Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bio evolution, light, sound and aroma
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 142 (716676)
01-20-2014 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Col2v8
01-19-2014 10:39 PM


There is a way to track replies
I have discovered something much worse than going around in cycles in debates about Evolution v Creation - keeping track of replies to an original post -- !!!
There are ways to track replies to messages. One is a link just to the left of the word "Message" at the top usually with this symbol:
(but the image can be changed)
If you click on the symbol then it sends you to a page that documents the posts and replies on the thread.
Another is to click on your name (Col2v8) and it sends you to a page that lists all the threads you are participating and tells you when there are unanswered replies. This currently shows at least 2 replies are not answered.
But you don't NEED to reply to each and every response, especially as a lot of them duplicate information or questions: pick one that suits you best and follow that.
I am very new to forums, and this is not for me, after just one day, I cannot keep track of who to respond to, who replied to what, just don't have the time for one thing!
Try out some others and you will find that there tracking is worse ... this is one of the best forums for tracking replies, you just need to learn how it works.
Its a shame, but I cannot commit to this, and will be cancelling my membership.
It will be waiting when you return.
thank you to all who made a reply, that I did read!
Thank you for all the good questions.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Col2v8, posted 01-19-2014 10:39 PM Col2v8 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 142 (716681)
01-20-2014 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Col2v8
01-19-2014 10:39 PM


Another option.
We all understand what you are going through and it certainly can be overwhelming. If you wish we also have a Great Discussion format which would limit participation to just you and whoever you select as your discussion partner(s).

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Col2v8, posted 01-19-2014 10:39 PM Col2v8 has not replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3687 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 33 of 142 (716717)
01-20-2014 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Col2v8
01-18-2014 2:42 PM


Smell, in essence, is picking up particles from the air, which we can all assume was quite easy. And natural selection didn't "know there was light". There was light, but nothing sensed it. It was pointless and just a byproduct of the sun's nuclear fusion. Then, some little thing developed cells that were light-sensitive, and that gave rise to eyes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Col2v8, posted 01-18-2014 2:42 PM Col2v8 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 34 of 142 (716763)
01-21-2014 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Col2v8
01-19-2014 9:16 AM


Re: dice?
My root position is that life is given, and that evolution is a non-starter...
There's your problem, sport: your premise rules out any conclusion other than the one you already have.
remember those dice, they needed someone to roll them in the first place.
Do you know what a metaphor is?
If evolution is completely indifferent to morality (indeed, it doesn't care that it doesn't even care) then why has it gone on produce creatures (us at least) that do!
If that were true non human animals would not care for their young. This obviously happens so where does that leave your assertion that evolution cannot produce creatures who care for others?
Welcome to EvC, by the way.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Col2v8, posted 01-19-2014 9:16 AM Col2v8 has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2414 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 35 of 142 (716959)
01-22-2014 7:29 PM


I think perception does raise serious issues.
Why are there properties in reality only available to consciousness? You can call these qualia if you like. Then there are mental properties like language and maths which do not have and independent existence from consciousness and then mental representation.
What is pain without consciousness of it?
Theories of perception rely on the notion of transduction where and signal is set up in the brain in response to a sense stimuli.
But What is happening the brain is not the same as what initially hits the eye or ear and then this neuronal activity in the brain has to some how be seen or heard by the conscious self as a representation of reality.
What is sound then? What does it represent? Why does it have the quality of experienced voluminous noise?
Why does reality have any dispositions available to it let alone ones that can be deciphered in perception to be utilised for something?
What would unperceived reality be like?

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 8:42 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 142 (716971)
01-22-2014 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 7:29 PM


I think perception does raise serious issues.
Why?
There are many different kinds of eyes in many different species, and the evidence is that sight evolved independently several times due to the differences in vision systems.
For instance the mammal (human) eye has the nerves on the vision side of the retina (so they have to collect into a central nerve than pierces the retina causing a blind spot) and sensors on the back side of the retina so light photons have to penetrate the retina ...
... while the octopus has the nerves on the backside with sensors on the vision side -- why is that?
The nautilus has no lens but still has a iris formation to control a "pin-hole" effect lens.
Both the octopus and the nautilus focus the images by moving the retina towards and away from the lens ... but the mammal (human) uses muscles to change the focus of the lens and has a fixed distance retina -- why is that?
If you were to combine those two systems you could have an eye that can go from microscopic to telescopic view -- why do no organisms have this ability?
Why do bugs have multiple fixed eyes? -- Why is that?
Flat worms have light sensing "eyes" but cannot see images -- why is that?
It all comes down to a simply metric: does any stage of development of any trait have an advantage over a previous stage of development? If there is an advantage then there will be positive selection pressure.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 7:29 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:02 PM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2414 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 37 of 142 (716973)
01-22-2014 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-22-2014 8:42 PM


It all comes down to a simply metric: does any stage of development of any trait have an advantage over a previous stage of development? If there is an advantage then there will be positive selection pressure.
This seems like a facile theory to me. All you have to invoke is that a trait gives an advantage and neglect what is going on at other levels. A property had to emerge prior to it having an advantage.
The advantage provided doesn't explain biochemically or any other way why the property emerged.
So in reality you are explaining the benefit of a trait after it has emerged.
The properties I have mentioned like pain are difficult because they are only found in the conscious sphere which means reality had an accessible property which is pain (the actual hard to mechanical or linguistically describe hurting/sore/hot feeling.)
Whatever emerges through evolution has to be a prior disposition available in reality.
If the physical, bio chemical nature of reality had no disposition for properties like perception or feathers et al then these properties couldn't emerge. So the proposed primordial soup is like a witches brew with all these hugely diverse biochemical, functional and mental properties available to emerge from it.
Why would reality have the property of pain? Pain is useful to avoid limb damage but our genes can't know that, the same with other perceptual states and cognitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 8:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2014 9:43 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 11:26 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 142 (716978)
01-22-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:02 PM


What is this "disposition" of which you speak?
Does a lump of metal have a "disposition" to be made into a bicycle? Would we be able to take a lump of metal with this "disposition" and make it into a hatstand instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:02 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 10:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2414 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 39 of 142 (716982)
01-22-2014 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
01-22-2014 9:43 PM


What is this "disposition" of which you speak?
A piece of glass has the disposition to shatter whether it does or not.
A disposition is a property that even though it may not emerge over a given time, or at all, has the ability to emerge none the less. It is an innate property
By creating so called "new" things we are really just uncovering dispositions reality has.
If we can do something it means that reality allows for that thing to be done.
This the concept of emergence rather than reduction. Emergent properties can't be reduced to a particle physics explanation but have their own properties.
I look forward to a description of dreams modelled on quantum formulae. That would certainly be a reductive feat
The postulated primordial soup couldn't be creative if it didn't have complex dispositions. Just like you are be unlikely to make a working heart from chocolate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2014 9:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2014 10:22 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 11:04 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2014 7:23 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 142 (716983)
01-22-2014 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 10:09 PM


By creating so called "new" things we are really just uncovering dispositions reality has.
If we can do something it means that reality allows for that thing to be done.
So your point would be that in order for evolution to happen, it would have to be possible?
Yeah, I think we can agree on that.
The postulated primordial soup couldn't be creative if it didn't have complex dispositions.
Like the "complex dispositions" of a shapeless homogeneous lump of metal to become a bicycle, a hatstand, an internal combustion engine, a statue ... ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 10:09 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 11:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 47 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 142 (716988)
01-22-2014 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
01-22-2014 10:22 PM


The postulated primordial soup couldn't be creative if it didn't have complex dispositions.
Like the "complex dispositions" of a shapeless homogeneous lump of metal to become a bicycle, a hatstand, an internal combustion engine, a statue ... ?
Or like the "complex dispositions" of prebionic molecules to form replicating molecules?
Seems to be a bit anthropomorphizing to me, a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy as well.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2014 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 142 (716989)
01-22-2014 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 10:09 PM


The postulated primordial soup couldn't be creative if it didn't have complex dispositions.
I know a way that it could:
imperfect self-replication
A disposition is a property that even though it may not emerge over a given time, or at all, has the ability to emerge none the less. It is an innate property
By creating so called "new" things we are really just uncovering dispositions reality has.
Not necessarily; if a thing can self-replicate itself, but its not perfect, then the copy will have some aspect that is new.
The imperfection does not have to be a disposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 10:09 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 142 (716991)
01-22-2014 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:02 PM


This seems like a facile theory to me. All you have to invoke is that a trait gives an advantage and neglect what is going on at other levels. A property had to emerge prior to it having an advantage.
Indeed. Evolution is a two step process: mutation adds variation, selection winnows variations, repeat:
But a trait doesn't have to arrive fully developed. It just needs to have an incremental advantage at each incremental step. The eye is a perfect example.
So in reality you are explaining the benefit of a trait after it has emerged.
Among others without such benefit that also emerged but failed the selection test.
The properties I have mentioned like pain are difficult because they are only found in the conscious sphere which means reality had an accessible property which is pain (the actual hard to mechanical or linguistically describe hurting/sore/hot feeling.)
Curiously on discussions of the properties of life (see Definition of Life) one that is often listed is response to stimulus. That is all that pain is, yes?
Whatever emerges through evolution has to be a prior disposition available in reality.
A bit backwards. Among the many variations that are available at any time in a breeding population, some will have an advantage, some will have a disadvantage, some will be neutral. Those with advantage are more likely to become inherited by having more offspring.
Where it ends does not drive where it begins, rather where it begins drives where it ends.
Again the eyes are a perfect example of this: the mammal eye has a backward facing retina, not because it ended that way, but because it began that way and cannot flip over to a better orientation. The octopus eye has a forward facing retina, not because it ended that way, but because it began that way.
Whatever emerges through evolution has to be a prior disposition available in reality.
When you use words not normally used in sciences you can end up confusing yourself by what these words mean rather than what the science says.
What is the "prior disposition" of a mutation that changes a gene sequence? Death? Disadvantage? Neutral? Advantage? There is no destiny inherent in any change.
You don't know until tested by selection whether a mutation will affect an organism one way or the other, or lie dormant (neutral) until selection pressure changes.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:02 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 11:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 44 of 142 (717076)
01-23-2014 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 10:09 PM


Parameter Space
A disposition is a property that even though it may not emerge over a given time, or at all, has the ability to emerge none the less. It is an innate property
By creating so called "new" things we are really just uncovering dispositions reality has.
If we can do something it means that reality allows for that thing to be done.
So what you are saying is that any new developments from X already existed within the parameter space of all possible developments from X.
Becoming a butterfly does not exist within the parameter space of a future Mt. Everest, but becoming a weathered worn-down hill in some far off future landscape is within that parameter space.
Further, emergent properties are those unique properties that exist within the parameter space of developments, whether they actually emerge or not, from combinations of simpler objects or systems.
Emergent properties can't be reduced to a particle physics explanation but have their own properties.
At one time in our lack of knowledge we presumed this to be true since we were unable to relate the composite objects to the resultant properties. That is no longer the case. We very well can explain some emergent properties from the complex and sometimes chaotic interplay of their constituent parts. Modeling of weather systems is one excellent example. This does not mean that we can always foretell what properties will emerge from some specified combinations. Nor are we able to presently digest the more complex occurrences but with further knowledge modeling the more complex properties is not beyond our capacity. There is nothing magic about emergent properties. Their explanations are only a matter of enough knowledge.
I look forward to a description of dreams modelled on quantum formulae.
Brains, especially the human brain, are some of the most complex systems that we know of in our universe. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it and it may take a more advanced theory than Quantum Field Theory to explain but it will happen.
The postulated primordial soup couldn't be creative if it didn't have complex dispositions.
When dealing with a chemical soup and the complex interplay of atoms and thermodynamics there exits, indeed, an enormous parameter space of possible developments (or dispositions, if you like) several of which would be small primitive self-replicating molecular chains.
Edited by AZPaul3, : tense and title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 10:09 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2414 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 45 of 142 (717106)
01-24-2014 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2014 11:04 PM


I know a way that it could:
imperfect self-replication
Not necessarily; if a thing can self-replicate itself, but its not perfect, then the copy will have some aspect that is new.
The imperfection does not have to be a disposition.
What do you mean by imperfection? Are you claiming beneficial mutations that allegedly create things like eyes, are imperfections?
I would see the function eye as a step towards the perfection of vision from something primitive.
However even a so called imperfection would have to be a disposition available.
If I drop a sheet of metal on the ground it will not shatter because it doesn't have this disposition. Dropping a beautiful stained glass window on the ground will cause it to shatter and become imperfect but because it has a disposition.
I don't see how new forms could emerge without prior dispositions just like stirring water for an hour would not do anything much but stirring an egg would.
If there were laws in reality that prevented cells from existing they wouldn't exist. Things that exist such as dreams are clearly not rejected forms in reality. Anything that comes to exist is something that could exist something that "nature" (term used loosely) allows.
For a true determinist to claim causal closure they should be able to predict emergent properties from an earlier stage of the universe/reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 11:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 11:49 AM AndrewPD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024