in a monophenic green hornworm (Manduca sexta) that causes a black phenotype. They found that if larvae from an existing population of black mutants were raised at 20˚C, then all the final instar larvae were black; but if the larvae were instead raised at 28˚C, the final instar larvae ranged in color from black to green. By selecting for larvae that were black if raised at 20˚C but green if raised at 28˚C, they produced a polyphenic strain after thirteen generations.

This fits the model described above because a new mutation (black) was required to reveal pre-existing genetic variation and to permit selection. Furthermore, the production of a polyphenic strain was only possible because of background variation within the species: two alleles, one temperature-sensitive and one stable, were present for a single gene upstream of black (in the pigment production pathway) before selection occurred. The temperature-sensitive allele was not observable because at high temperatures, it caused an increase in green pigment in hornworms that were already bright green. However, introduction of the black mutant caused the temperature-dependent changes in pigment production to become obvious. The researchers could then select for larvae with the temperature-sensitive allele, resulting in a polyphenism.

[ProfessorDavey]

But polyphenism is not due to change in genotype (mutation). With the same genotype changes in phenotype happen. The Arctic fox is one instance.

No shit Sherlock - I know. Indeed the difference between the phenotype of a nerve cell, a white blood cell and a muscle cell in our bodies is also not due to change in genotype.

The point is that a random mutation may result in a system that become adaptable to the environment. Usually this will involve proteins (coded for by the genotype) where the protein function is determined by its shape or conformation. A simple mutation in the genome can result in a slight variation in the protein. This may make the protein non-functional, or more functional (e.g. for an enzyme), but it may also make the protein change shape in response to changes in the environment. Good examples would be salinity and temperature. So this may result in a protein that is non functional at one temperature (or salinity) and functional at another temperature (or salinity). Now if this turn on, turn off mutation is evolutionarily advantageous it will be selected for and will persist.

And one thing that proteins also do is turn on and off other genes so you can get a whole load of phenotypic changes associated with a single mutation if that mutation is for a so-called response element that controls the activity of other genes.

[Harrowby Hall]

Our species has acquired the capacity to learn from experience, which is a useful survival trait, such as in learning to be careful when negotiating stone steps.

I've been away for a couple of days so am catching up on this.

Wouldn't it be truer to say that many species have the capacity to learn from experience. The essential difference between homo sapiens and other species is that its members have the ability to pass onto other members the information concerned with the experience and its consequences so that they, when faced with the experience, can deal with it appropriately?

[Nearly Sane]

I've been away for a couple of days so am catching up on this.

Wouldn't it be truer to say that many species have the capacity to learn from experience. The essential difference between homo sapiens and other species is that its members have the ability to pass onto other members the information concerned with the experience and its consequences so that they, when faced with the experience, can deal with it appropriately?

Certain other species appear to have the ability to pass on the information, and indeed the consequences.

[Sriram]

No shit Sherlock - I know. Indeed the difference between the phenotype of a nerve cell, a white blood cell and a muscle cell in our bodies is also not due to change in genotype.

The point is that a random mutation may result in a system that become adaptable to the environment. Usually this will involve proteins (coded for by the genotype) where the protein function is determined by its shape or conformation. A simple mutation in the genome can result in a slight variation in the protein. This may make the protein non-functional, or more functional (e.g. for an enzyme), but it may also make the protein change shape in response to changes in the environment. Good examples would be salinity and temperature. So this may result in a protein that is non functional at one temperature (or salinity) and functional at another temperature (or salinity). Now if this turn on, turn off mutation is evolutionarily advantageous it will be selected for and will persist.

And one thing that proteins also do is turn on and off other genes so you can get a whole load of phenotypic changes associated with a single mutation if that mutation is for a so-called response element that controls the activity of other genes.

And to Never Talk to Strangers......

You are again discussing mechanisms.   Which are fine....I have no problems with that....but not relevant to what I am saying.   You are so involved in details that you are missing the woods for the trees.

Polyphenism indicates an intelligent and responsive mechanism that enables adaptation to changing environments. It indicates that 'survival' and reproduction are objectives of Life and evolution.

Complexity is probably another objective because increasing complexity does not necessarily mean better survival and reproduction. Simpler organisms could survive better. So, complexity has to be an additional objective for whatever reason.

You people keep saying that everything is due to random variations and natural selection. You keep insisting that mechanisms are causes....to which I can't agree.

According to me randomness doesn't exist and natural selection is just a metaphor. Selection, if at all, happens through active adaptation and intelligent responses. 

[torridon]

And to Never Talk to Strangers......

You are again discussing mechanisms.   Which are fine....I have no problems with that....but not relevant to what I am saying.   You are so involved in details that you are missing the woods for the trees.

Polyphenism indicates an intelligent and responsive mechanism that enables adaptation to changing environments. It indicates that 'survival' and reproduction are objectives of Life and evolution.

Complexity is probably another objective because increasing complexity does not necessarily mean better survival and reproduction. Simpler organisms could survive better. So, complexity has to be an additional objective for whatever reason.

You people keep saying that everything is due to random variations and natural selection. You keep insisting that mechanisms are causes....to which I can't agree.

According to me randomness doesn't exist and natural selection is just a metaphor. Selection, if at all, happens through active adaptation and intelligent responses.

The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 

So, according to you, the various mutations that together make up the Delta variant are not random, so, by implication, you believe they must be planned.

According to you, the fact that this strain is now outcompeting the Alpha strain is because particles of the Delta variant are showing more intelligence than particles with Alpha DNA.

Is that what you think ?

[Sriram]

The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 

So, according to you, the various mutations that together make up the Delta variant are not random, so, by implication, you believe they must be planned.

According to you, the fact that this strain is now outcompeting the Alpha strain is because particles of the Delta variant are showing more intelligence than particles with Alpha DNA.

Is that what you think ?

I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that Intelligence is built into the system and Life (and evolution) have a purpose. This has nothing to do with religion or scriptures of any culture.

I don't claim to understand it all. Obviously I don't.  The fact that Life and evolution have a purpose (survival, reproduction and complexity) shows that there is some Intent behind it.

To me, Consciousness is ubiquitous and is responsible for Life and evolution. The article in the OP and other articles I have linked here and in other threads indicate that Consciousness could be fundamental and survives death.

IMO, dismissing Life and evolution and complexity as just a result of random events...is quite inane.

[Outrider]

You are again discussing mechanisms.   Which are fine....I have no problems with that....but not relevant to what I am saying.   You are so involved in details that you are missing the woods for the trees.

No, it appears we're missing the fairy-tale castle for the trees.

Polyphenism indicates an intelligent and responsive mechanism that enables adaptation to changing environments. It indicates that 'survival' and reproduction are objectives of Life and evolution.

No, you're conflating correlation with causation.

Complexity is probably another objective because increasing complexity does not necessarily mean better survival and reproduction. Simpler organisms could survive better. So, complexity has to be an additional objective for whatever reason.

No, complexity is sometimes the result, sometimes not. It's a possibility that can be selected for or against in any given situation.

You people keep saying that everything is due to random variations and natural selection. You keep insisting that mechanisms are causes....to which I can't agree.

Unless you can give a cogent reason, though, that says more about you than it does about evolution. It's your inability to accept/understand rather than evolutionary theory's ability to explain the observable phenomena.

According to me randomness doesn't exist and natural selection is just a metaphor.

I don't think there's a random element in an absolute sense; I think the scale at which effects bringing about mutation happen are so fundamentally different to the scale on which organisms are operating that functionally it's random. For me it's akin to weather - each atom in the atmosphere is subject to deterministic influences of temperature, gravity, electromagnetism etc., but the overall effect is weather which is on a day to day basis functionally random.

Selection, if at all, happens through active adaptation and intelligent responses.

You can assert it as much as you like, but unless you can explain why that's the case you're just the evolutionary equivalent of a flat earther insisting that our planet is fundamentally different from every other object in the heavens because reasons.

O.

[torridon]

I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that Intelligence is built into the system and Life (and evolution) have a purpose. This has nothing to do with religion or scriptures of any culture.

I don't claim to understand it all. Obviously I don't.  The fact that Life and evolution have a purpose (survival, reproduction and complexity) shows that there is some Intent behind it.

To me, Consciousness is ubiquitous and is responsible for Life and evolution. The article in the OP and other articles I have linked here and in other threads indicate that Consciousness could be fundamental and survives death.

IMO, dismissing Life and evolution and complexity as just a result of random events...is quite inane.

You're not joining your own dots.  If mutations on the Sars-Cov2 genome did not happen by 'random' copy errors, then by what mechanism did they happen ?  Explain.

[Sriram]

You're not joining your own dots.  If mutations on the Sars-Cov2 genome did not happen by 'random' copy errors, then by what mechanism did they happen ?  Explain.

Obviously survival is its objective....and it finds ways of surviving and increasing its numbers. Why should it be random...?

[torridon]

Obviously survival is its objective....and it finds ways of surviving and increasing its numbers. Why should it be random...?

How can a virus particle have objectives ?  Outside of a human cell, a particle of Sars-Cov2 is not even alive.  Do inanimate stretches of DNA go looking for a host with the objective of replicating themselves imperfectly ?