|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You can call it an idea. But remember it is part of the comprehensive theory of Neuro-genic evolution. So how does your theory explain detrimental mutations, such as those that cause horrifically painful diseases in young children that then lead to their early death?
Information role on evolution and its mechanisms is already established by innumerable works on epigenetics and those by Shapiro, B. Wright. Dobshansky , Weismann, father of Ms theory and Darwin himself had aknowledged its significance.So sadly enough your critic is adressed to them and many others as well, not exactly to me. Epigenetics does not change the genomic sequence, and the mutations that Shapiro et al. speak of are random with respect to fitness. If you think I am wrong, then please cite a paper that demonstrates that mutations are not random with respect to fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Empathy is atype of information. But it is not a type of genomic information, which is what we are talking about.
The antilope may dy, but the watchinf other members of family or tribe.
How does that observation change the genomic sequence in sperm and ova?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
How does that observation change the genomic sequence in sperm and ova? You were not paying attention Taq. In Message 37 I gave a definitive paraphrase of zi ko's mechanism:
quote: I hope this clears up your confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
zi ko writes: "My new ideas are the "thinking neural system" and empathy role on evolution" And since the overwhelming majority of life on this planet, past and present, has evolved and flourished without anything like a nervous system or neural network of any kind, your conjecture has dropped dead before leaving the starting gate. This horse is dead no matter how hard you beat it. In Bacteria and multicellular organisms without neural tissue chemicals and systems like genetic engineering and maybe others not known yet stand for neural system Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Maybe the role of information should play an important role in evolutionary theory. Maybe not. It seems to be very impractical to do it, though.
For example, how do you define and quantify the "information" in the DNA of the fossils of unicellular organisms we find in the lowest geological strata where we first find life? It is impossible to do. To me the rational way to do it is to look at the evidence, and from there, conclude that life developed, no matter what our definition of the word "information" is in biology. You can't wish reality away. Lets start with the basics. Define the word "information" and also quantify It. That's the only way for the word "information" to be useful in biology. The word also has to reflect reality. It seems as if creationists try to do it without consulting reality. They only try wishful thinking. Not even one creationist has ever tried to explain to me why a Portuguese-Man-Of-War has less "information" than a jellyfish. Yet they all claim that does. No reason, just "because". Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
"You can call it an idea. But remember it is part of the comprehensive theory of Neuro-genic evolution.(http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) " Objection, m'lud: it's not a theory, it is a unsubstantiated hypothesis, at best. Sustained: the counsel will not refer to an unsubstantiated, at best hypothesis as a theory. Carry on. It does not matter to me if somebody call it a theory or a hypothesis, as it is logical and it is based on observation. If it was substandntiated it would almost be a fact. But it has falsified proposition as it should.
"My new ideas are the 'thinking neural system' and empathy role on evolution." "Empathy is atype of information. It follows the same paths as information does. And the same mechanism. " No, no, no! Bad crank! You've been told what empathy is by me on this very thread. Wat hing some one smile will not affect your genes. And they are unsubstantiated, sigh. Remember this 'no,no,no.......is adressed to so many epigenesis biologists, Shapiro, Pigliutcci,Weismann, and Darwin himsrelf. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
So how does your theory explain detrimental mutations, such as those that cause horrifically painful diseases in young children that then lead to their early death? As they were explained before byDarwinism and MS.
"Information role on evolution and its mechanisms is already established by innumerable works on epigenetics and those by Shapiro, B. Wright. Dobshansky , Weismann, father of Ms theory and Darwin himself had aknowledged its significance.So sadly enough your critic is adressed to them and many others as well, not exactly to me." Epigenetics does not change the genomic sequence, and the mutations that Shapiro et al. speak of are random with respect to fitness. If you think I am wrong, then please cite a paper that demonstrates that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. Indeed the genomic sequence in vertical line does not change. But it seems it can change by horizontal gene transfer or by energising or inhibiting engineering systems ect.I can accept that mutations for fitness are random. But there are various other previous to mutations mechanisms that are directcted by the information input, so the whole procedure becomes clearly 'a function driven evolution.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
In Bacteria and multicellular organisms without neural tissue chemicals and systems like genetic engineering and maybe others not known yet stand for neural system This is so much pie in the sky. How can this be even considered empathy? Empathy is a descriptor for a very specific type of cognition. Chemicals? Genetic engineering? Others not yet known?
It does not matter to me if somebody call it a theory or a hypothesis, as it is logical and it is based on observation. Yes it does, and no, it is not. What observations do you have for your idea?
Remember this 'no,no,no.......is adressed to so many epigenesis biologists, Shapiro, Pigliutcci,Weismann, and Darwin himsrelf. Darwin said fuck all about empathy being a causative factor in mutation; in fact none of them did.
As they were explained before byDarwinism and MS. As this is true (I assume you mean NS) there is no gap in our knowledge that requires you idea of empathy powering evolution. You have yet to provide any evidence (in your own words rather than a cut and paste job that does not support your idea). If you don't pony up some evidence I'm done with listening you and you fail to convince yet another person that you idea has any foundation in logic. You don't even have to try to hard with me, I used to beleive that time could stretch - I'm pretty credulous!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Maybe the role of information should play an important role in evolutionary theory. Maybe not. It seems to be very impractical to do it, though. For example, how do you define and quantify the "information" in the DNA of the fossils of unicellular organisms we find in the lowest geological strata where we first find life? It is impossible to do. To me the rational way to do it is to look at the evidence, and from there, conclude that life developed, no matter what our definition of the word "information" is in biology. You can't wish reality away. Lets start with the basics. Define the word "information" and also quantify It. That's the only way for the word "information" to be useful in biology. The word also has to reflect reality. It seems as if creationists try to do it without consulting reality. They only try wishful thinking. Not even one creationist has ever tried to explain to me why a Portuguese-Man-Of-War has less "information" than a jellyfish. Yet they all claim that does. No reason, just "because". As i see it in a rational way information ,being the same in one cell and in higher multicellular organisms, basically is anything it comes from environment and innerself that endagers existence, or the opposite of itShapiro's work on natural genetic engineering systems in bacteria give us an example of how this basic information woks and what the result it can be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Maybe the role of information should play an important role in evolutionary theory. Maybe not. It seems to be very impractical to do it, though. For example, how do you define and quantify the "information" in the DNA of the fossils of unicellular organisms we find in the lowest geological strata where we first find life? It is impossible to do. To me the rational way to do it is to look at the evidence, and from there, conclude that life developed, no matter what our definition of the word "information" is in biology. You can't wish reality away. Lets start with the basics. Define the word "information" and also quantify It. That's the only way for the word "information" to be useful in biology. The word also has to reflect reality. It seems as if creationists try to do it without consulting reality. They only try wishful thinking. Not even one creationist has ever tried to explain to me why a Portuguese-Man-Of-War has less "information" than a jellyfish. Yet they all claim that does. No reason, just "because". As i see it in a rational way information ,being the same in one cell and in higher multicellular organisms, basically is anything it comes from environment and innerself that endagers existence, or the opposite of itShapiro's work on natural genetic engineering systems in bacteria give us an example of how this basic information woks and what the result it can be. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Darwin said fuck all about empathy being a causative factor in mutation; in fact none of them did. They had n't said about empathy, but they did about environment's role in evolution. It is all written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
As i see it in a rational way information ,being the same in one cell and in higher multicellular organisms, basically is anything it comes from environment and innerself that endagers existence, or the opposite of it Shapiro's work on natural genetic engineering systems in bacteria give us an example of how this basic information woks and what the result it can be. None of that has anything to do with empathy.
They had n't said about empathy, but they did about environment's role in evolution. It is all written. Again, nothing to do with empathy. Face it. Empathy has nothing to do with affecting genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
"Empathy is atype of information." But it is not a type of genomic information, which is what we are talking about. "The antilope may dy, but the watching other members of family or tribe live and transfer the emotional act by empathy." How does that observation change the genomic sequence in sperm and ova? Information becomes genomic as soon as is loaded with emotion and has survival value ( and this is the reason why it is transferred by empathy). We know from epigenetics, Shapiro, Wrigt, Weismann and Darwin himself and others, that environment (namely) information has an important role in evolution. I suppose they all know??? the mechanism of how information can act on genome.Can i say that i know more than they? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The environment does effect evolution.
Empathy is not part of the environment: it is an internal process. You seem to be thinking that empathy is some factor akin to social living (which would effect evolution). Please tell me I'm wrong about this.
We know from epigenetics, Shapiro, Wrigt, Weismann and Darwin himself and others, that environment (namely) information has an important role in evolution. I suppose they all know??? the mechanism of how information can act on genome.Can i say that i know more than they? I think you don't understand what they are telling you. Put into your own words what you think Shapiro, Wrigt (sic), Weismann and Darwin himself are telling you. Bet you can't. Edited by Larni, : The wager.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
"They had n't said about empathy, but they did about environment's role in evolution. It is all written. " Again, nothing to do with empathy. So you accept the idea that environment plays a role in evolution. Am i wright? Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024