|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
zi ko writes: But instinct being a fix inherited pattern of behaviour? How did evolute? By random mutations? All fine grades of instinct behaviour needed different mutations? Instinct evolves in the same way that all characteristics of life evolve, through genomic change driven by the remixing of existing alleles (via conjugation in asexual species) and by mutations, all filtered by natural selection. A long-term domestication experiment with foxes in the Soviet Union revealed that over just a few generations wild foxes will become tame and and much more dog-like in their behavior, even wagging their tails. It apparently doesn't take very much selection to change instinctual behavior.
I never said or imply" innate intelligence" replaces God. I never said you did. The point was that claiming that "the innate intelligence of nature did it" is an empty claim, just as empty as "Pixies did it."
What i say is: Information driven evolution through neural system, together with random mutations, natural selection... There is no evidence that evolution is driven by neural systems.
...combined with nature's strive for life and innate intelligence based on physical and chemical laws (and so diffused and rudimentary) lead to new species appearance. You've descended into fanciful speculation based not upon observations of nature but upon your own wishful thinking. If you started this thread to see if there are others out there who share your thinking, then the answer is, "Not many here." If you started this thread to see if you could convince anyone to your point of view, then the answer is, "No." With no evidence you haven't a prayer.
I'm also wondering what is the gap between somatic and germ cells that you think is missing an explanation. W.K has spoted this gap in somatic cells and germline i division message 219 Have you considered the possibility that you misunderstood WK? Perhaps attempting to describe this gap you can't explain in your own words might reveal this misunderstanding to you. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
W.K has spoted this gap in somatic cells and germline But the problem is that it is a gap within your explanation. In normal evolutionary theory there is no problem because we don't expect to see a direct, and certainly not a directed, feedback from the external environment to the germ cells. Which isn't to say that mutagenic environmental factors don't influence mutation rate and type in sperm cells, they do but not through any mediation by the nervous system. By insisting that such a mechanism exists you have created a gap and you have nothing to fill it with. You have created a problem that didn't previously exist in evolutionary theory for no good reason and apparently with no actual solution in mind. What you now seem to have done is change your claim entirely by effectively removing it from being a claim about genetics to being about less well defined forms of heritable traits passed on essentially through cultural transmission, since you seem to discount the idea that there can be genetically determined instinctual behaviours for some reason. As yet your theory seems to be entirely redundant, there is no need for it and it fails to do anything rather than pose a non-existent solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes: But rocks and clouds are intelligent in the way that you perceive it, yes? rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it. Using your definition of 'intelligence', everything (including rocks and clouds) is 'intelligent', yes? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But rocks and clouds are intelligent in the way that you perceive it, yes? Using your definition of 'intelligence', everything (including rocks and clouds) is 'intelligent', yes? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But what about "red bricks"?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Instinct evolves in the same way that all characteristics of life evolve, through genomic change driven by the remixing of existing alleles (via conjugation in asexual species) and by mutations, all filtered by natural selection.
It seems to me your theory is very poor to explain the comlexities of instincts. I am curious. is there an y evidence that a mutation has coused a specific instinct change? Or is there any special genome loci that directly correlates with a particular instinct?
A long-term domestication experiment with foxes in the Soviet Union revealed that over just a few generations wild foxes will become tame and and much more dog-like in their behavior, even wagging their tails. It apparently doesn't take very much selection to change instinctual behavior.
Your experiment proves the exact opposit! That learning is a powerful way to evolution. Was there any any mutation and so any evidenced genome change in the foxes? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What you now seem to have done is change your claim entirely by effectively removing it from being a claim about genetics to being about less well defined forms of heritable traits passed on essentially through cultural transmission, since you seem to discount the idea that there can be genetically determined instinctual behaviours for some reason. There weren't any changes in my claims. They were there all the same brom the very beggining. I don't discount the idea that there can be genetically determined instinctual behaviours .Simply instinctual behaviours are acqired in a diferrent way (through learning) but still tey are inherited.
As yet your theory seems to be entirely redundant, there is no need for it ....
I quote:..Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s . and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway. (Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis Eva Jablonka1 and Marion J. Lamb).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
zi ko writes:
So - using your definition of 'intelligence' -
Panda writes: Yes. zi ko writes: But rocks and clouds are intelligent in the way that you perceive it, yes? rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it.Using your definition of 'intelligence', everything (including rocks and clouds) is 'intelligent', yes? zi ko writes: - the 'intelligence' of rocks and clouds causes changes in their genomes. Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes: Sorry - I am not familiar with the "red bricks" reference. But what about "red bricks"?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Please, people: let this thread go into the long night.
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 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Malcolm writes:
That probably doesn't make it much clearer, but what it's basically explaining is that this 'decision-making' process is nothing more than a series of protein-protein or protein-gene interactions governed by biochemical properties, intelligence not included. This also gives us insight into what he refers to on the homepage when he talks about how cells 'decide an appropriate cellular response'. My problem is that I cannot see how this "decision making process" governed by biochemical properties is random. Do these protein or protein gene interactions just take place randomly? Do these processes take place in such a manner that the benefical result will not occur? Are these processes completely random and is it true they may never take place in the same manner.? When I read Swain and Perkins review paper "Strategies for cellular decision-making", I wonder why they use such language, if in fact all of these mutations are not revelant to the final outcome and are in fact arbitrary and completely unpredictable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you think that sometimes carbon decides to become a diamond while at other times it decides to become coal?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
My problem is that I cannot see how this "decision making process" governed by biochemical properties is random. At its heart biochemistry is a study of stochastic processes. This is not, as you put it, 'completely random' but neither is it deterministic, instead it is probabilistic. The rates at which interactions occur in a cell is governed by a huge diversity of factors and while one might ascribe to a fundamentally deterministic model philosophically there is no practical way to actually reliably predict the specific behaviour in any particular instance of an interaction. Instead our models of these interactions rely on the fact that cells tend to have substantial numbers of the interacting elements and we can measure the tendencies and average rates of these interactions to a degree. Biochemistry has done this to the point where we have remarkably reliable values for the physicochemistry of many molecular interactions in aggregate, and can even predict the behaviour of new molecules based on physicochemical similarity to known structures. In the same way the behaviours of the cells when they 'make a decision', to use the teleological language of Swain's paper, is governed by a wide array of variables and is highly dependant on the exact internal state of the cell when it receives a particular environmental stimulus. Small variation in that state can lead to drastically different 'decisions'. In development some studies have shown that differing cell fates in a population of cells is frequently determined by essentially random noise in the levels of expression of particular genes. For an interesting, though a bit abstract for my taste, discussion on stochasticity in development see Zernicka-Goetz and Huang (2010). TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given. Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You could also think of the behaviour a one person in a building where they work: impossible to predict. But the behaviour of every one in the building obeys certain predictable rules that can be used to predict the behaviour of the group.
Also like in the formation of ice: we can't predict exactly where the first crystal will form but we know they will form. 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 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
There weren't any changes in my claims. Well I guess it is just hard for anyone else to tell, given how incoherent and vague your claims actually are, but your opening post made no mention at all of any of the things you are now bringing up about behaviour and instinct.
I quote You do indeed, endlessly and to no good effect. In this case verging on straight quote mining. The idea that there is a more updated form of the modern synthesis arising in no way gives credence to any of your empty word salads. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024