A new approach to evolution

[torridon]

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.

As has been pointed out already, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity etc are themselves mechanisms which have evolved.  It's not an either / or situation.

[Sriram]

You are trying to have your cake and eat it also. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are trying to have your cake and eat it also. 

What else should people do with cake?

Your mistakes about epigenetics etc have been explained to you several times already without rebuttal. This leaves you in dumb (and science-denying) guessing territory again for the reasons I took the time to explain to you and that you, predictably, have ignored.   

[torridon]

You are trying to have your cake and eat it also. 

Life on Earth has become incredibly successful and in part this is due to the fact that evolution itself has evolved over time, incorporating more sophisticated features like phenotype plasticity.  The evolution of sex is another example, something that happened quite early on in the history of life on Earth.  By providing an efficient means to eliminate harmfull mutations at reproduction, life generally became more successful overall.

And more enjoyable, of course 

[Sriram]

Life on Earth has become incredibly successful and in part this is due to the fact that evolution itself has evolved over time, incorporating more sophisticated features like phenotype plasticity.  The evolution of sex is another example, something that happened quite early on in the history of life on Earth.  By providing an efficient means to eliminate harmfull mutations at reproduction, life generally became more successful overall.

And more enjoyable, of course 

You are talking as though evolution has agency and as though it is an entity. 

Evolution is a process. For it to evolve and acquire more and more complex systems, it needs agency and clear objectives of  survival, reproduction and development. It cannot happen merely through random variations.

As Denis Noble asks...how do you prove that the mutations are purely random?!

[Sebastian Toe]

As Denis Noble asks...how do you prove that the mutations are purely random?!

I have a feeling that they are, using my zoom out reasoning.

Proof enough for me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

For it to evolve and acquire more and more complex systems, it needs agency and clear objectives of  survival, reproduction and development.

I don't suppose there's any point in asking you why on earth you would think that to be true is there?

It cannot happen merely through random variations.

Your deep and abiding ignorance of the T of E is showing again here. No part of the Theory proposes that evolution happens "merely through random variations".

Could you not at least try to find what what the Theory actually says rather than straw man it?   

[torridon]

You are talking as though evolution has agency and as though it is an entity. 

Evolution is a process. For it to evolve and acquire more and more complex systems, it needs agency and clear objectives of  survival, reproduction and development. It cannot happen merely through random variations. ..

No, the opposite is true. Evolution is undirected.  The patterns we see emerging merely reflect the designs for living organisms that are more successfully reproductive within their context.  No evidence for 'guidance', that is not necessary to understand life on Earth.

[torridon]

As Denis Noble asks...how do you prove that the mutations are purely random?!

You don't need to prove that, it is merely evident.  How could a copying error not be random with respect to outcome ?

It may be the case that the distribution of mutations that are conserved is not random as some parts of the genome enjoy better DNA repair mechanisms providing better stability over long time periods.  But that doesn't mean that mutations are not random in the first place, just that in highly protected regions they are more likely to get repaired.

[Outrider]

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).

Recognising gravity does not require you to be able to rationalise a cause for gravity, but let's presume that you meant 'explain' rather than 'notice'.

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.

So there are phenomena, and we need to look more closely to deduce the causes of those phenomena - that's science.

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.

Except that what you're talking about isn't something that we all experience - expressly you keep saying that some of us just aren't attuned to it, somehow, that you need some combination of a special preconception and the right sensory apparatus which not everyone has - except that 'phenomenon' we have examined and fairly conclusively shown is a mixture of delusion and cognitive bias. What you're claiming as a 'phenomenon' is actually not something that's observed by anyone, even you - it's a conclusion you've aimed at and hit in the absence of any observation because it fits your preconception, and now you're having to try to dismiss that rigorous, methodical, evidence based investigation of phenomena that you lauded for teaching us about germ theory and gravitation because it doesn't give you the answer that you like.

And gravity's a great example, because the classical view of gravity as a force has been shown to be definitively wrong, not because it failed to explain the entirety of the situation (it didn't, as it had no explanation for where the energy was coming from to do the work of all the acceleration due to gravity) but because reality failed to conform to the predictions of the model in extreme circumstances.

It is possible that your pet theories of panpsychism and universal consciousness guiding evolution are correct; but you've not offered sufficient basis here to think that's the case, and you've not offered anything that distinguishable from personal incredulity as a reason to throw out the current scientific model.

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.

Why would I be nervous about a potentially entirely new aspect of reality for humanity to investigate, that's potentially a spectacular thing. Think of the cultural and civilisational adjustments that could be fostered if we could definitively show that there was something grander than us, that we had significance, that we mattered in some cosmic way? I'm not dismayed by the potential of your conclusion, I'm dismayed by the dire nature of the methodology by which you've come to it.

It's not that your definitively wrong, it's that you don't have a basis to be as definitive about anything as you're trying to be.

O.

[Sriram]

Recognising gravity does not require you to be able to rationalise a cause for gravity, but let's presume that you meant 'explain' rather than 'notice'.

So there are phenomena, and we need to look more closely to deduce the causes of those phenomena - that's science.

Except that what you're talking about isn't something that we all experience - expressly you keep saying that some of us just aren't attuned to it, somehow, that you need some combination of a special preconception and the right sensory apparatus which not everyone has - except that 'phenomenon' we have examined and fairly conclusively shown is a mixture of delusion and cognitive bias. What you're claiming as a 'phenomenon' is actually not something that's observed by anyone, even you - it's a conclusion you've aimed at and hit in the absence of any observation because it fits your preconception, and now you're having to try to dismiss that rigorous, methodical, evidence based investigation of phenomena that you lauded for teaching us about germ theory and gravitation because it doesn't give you the answer that you like.

And gravity's a great example, because the classical view of gravity as a force has been shown to be definitively wrong, not because it failed to explain the entirety of the situation (it didn't, as it had no explanation for where the energy was coming from to do the work of all the acceleration due to gravity) but because reality failed to conform to the predictions of the model in extreme circumstances.

It is possible that your pet theories of panpsychism and universal consciousness guiding evolution are correct; but you've not offered sufficient basis here to think that's the case, and you've not offered anything that distinguishable from personal incredulity as a reason to throw out the current scientific model.

Why would I be nervous about a potentially entirely new aspect of reality for humanity to investigate, that's potentially a spectacular thing. Think of the cultural and civilisational adjustments that could be fostered if we could definitively show that there was something grander than us, that we had significance, that we mattered in some cosmic way? I'm not dismayed by the potential of your conclusion, I'm dismayed by the dire nature of the methodology by which you've come to it.

It's not that your definitively wrong, it's that you don't have a basis to be as definitive about anything as you're trying to be.

O.

Recognizing gravity means knowing that some force is pulling you down when you fall. Almost all humans in the world (baring a few thinkers perhaps....once they are old enough) will not know of even notice that something is making them fall down. It is not about the mechanism....which I  think even today we are not completely sure of. 

Falling down, not flying, birds flying, monkeys jumping up trees....are all a normal part of life that no one questions. Even if someone questions, it will be attributed to God's plan. Similarly with bacterial and viral infections.

Point being that even today we could be influenced and surrounded by so many forces that we are not aware of....even though evidence for them could be readily available.  We need to acknowledge this. 

Spiritual experiences are personal and cannot be shared with others. But the experience can be discussed and understood by people who have had similar experiences. This is well known practice in spiritual circles.

Based on these experiences, we come up with philosophical interpretations which could be accepted by others within the circle. We are not concerned with mechanisms or the detailed microscopic aspects of the experience. But some research findings such as NDE investigations, reincarnation cases documented by Jim Tucker, could confirm these interpretations.

It is not that I am definitely correct but that the ideas are necessary to explain certain experience and also some of these research findings. 

Problem however is that scientists and science enthusiasts have this problem with anything that could indicate possible non physical phenomena. This results in summary dismissal of such ideas. This is what creates the divide.

If scientists even accept the possibility of such  phenomena existing, it will reduce the ideological gap somewhat and pave the way for possible research and investigations....in whatever way it is possible.

Cheers.

 

[Gordon]

Problem however is that scientists and science enthusiasts have this problem with anything that could indicate possible non physical phenomena. This results in summary dismissal of such ideas. This is what creates the divide.

If scientists even accept the possibility of such  phenomena existing, it will reduce the ideological gap somewhat and pave the way for possible research and investigations....in whatever way it is possible.

Sriram

I think you are seeing this 'divide' because you are heaviliy invested in a 'spiritual' outlook where you are prepared to accept ideas such as reincarnation, so you'd prefer it if the rest of us took your ideas seriously.

But many of us don't, and we see 'spiritual' claims (and for me that also includes mainstream religions) as no more than dressed-up woo, and professional scientists won't engage because there is no theory or testable hypothesis they can work with - assuming they wish to continue their scientific careers.

Citing people like Tucker is pointless too, though no doubt through his book sales to the gullible he is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Outrider]

Recognizing gravity means knowing that some force is pulling you down when you fall. Almost all humans in the world (baring a few thinkers perhaps....once they are old enough) will not know of even notice that something is making them fall down. It is not about the mechanism....which I  think even today we are not completely sure of. 

Falling down, not flying, birds flying, monkeys jumping up trees....are all a normal part of life that no one questions. Even if someone questions, it will be attributed to God's plan. Similarly with bacterial and viral infections.

No, people wonder why these things happen and if they can't find other answers they attribute things to god/spirituality/fate. We've just got better, over time, at finding those answers.

Point being that even today we could be influenced and surrounded by so many forces that we are not aware of....even though evidence for them could be readily available.  We need to acknowledge this.

We already have, science's output is always provisional. 

Spiritual experiences are personal and cannot be shared with others.

And therefore at best questionable. The overwhelming majority of us experience the sensation of vision, but we have no direct way of comparing those entirely subjective experiences, so we develop a common framework of calibrated references to define concepts like colour and shape, and then machinery that can objectively measure those colourse and shapes and then we have some confidence of an independent confirmation of those concepts. If you want to throw 'spirit' into the mix you need an equivalent to spectrophotometer.

But the experience can be discussed and understood by people who have had similar experiences.

The fact that so many people don't experience it can also be discussed and understood, and conclusions drawn from that evidence.

This is well known practice in spiritual circles. Based on these experiences, we come up with philosophical interpretations which could be accepted by others within the circle. We are not concerned with mechanisms or the detailed microscopic aspects of the experience.

Which is why you have no valid basis for presuming that any of your conjectures is an accurate account, and why no-one here is under any obligation to take what you say seriously.

But some research findings such as NDE investigations, reincarnation cases documented by Jim Tucker, could confirm these interpretations.

Except that they've all been fairly thoroughly refuted, repeatedly.

It is not that I am definitely correct but that the ideas are necessary to explain certain experience and also some of these research findings.

No, they aren't necessary at all. They aren't even warranted for most of us who don't have these experiences that, themselves, have been given undue consideration in your assessment. 

Problem however is that scientists and science enthusiasts have this problem with anything that could indicate possible non physical phenomena.

Not ideologically, they don't. They have a problem with claims being made without sufficient basis, and you don't have a reliable methodology for moving from your concept to validation. Scientests are rigorous people, they quantify their claims. If you want to suggest that something's somehow intrinsically beyond science's remit (despite the claim that it somehow elicits a sensory responsed, at least in some people) then you're going to have to provide a methodology for testing it or it's going to be ignored.

This results in summary dismissal of such ideas.

It isn't a summary dismissal, it's a reasoned dismissal. You have a claim, you have a logic, but you have not methodology for testing, so all you have is a claim, and no way to differentiate your claim from any other baseless assertion. The claim is dismissed, the idea remains a vague possibility awaiting a methodology.

This is what creates the divide.

No, what creates the divide is the expectation that because you believe everyone else should lower their rigorous standards and just accept your claim.

If scientists even accept the possibility of such  phenomena existing, it will reduce the ideological gap somewhat and pave the way for possible research and investigations....in whatever way it is possible.

I expect pretty much every scientist in every field is open to the possibility of new phenomena, but if you want to suggest that there's something centuries of the most capable people on the planet have missed you need something more than your tingly feeling.

O.

[Sriram]

Gordon...you are not getting the point.  Its not about me digging in my heels and you digging in your heels.  That is easy.

As Outrider says ....you cannot say that I am definitely wrong. There is enough reason for anyone to accept the possibility of such phenomena  which cannot be directly investigated through empirical methods.  Accepting this possibility is all that is required to bridge the gap.

It is clearly wrong to brush off every serious  investigator who claims evidence off the mainstream ideas, as a money making charlatan.

Its not about accepting religious ideas and myths and all such claims. You should be able to see the difference.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Gordon...you are not getting the point.  Its not about me digging in my heels and you digging in your heels.  That is easy.

As Outrider says ....you cannot say that I am definitely wrong. There is enough reason for anyone to accept the possibility of such phenomena  which cannot be directly investigated through empirical methods.  Accepting this possibility is all that is required to bridge the gap.

Yet another piece of fallacious reasoning here. Your criticism is that your claims cannot be disproved, therefore they should be taken seriously. Trouble is, the same is true for claims about pixies, tap dancing aliens on Alpha Centauri and anything else that pops into anyone’s head. All of these things are “possible”, but only in the sense that that cannot be shown to be impossible.

See Russell's teapot (again) for where you went wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot   

It is clearly wrong to brush off every serious  investigator who claims evidence off the mainstream ideas, as a money making charlatan.

Who does that? Straw man fallacy.

Its not about accepting religious ideas and myths and all such claims. You should be able to see the difference.

Why do you keep dragging diversionary accusations of anti-religiosity into this? All people here do is to falsify your (frankly hopeless) attempts to reason your way to your conclusions, a simple thing to do even though you routinely just ignore the falsifications you’re given. 

[Sriram]

 if you want to suggest that there's something centuries of the most capable people on the planet have missed you need something more than your tingly feeling.

O.

Centuries of the most capable people have not missed it. Many many very wise and capable people have known it (but had different models or cultural interpretations).

It is only the rational thinkers who have missed it.   

[ProfessorDavey]

It is only the rational thinkers who have missed it.

As opposed, presumably, to the irrational thinkers.

Give me rational thought any day.

[Outrider]

Centuries of the most capable people have not missed it.

Having the same unsubstantiated sense of something that can't be demonstrated isn't evidence of capability...

Many many very wise and capable people have known it (but had different models or cultural interpretations). It is only the rational thinkers who have missed it.

Read that again, I couldn't have put it any better myself. The rational people, as opposed to...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Centuries of the most capable people have not missed it.

Does it occur to you that that could be because “the most capable people” were more able than the least capable people to determine that there was no “it” to be missed? 

Many many very wise and capable people have known it (but had different models or cultural interpretations).

No they haven’t. That many may have believed "it", thought "it", or just liked the notion of "it" may be true, but absent sound reasoning to justify those beliefs “knowing” is overreaching.

It is only the rational thinkers who have missed it.

As opposed to the dumb guessers who haven’t?

[ProfessorDavey]

Centuries of the most capable people have not missed it. Many many very wise and capable people have known it (but had different models or cultural interpretations).

But if these people were capable and wise, they'd have recognised the need for evidence to support their faith and belief, not merely to take things on trust. That is, of course, exactly what the rational thinkers did and concluded that they should not accept something to be true until or unless the evidence supported that notion.

[Sriram]

But if these people were capable and wise, they'd have recognised the need for evidence to support their faith and belief, not merely to take things on trust. That is, of course, exactly what the rational thinkers did and concluded that they should not accept something to be true until or unless the evidence supported that notion.

And thereby came in the zoom-in, microscopic experts!  They did lot of good things no doubt....but left much wanting...   

Rational thinking is not the panacea you might think it is. It has severe limitations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

And thereby came in the zoom-in, microscopic experts!

Utter bullshit for reasons that keep being explained to you but that you're too dishonest to address. 

They did lot of good things no doubt....but left much wanting...

But just guessing about stuff doesn't provide answers to what's "wanting".

Try to remember this.   

Rational thinking is not the panacea you might think it is. It has severe limitations.

Rational thinking is the only method we have to distinguish truths from dumb guesses. If you have some other method in mind to do that job though, then it's your job to tell us what it is.

Try to remember this too.   

[ProfessorDavey]

And thereby came in the zoom-in, microscopic experts!

Says the person who I consider to be one of the most 'zoomed-in' on this MB., seemingly unable to see anything beyond the achingly anthropocentric.

[Sriram]

Microscopic, rational thinking while very useful in certain ways, has been responsible for many of the short sighted inventions and activities in recent centuries. 

[Outrider]

And thereby came in the zoom-in, microscopic experts!  They did lot of good things no doubt....but left much wanting...

You keep saying that, but you can't even demonstrate the alleged phenomenon that you think defies current explanation.   

Rational thinking is not the panacea you might think it is. It has severe limitations.

That's debatable, but given that your alternative appears to be not thinking at all and just accepting at face value subjective experience from a small subset of the populace, I'll stick with rational thinking if it's all the same to you.

Microscopic, rational thinking while very useful in certain ways, has been responsible for many of the short sighted inventions and activities in recent centuries.

Whether the applications of science have been necessarily wise is absolutely open to debate, but importantly those 'short-sighted' inventions only worked because the science was correct, that's actually how things work. If science had misunderstood, say, atomic theory, then we wouldn't have a debate about whether nuclear weapons or nuclear power was a wise choice, because it wouldn't be a choice at all.

If we didn't understand heredity and evolutionary biology we wouldn't have the efficacy we have of antibiotics, organ transplants, treatments for inherited medical conditions etc. Again, in a world we aren't providing adequately for all, you could argue that medical improvements to keep even more people alive aren't justified, but that doesn't undermine the fact that the science works, we appear to have an accurate understanding of how it works.

Which makes your unsubstantiated assertions that we need to stop doing science and start accepting woo-claims instead even more ridiculous. You can, potentially, displace science, but you need a BETTER methodology, not 'no methodology at all, just trust me guys, I'm special'.

O.