A new approach to evolution

[Enki]

Sriram,
It seems that your problem, as always, is that you have certain ideas with no evidence to justify or support them so, in your eyes quite reasonably, you think that it is a case of other people who cannot see what you can see. Hence, you try to turn the word 'evidence' on its head by suggesting that your personal 'spiritual' feelings are in themselves evidence. Unfortunately you then go further and then try to impress upon others on this forum that because they can't see that you are correct then they must be lacking in your special ability. Your next problem is in your attempts to justify why your feelings are correct and how it is that others cannot see that. For this you turn to the world of science and try to relate how scientific breakthroughs are similar in some ways to you having your 'spiritual' insights. Unfortunately you go about it in such a cack-handed way that you ignore the fact that each breakthrough has been accompanied by evidence(actual evidence, not your distortion of it) and you make statements which are patently untrue(and funny, to boot) such as your idea that no one noticed gravity until Newton came along. It seems that you have this fixation on science such that you will attempt to cherry pick any scientific or even pseudo scientific ideas that you can find on the internet which seem to support your views without looking at the overall scientific picture.

One way forward might be to accept that your communication skills might just be lacking sometimes and try to see the funny side of the comments that can ensue from this rather than asking people to 'grow up'.

[Sriram]

No...its not about the mechanism. Being unable to fly is a natural part of life. We know nothing else from birth. Even animals and birds live heir lives and do all sorts of things within the laws of gravity, doesn't mean they actually recognize the phenomenon. 

Humans are no different. Most tribals and other such people even today, may not be aware that they are kept on the ground due to some force or field called gravity. They just live their lives naturally without analyzing such matters. 

Gravity is a concept, a way of understanding the fact that we cannot fly etc. This needs to be taught. It is not the same as knowing that we cannot fly.

Knowing that we cannot fly is different from knowing that there is a force that prevents us from flying. Every child knows that he cannot fly and how high he can  jump etc.....but he will not know of gravity till he is taught about it.

[Outrider]

No...its not about the mechanism.

It's exactly about the mechanism. We have an explanation for the mechanism of evolution and you're asserting that it's inadequate.

Being unable to fly is a natural part of life.

So is evolution.

We know nothing else from birth. Even animals and birds live heir lives and do all sorts of things within the laws of gravity, doesn't mean they actually recognize the phenomenon.

Of course they do. Children learn that when they throw stones they come back to Earth, they learn that if they don't balance they will fall over. They don't automatically recognise the mechanism, they don't identify the cause, but they recognise the phenomenon. 

Humans are no different. Most tribals and other such people even today, may not be aware that they are kept on the ground due to some force or field called gravity.

But they recognise that they aren't going to fly away, the recognise the phenomenon.

Gravity is a concept, a way of understanding the fact that we cannot fly etc.

No, gravity is a phenomenon. Newton's theory of gravitation and Einstein's theory of gravitation are ways of understanding it.

This needs to be taught. It is not the same as knowing that we cannot fly.

The fact that Newton and Einstein came up  with their theories shows that it doesn't NEED to be taught, but that is the typical method, yes.

Knowing that we cannot fly is different from knowing that there is a force that prevents us from flying.

Perhaps, in some instances.

Every child knows that he cannot fly and how high he can  jump etc.....but he will not know of gravity till he is taught about it.

But the gravity is still there, and they are still aware of the phenomenon, and that phenomenon can still be tested and examined, and is effective on everyone. All of which makes it a very, very different concept from your spiritual future-predicted evo-woo claims.

O.

[Sriram]

You people are getting paranoid. Very insecure. You people are seeing spirituality where I have not mentioned it at all.

My point is very simple. There is lots of evidence around us for lots of things that we are today unable to recognize.  This could be because of our natural inability to see it or due to our biases or due to lack of suitable technology or lack of suitable background and various other reasons.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You people are getting paranoid.

No-one has shown any indication of paranoia.

Very insecure.

No-one has shown any indication of insecurity.

You people are seeing spirituality where I have not mentioned it at all.

No-one has shown any indication of "seeing spirituality" (although, ironically, you keep wrongly throwing antipathy to religion at the people who simply falsify your (occasional) attempts at justifying your various claims).

My point is very simple. There is lots of evidence around us for lots of things that we are today unable to recognize.

If we are unable to recognise a phenomenon then there can’t be evidence for it.

This could be because of our natural inability to see it or due to our biases or due to lack of suitable technology or lack of suitable background and various other reasons.

No it couldn’t. This is actually because you’ve provided no reason to think that there’s any such evidence at all.

Look, if you’ve managed to convince yourself that you have magic powers of discernment not available to others that’s a matter for you, but until you finally manage to produce some actual evidence for it (and no, “it makes sense in my head” is not evidence) then you give the rest of us no reason to think you’re not simply delusional.   

[Outrider]

You people are getting paranoid.

Again with the ad hominem. Are that many people paranoid, are you just so manifestly wrong that this many people can see it?

Very insecure. You people are seeing spirituality where I have not mentioned it at all.

It's you, it's always spirituality lurking in the background.

My point is very simple.

It's not the difficulty level that's the issue.

There is lots of evidence around us for lots of things that we are today unable to recognize.

Potentially, yes.

This could be because of our natural inability to see it or due to our biases or due to lack of suitable technology or lack of suitable background and various other reasons.

No, those are different scenarios.

If there's a natural inability (say, the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that we can or cannot percieve) that's something that we devise technological equipment to eliminate.

If it's a bias or cultural background issue that's for the person making the claim to demonstrate the step-by-step logical process from the evidence to the claim - that's culturally independent, or your claim is not robust enough.

In this instance you are citing your inability to accept that the current model of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as evidence of a failure in the explanation, not a failure of your understanding. When that's pointed out, rather than make an argument, you tell people to 'grow up' or allege 'paranoia' - if you have a case, make it.

So far, you haven't made your case, so I (and probably others) will continue to call you on your failure.

O.

[Sriram]

In this instance you are citing your inability to accept that the current model of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as evidence of a failure in the explanation, not a failure of your understanding.

This whole thread is full of videos and articles about why the current theory of evolution is inadequate. Just read them please.

[Outrider]

This whole thread is full of videos and articles about why the current theory of evolution is inadequate. Just read them please.

We have, we've addressed those. They are either baselessly wrong or, like most of Professor Noble's, questions about the boundaries of current understanding pitched as somehow calling everything else into question.

That we don't have a complete understanding of fringe case A doesn't mean that our robust understanding of the bulk of evolutionary science is wrong. That epigenetics has short term hereditary effects does not mean it has long-term evolutionary effects - if you want to make that claim you need to provide the evidence to back it up, and you haven't. If you want to suggest that nature pre-emptively prepares variations with some sort of foreknowledge of what selection pressures are coming you need to back that up with evidence, not just your incredulity at the idea that it isn't guided. If you want to suggest that the niche examples of morphological plasticity are more both more widespread than is currently understood AND somehow not a mechanism which has resulted from evolutionary pressures but is instead a predominant mechanism of variation you need to provide the evidence to support that.

All of these are potentially plausible to one degree or another, but they go against the convention of the moment because that's not where the collective of the world's evolutionary biologists get led by the evidence: by all means, go write a paper and submit it and overturn the convention and I promise I'll buy you a biscuit when you collect your Nobel Prize. But don't come here with the questions of an (admittedly eminent) cardiologist and expect the rest of us just to accept that all our understanding of evolutionary biology is wrong.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

But don't come here with the questions of an (admittedly eminent) cardiologist and expect the rest of us just to accept that all our understanding of evolutionary biology is wrong.

O.

Just to be clear Noble is an cardiac electrophysiologist, not a cardiologist - there is an important difference. What he isn't (as I think he would freely admit) is an evolutionary biologist.

[Sriram]

For a moment yesterday, I thought all of you were super geniuses who when you first fell as 1 year olds, immediately knew that there was a force pulling you down towards the earth. Then I realized that you people were merely having difficulty in understanding my simple point about noticing gravity as different from noticing our natural limitations.   

Be that as it may.... coming back to evolution, I am not a biologist and really don't worry about the mechanisms involved in evolution per se. I am more concerned about the purpose and meaning of life and death.

Towards this objective I also try to see if science points the way in certain directions. As I have discussed in other threads, I do find that science helps in certain ways.

The mechanisms of plasticity and epigenetics in evolution for example, do help in providing evidence that there is some objective and direction to evolution. Seen together with the philosophical ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism that are increasingly becoming important, it is becoming clear that consciousness probably drives evolution from inside organisms. 

Of course, there are lots of ifs and buts....but then, this journey of trying to bridge science and spirituality has just begun. Long way to go .... 

[Gordon]

I am more concerned about the purpose and meaning of life and death.

You're presuming that there is 'purpose' and 'meaning', and since you seem to be talking generally I suspect you are further presuming that this 'purpose' or 'meaning' is overarching and influences everyone/everything. Can't see it myself.

I'd say life is just what we make of it - no more and no less - and that any 'meaning' or 'purpose' we might feel is inherently subjective and that we may naively overreach in our thoughts, leading to feelings of faux profundiity.     

[SteveH]

Neo Darwinism is the synthesis of Darwin's ideas with those of Gregor Mendel (genetics). Darwin himself knew there was a problem with his theory in that he had no workable mechanism for how inheritance worked. Mendelian genetics fills the gap and I think he would have been delighted to hear about it.

One of the marks of a good scientific hypothesis is that later discoveries confirm it, and that is emphatically true of neo-Darwinian evolution.

[Outrider]

For a moment yesterday, I thought all of you were super geniuses who when you first fell as 1 year olds, immediately knew that there was a force pulling you down towards the earth. Then I realized that you people were merely having difficulty in understanding my simple point about noticing gravity as different from noticing our natural limitations.   

No, you're making a poor analogy by trying to equate falling and gravity with your take on some guiding force behind evolution - no-one doesn't fall, gravity is universal, but the phenomenon that you're asserting is influencing evolution is not apparent. You're then trying to parallel yourself with Newton by suggesting that because before him there wasn't a coherent theory of gravitation you are somehow the same, forgetting that there's an immense amount of evidence supporting the new-Darwinian model of evolution.

Be that as it may.... coming back to evolution, I am not a biologist and really don't worry about the mechanisms involved in evolution per se.

Which is probably why you keep getting it wrong. Can I suggest that if you want to talk about it you learn something about it first?

I am more concerned about the purpose and meaning of life and death.

What 'purpose' would that be? And in what way is this bringing it back to evolution?

Towards this objective I also try to see if science points the way in certain directions. As I have discussed in other threads, I do find that science helps in certain ways.

But then when it doesn't lead where you like you dismiss 'experts' and cite yourself instead.

The mechanisms of plasticity and epigenetics in evolution for example, do help in providing evidence that there is some objective and direction to evolution.

No, and no. You remember, just a bit above this, when you said you don't really know much about evolution? Take that wisdom, that admission of not knowing, and run with that a while.

Seen together with the philosophical ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism that are increasingly becoming important, it is becoming clear that consciousness probably drives evolution from inside organisms.

And here comes the woo... are we talking science, or are we talking philosophy? If you want people to accept panpsychism or cosmopsychism you need to provide reasons to accept those ideas, not suggest that your (self-confessed) lack of understanding of evolutionary biology means that therefore the logical plausibility of the concept is sufficient to accept them. 

Of course, there are lots of ifs and buts...

There's not even that, there's just a whole lot of personal incredulity and woo. You need evidence and a methodology to get from that evidence reliably to a conclusion, and you don't have any of that.

...but then, this journey of trying to bridge science and spirituality has just begun.

You need to show that 'spirituality' actually means something, first, before you start firing woo-bombs at it in the hope that something sticks.

Long way to go ....

The journey of a single circle ends up where it began...

O.

[Sriram]

You're presuming that there is 'purpose' and 'meaning', and since you seem to be talking generally I suspect you are further presuming that this 'purpose' or 'meaning' is overarching and influences everyone/everything. Can't see it myself.

I'd say life is just what we make of it - no more and no less - and that any 'meaning' or 'purpose' we might feel is inherently subjective and that we may naively overreach in our thoughts, leading to feelings of faux profundiity.   

Yes....meaning and purpose is something you have to feel in your bones. It is an insight. By looking at objects externally this will not be evident.

[Sriram]

No, you're making a poor analogy by trying to equate falling and gravity with your take on some guiding force behind evolution - no-one doesn't fall, gravity is universal, but the phenomenon that you're asserting is influencing evolution is not apparent. You're then trying to parallel yourself with Newton by suggesting that because before him there wasn't a coherent theory of gravitation you are somehow the same, forgetting that there's an immense amount of evidence supporting the new-Darwinian model of evolution.

Which is probably why you keep getting it wrong. Can I suggest that if you want to talk about it you learn something about it first?

What 'purpose' would that be? And in what way is this bringing it back to evolution?

But then when it doesn't lead where you like you dismiss 'experts' and cite yourself instead.

No, and no. You remember, just a bit above this, when you said you don't really know much about evolution? Take that wisdom, that admission of not knowing, and run with that a while.

And here comes the woo... are we talking science, or are we talking philosophy? If you want people to accept panpsychism or cosmopsychism you need to provide reasons to accept those ideas, not suggest that your (self-confessed) lack of understanding of evolutionary biology means that therefore the logical plausibility of the concept is sufficient to accept them. 

There's not even that, there's just a whole lot of personal incredulity and woo. You need evidence and a methodology to get from that evidence reliably to a conclusion, and you don't have any of that.

You need to show that 'spirituality' actually means something, first, before you start firing woo-bombs at it in the hope that something sticks.

The journey of a single circle ends up where it began...

O.

Your first para is more convoluted than your theory of Natural Selection.

One doesn't need to know the finer details of evolution or anything else to see how it fits into the totality.  That's the difference between a Zoom-in and a Zoom-out view. Work from top down rather than bottom up.

[Outrider]

Your first para is more convoluted than your theory of Natural Selection.

Because it's trying to follow the tortured failure of an analogy that you've been throwing around. It might be convoluted, but it's not wrong, and that says more about your analogy than anything else.

One doesn't need to know the finer details of evolution or anything else to see how it fits into the totality.

Yes, you do. You can't say what evolution can or can't explain, or why it can or can't account for something if you don't understand what it is and how it works.

That's the difference between a Zoom-in and a Zoom-out view. Work from top down rather than bottom up.

And what's your methodology for validating your top-down claims? What's your justification for discarding the incredibly well-researched and evidence-supported bottom-up current scientific consensus in favour of your woo?

O.

[Gordon]

Yes....meaning and purpose is something you have to feel in your bones. It is an insight. By looking at objects externally this will not be evident.

No - I see no overarching 'meaning' or 'purpose' to life, or death, at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Yes....meaning and purpose is something you have to feel in your bones. It is an insight. By looking at objects externally this will not be evident.

How would you propose to justify your claim that you’ve had an “insight” rather than just an unqualified guess?

[Sriram]

i have no intention of justifying anything. I have certain reasons for believing what I believe. Why would I want your approval?!

You really must stop the school master role that you have adopted.....wait...or was that Stranger?!!! 

[Sriram]

Because it's trying to follow the tortured failure of an analogy that you've been throwing around. It might be convoluted, but it's not wrong, and that says more about your analogy than anything else.

Yes, you do. You can't say what evolution can or can't explain, or why it can or can't account for something if you don't understand what it is and how it works.

And what's your methodology for validating your top-down claims? What's your justification for discarding the incredibly well-researched and evidence-supported bottom-up current scientific consensus in favour of your woo?

O.

I talked of gravity as an example of a force (or field) that humans have experienced every day without noticing it. (Let me reiterate that noticing that we fall down is not the same as noticing gravity as a force).   It needed someone to notice it, think about it and come up with an explanation before we realized that there was something pulling us down. Similarly, bacteria and viruses which we could not notice even though people fell ill regularly.

This was to show that evidence for something could exist all around us and we might even experience it regularly, but we might not notice or realize what it is.

I know these analogies probably make you nervous with the possibility that evidence for spiritual realities might really exist all around but you people may not be noticing. It could be a little disconcerting. But we should be prepared to face such possibilities if we want to understand reality in all its dimensions. 

[ekim]

But we should be prepared to face such possibilities if we want to understand reality in all its dimensions.

I don't think being open to all possibilities is so much the problem. One of the problems is that many people can be conditioned to believe, that when some possibilities are presented as actualities, this is the truth.  Scientific method is one way to help separate objective evidence from subjective belief.  I suspect that the,so called, spiritual methods are to separate the subject 'I' from the subjective 'me' and the objective 'my body'. As this is usually an inner process, I doubt whether this could be presented objectively or even philosophically.

[Gordon]

I know these analogies probably make you nervous with the possibility that evidence for spiritual realities might really exist all around but you people may not be noticing. It could be a little disconcerting. But we should be prepared to face such possibilities if we want to understand reality in all its dimensions.

As things stand, knowledge-wise, "spiritual realities" is an oxymoron.

[Enki]

I talked of gravity as an example of a force (or field) that humans have experienced every day without noticing it. (Let me reiterate that noticing that we fall down is not the same as noticing gravity as a force).   It needed someone to notice it, think about it and come up with an explanation before we realized that there was something pulling us down. Similarly, bacteria and viruses which we could not notice even though people fell ill regularly.

It needed someone to focus on it certainly, present an hypothesis and produce the evidence to support that hypothesis. if you take bacteria for instance, it needed evidence that such things existed(Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1676) and then evidence that particular types of bacteria are related to certain diseases.(Robert Koch, TB, 1882).

This was to show that evidence for something could exist all around us and we might even experience it regularly, but we might not notice or realize what it is.

Of course, but that is a long way from your rather naive and strident idea that 'no one noticed gravity for thousands of years until Newton came along'.

I know these analogies probably make you nervous with the possibility that evidence for spiritual realities might really exist all around but you people may not be noticing. It could be a little disconcerting. But we should be prepared to face such possibilities if we want to understand reality in all its dimensions.

Not at all, except perhaps in your mind. However, if you are really going to make a point about 'spiritual realities' then, as with bacteria above, you need some hard evidence to ground your ideas. So far you have given none, so why on earth should we take such ideas as a universal consciousness or reincarnation particularly seriously?

The best you seem to be able to come up with is the idea that it is an insight, that you can feel it in your bones.
Well, from a very young age I occasionally had powerful feelings that there was no particular overriding purpose to the natural world. This feeling has stayed with me all my life but, as I got older, I realised that simply to have a feeling or an 'insight' wasn't good enough. Simply to have something that you feel in your bones does not make it so. Hence the only way that I would find meaning and purpose in the natural world would have to be evidence of this. I have found none.

And it is at this point you always fall down(figuratively, of course). You seem to be able to provide no real evidence for your subjective beliefs and, when pressed, resort to the idea that you possess some sort of subjective quality which others are blind to. Far from that idea being disconcerting, it's one we could all use from our particular viewpoint if we so wished.

I suspect all this will fall upon deaf ears, although one might hope...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

i have no intention of justifying anything. I have certain reasons for believing what I believe. Why would I want your approval?!

You really must stop the school master role that you have adopted.....wait...or was that Stranger?!!!   

As with so much else that you fail to understand, you fail to understand too how rhetorical argument works. When you make an unqualified statement like “Yes....meaning and purpose is something you have to feel in your bones. It is an insight. By looking at objects externally this will not be evident” they’re epistemically just dumb guesses. So by the way are the unqualified statements “Paris is the capital of France”, “objects thrown out of windows will fall to earth” etc.

The difference between your dumb guess and the other dumb guesses though is that the latter can be elevated to the more robust epistemic status of “fact” by the application of rhetorical argument. One such type of rhetorical argument is logic (ie, “logos” – the others being ethos, pathos and kairos). Logos is the appeal to logic by the application of reason. I can do this easily for my two statements, which is why they are facts.

You on the other hand either don’t bother with reason at all or, when you do attempt it, you routinely fall into one or several fallacies for support. A fallacy is a wrong argument, so relying on them leaves your statements marooned as still just dumb guesses – ie, you can claim an "insight" as a dumb guess if you want to, but not as a fact.

If it helps you at all (and it won’t because you’ll ignore it and then run away as you ignore and then run away from everything else that falsifies you) here’s a quick guide to logical fallacies. You should recognise quite a few of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf03U04rqGQ           

So, when I ask you a question like “how would you propose to justify your claim that you’ve had an “insight” rather than just an unqualified guess?” and you reply “I have no intention of justifying anything” that's fine. You can keep posting dumb guesses to your heart’s content if you wish.   

And when you add: “I have certain reasons for believing what I believe” unless you tell us what those reasons are so they can be examined and tested then you give us no reason to think you aren’t just dumb guessing still.

And when you finish with: “Why would I want your approval?!” you’re unwittingly committing a straw man (yet another fallacy). I haven’t suggested that I need to give you my “approval”. What I actually asked you is whether you have anything sufficiently persuasive to say that would justify treating your various claims and assertions as something other than just dumb guesses.

So far the answer has been “no”, but who knows – maybe now you’ll see the problem you’ve given yourself and will try to find a way out of it that isn’t rhetorically hopeless.

Good luck with it!

[Sriram]

This thread is about a new approach to evolution. Based on Noble's and other people's views, the usual random variations and natural selection explanation of evolution clearly seems to be wanting.

Other mechanisms such as Lamarckian inheritance, epigenetics, plasticity now seem to be the more appropriate mechanisms.

These mechanisms indicate that there are internal regulatory systems within organisms that enable them to change their phenotype in line with environmental requirements. This is a way forward and there is no reason for staunch materialists to keep fending these new findings off.