Adaptation

[Outrider]

Individual organisms do adapt (chameleons).

That's no more adaptation in the sense of evolutionary theory that humans reaching above their own heads is 'getting taller'.

Acquired traits do get passed on to progeny. Epigenetics is quite clear.

But not in the long term, epigenetic influences disappear within two or three generations.
 

We cannot explain complexity purely through natural (for survival!) means.

Which 'we' is this? At the risk of spouting off before you adequately explain what you mean by 'complexity' and how you'd measure it, I'm not aware of anything in the variation of life on Earth that we can't explain through natural means.

It can only be explained through development of consciousness.

Except that you can't show that 'complexity' is a result of consciousness, you can't show that consciousness predates complexity, and the necessary forerunners for the current levels of complexity that we see are the product of evolutionary effects that originally occured in extremely simple organisms.

Merely labeling it as 'emergence' is neither here nor there. It is just a 'catch all' phrase again, explaining nothing at all.

It explains it generally without claiming to know specific details necessary. What it doesn't do is invent meaningless terms ('complexity'?) or require unexplained phenomena to account for the observed phenomena.

O.

[Spud]

Did the small-beaked birds actually change into large-beaked ones, or is it the case that both types were present from the start and during the drought the large-beaked out-competed the small-beaked ones?

[Spud]

If it was a change in phenotype, did the birds become more complex?  No, since the newer generations would be less fit if the climate became wetter again.

[Udayana]

...
Which 'we' is this? At the risk of spouting off before you adequately explain what you mean by 'complexity' and how you'd measure it, I'm not aware of anything in the variation of life on Earth that we can't explain through natural means.

Except that you can't show that 'complexity' is a result of consciousness, you can't show that consciousness predates complexity, and the necessary forerunners for the current levels of complexity that we see are the product of evolutionary effects that originally occured in extremely simple organisms.
...

Exactly so.

btw: There is a perfectly good science of complexity, Complexity Theory, that studies complex systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

It is essentially maths. It has no requirement for consciousness or intelligence to direct the development or evolution of complex systems.   
 
 

[Udayana]

Did the small-beaked birds actually change into large-beaked ones, or is it the case that both types were present from the start and during the drought the large-beaked out-competed the small-beaked ones?

I think the point was that you can have one type of bird that has some larger beaked members and some smaller - no individuals of "a type of bird" are exactly identical there is always a natural range of variation. You don't even need the idea of out-competing - according to the circumstances just more of the larger beaked birds will live and reproduce. In the longer term other genetic effects are seen. 
   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The fact that complexity arises and organisms adapt to their environment (plasticity) is evidence of consciousness and intelligence. Dismissing everything as random or as happenstance is ridiculous.

Water adapts to its environment by existing variously as a gas, a liquid or a solid. Is this evidence that water has “consciousness and intelligence” too, or are you arbitrarily carving out this claim just for some phenomena but not for others? 

[Outrider]

Did the small-beaked birds actually change into large-beaked ones

Individual birds? No, birds born with small beaks stay small-beaked birds for their entire lives, and vice versa.

is it the case that both types were present from the start

No. There were originally large or small beaked birds (but not both) until a variation occurred in the phenotype which produced the other variant for at least a portion of the populace; through breeding that trait then spread.

...during the drought the large-beaked out-competed the small-beaked ones?

Or vice-versa, yes. And thus a potential evolutionary development was either pruned out or flourished in that geographical locale.

O.

[Spud]

I think the point was that you can have one type of bird that has some larger beaked members and some smaller - no individuals of "a type of bird" are exactly identical there is always a natural range of variation. You don't even need the idea of out-competing - according to the circumstances just more of the larger beaked birds will live and reproduce. In the longer term other genetic effects are seen. 
 

So can I quote the well-known saying, "but they're still (finches)"? So we're not seeing an increase in complexity. Presumably the original ancestor of both beak types had the genetic information required for both of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably the original ancestor of both beak types had the genetic information required for both of them.

Not necessarily if the genome required for one beak type is due to a genetic mutation. In that case the original ancestor may only have had the information for one beak type but some of the offspring in some generation down the line, through mutation, developed the genome for the other beak type. Which dominates would be down to the prevailing environmental conditions and whether one beak type or the other conveys survival advantage.

[torridon]

So can I quote the well-known saying, "but they're still (finches)"? So we're not seeing an increase in complexity. Presumably the original ancestor of both beak types had the genetic information required for both of them.

'Increase in complexity' is irrelevant.  The beaks vary, differ, through adaptation.  They don't need to be more complex, just different, in order to better exploit different resources.

[Sriram]

It has been seen quite clearly that...

1. DNA mutations are non random.

2. Natural Selection is not a real mechanism or process.

3. The gene centric theory of evolution is not correct.

4. Cells seem to direct evolutionary changes more than DNA sequences (genes). DNA sequences are largely passive.

5. 'Emergence' is just a label for unknown processes. It doesn't explain anything.

6. Phenotypic plasticity is a real process giving rise to changes in phenotype without genotype changes.

7. Epigenetics is a real process due to which acquired characteristics are inherited by offspring.


The Modern Synthesis is in need of replacement (according to Denis Noble).  Taking into account the idea of panpsychism it now needs to be investigated as to how consciousness works from within organisms to direct evolution and generate complexity.

[torridon]

Epigenetics is a real process, but natural selection is not ?

I think you've lost the plot.  epigenetic effects are minor and short lived compared to natural selection.  Back to the drawing board with you.

[Sriram]

You have not been paying attention Torridon......

Check out my post 26

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211

**********

Suzan Mazur: There's also natural selection, which became a catch-all term. As Richard Lewontin has pointed out, it was intended as a metaphor not to be taken literally by generations of scientists.

It seems natural selection is used as a catch-all for a failure to identify what the mechanisms are.

Denis Noble: I think that's right. In principle, Darwin didn't refer to any mechanisms.

**********

[torridon]

That natural selection is a real phenomenon is abundantly clear; it is Darwin's use of a metaphorical phrase to describe it that seems to throw some people.

The Delta strain of coronavirus is pretty much extinct now, and the Omicron variant is the dominant strain worldwide.  This is natural selection in action.  Did you imagine that all new variants are being engineered in virology labs ?

[Outrider]

It has been seen quite clearly that...

1. DNA mutations are non random.

No.

2. Natural Selection is not a real mechanism or process.

No.

3. The gene centric theory of evolution is not correct.

No.

4. Cells seem to direct evolutionary changes more than DNA sequences (genes). DNA sequences are largely passive.

No.

5. 'Emergence' is just a label for unknown processes. It doesn't explain anything.

Arguable - it's a label for a range of individual circumstances where there is a resulting effect which is not the direct result of individual processes, but rather a side-effect of one or more.

6. Phenotypic plasticity is a real process giving rise to changes in phenotype without genotype changes.

Sometimes, yes, which is why short-term variation can be evidenced which does not always lead to long-term genotype change - such as the epigenetic elements you were so fixated on.
 

7. Epigenetics is a real process due to which acquired characteristics are inherited by offspring.

Yes and no - sometimes the effects are inherited, sometimes they are only manifested in the offspring, but the important consideration is that epigenetic traits diminish over generations until they are no longer maintained.

The Modern Synthesis is in need of replacement (according to Denis Noble).

And not in need of replacement according to the overwhelming majority of the remainder of the field.

Taking into account the idea of panpsychism it now needs to be investigated as to how consciousness works from within organisms to direct evolution and generate complexity.

Even if all the above had actually been correct, which they aren't, the conclusion is therefore 'we need to look at the evidence' and not 'let's talk about magic, baby!'.

O.

[Sriram]

What magic? Consciousness is not magic. I think you know of the power of the unconscious mind for which there is plenty of evidence. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What magic?

Panpsychism.

Consciousness is not magic.

But panpsychism – the speculation that everything is conscious – is.

I think you know of the power of the unconscious mind for which there is plenty of evidence.

True, but irrelevant. In Reply 85 you made a number of assertions that were either flat wrong or, at best, debatable. Why not address where you went wrong rather than deflect to a straw man? 

[Sriram]

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-purposes-of-life

*******

 “adaptedness of living beings is too obvious to be overlooked…. Living beings have an internal, or natural, teleology.”

The curious thing, however, is that despite this emphatic recognition of the purposive organism, we find in textbooks of biology virtually no mention of purpose — or of the meaning and value presupposed by purpose. To refer to such “unbiological” realities is, it seems, to stumble into the unsavory company of mystics. Yet we might want to ask: if purposiveness in the life of organisms is as obvious as many in addition to Monod and Dobzhansky have admitted, why should it be impermissible for working biologists to reckon seriously with what everyone seems to know?

*******

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-purposes-of-life

*******

 “adaptedness of living beings is too obvious to be overlooked…. Living beings have an internal, or natural, teleology.”

The curious thing, however, is that despite this emphatic recognition of the purposive organism, we find in textbooks of biology virtually no mention of purpose — or of the meaning and value presupposed by purpose. To refer to such “unbiological” realities is, it seems, to stumble into the unsavory company of mystics. Yet we might want to ask: if purposiveness in the life of organisms is as obvious as many in addition to Monod and Dobzhansky have admitted, why should it be impermissible for working biologists to reckon seriously with what everyone seems to know?

First, the author’s mistake here is to take the fact that some outcomes are not predictable from the available knowledge (eg the crash example) and to extrapolate from that the claim that even in principle they could not be predictable. That is to say, even with a perfect knowledge of the opening conditions and with unlimited computing power it still wouldn’t be possible to predict the outcomes.

That’s a big claim, and I see no justifying argument to justify it. Do you?

Second, if he wants to argue for a purposive model (“this emphatic recognition of the purposive organism”) then he has an epic task to establish a priori some means by which it could happen. Whether he wants to call that method “god” or anything else doesn’t matter for this purpose – there just be needs to be something to do the job. Absent that, he (and you) are marooned in Paley’s watch territory:

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

[Sriram]

You just can't see the evidence that most people can.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You just can't see the evidence that most people can.

That's because it's not evidence.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Sriram]

Sriram,

That's because it's not evidence.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

We keep coming  back to the analogy of the  stubborn blind man who will not  be convinced about the existence of light. Nothing can be done....

[torridon]

You just can't see the evidence that most people can.

Or, alternatively, not everyone is subject to the cognitive biases that lead believers into imagining things that are not there.

[Maeght]

We keep coming  back to the analogy of the  stubborn blind man who will not  be convinced about the existence of light. Nothing can be done....

Which gets us nowhere.

[torridon]

We keep coming  back to the analogy of the  stubborn blind man who will not  be convinced about the existence of light. Nothing can be done....

This analogy is easily dismissed. 

The blind man can still get a light meter, £20 at Amazon, and that will provide evidence for him.

A sea turtle can detect magnetic fields, whereas I cannot, as unlike turtles I don't have any inbuilt magnetoreceptors. I do not deny the existence of magnetic fields, however.

By building instruments to detect phenomena beyond our inbuilt sensory apparatus is one way to determine if extraordinary claims are real, or just imagined, a by-product of the way that complex minds have evolved to work.

You're going to need a better analogy.