|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
zi ko writes: I agree. But my assumptions seem to give rational answers of how instincts were formed, it fills the gap between somatic cells and germline, it explains in my opinion the facts of micro and macroevolution, it fits well with geological findings, etc. Okay, at least that's the beginning of an argument. Your arguing that we can't explain instincts, or the gap between somatic and germ cells, or the facts of micro and macroevolution, or geological findings, but that these are all explained if we assume an innate intelligence in nature for which we as yet have no evidence. Larni has already mentioned instinct, asking why you reject evolution as an explanation? I would ask how nature's innate intelligence explains instinct, assuming that the explanation isn't the same as "God did it" but with "nature's innate intelligence" replacing God. I'm also wondering what is the gap between somatic and germ cells that you think is missing an explanation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
God was mentioned only to make clear that saying "Nature's innate intelligence did it" is as worthless as saying "God did it."
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Zi Ko,
I was offline for a few days when this was posted, so I'm only responding now.
zi ko writes: 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? You're asking questions about how evidence evolution affects instinct, yet you've already concluded that evolution poorly explains instinct? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? You wanted to know how instinct evolves, I told you. If you want specific details then I suggest you look them up instead of asking others to do your research for you, research that must precede the drawing of conclusions.
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? Except that there wasn't any learning going on, see the Wikipedia article on the Domesticated Silver Fox. The foxes weren't being taught to behave in a domestic fashion. Rather, foxes were selected for breeding on the basis of qualities associated with domesticity, and in this way successive generations of foxes became increasingly domesticated. Learning had nothing to do with it. It would indeed be wonderful if we were born knowing what had been learned by our parents, but what is learned by one generation is not inherited by the next. DNA is the vehicle of inheritance, and anything not committed to DNA is not passed on. What we learn is stored in our brain, not our DNA. What is learned during any organism's life time is lost when it dies. There is no evidence that evolution is driven by neural systems. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Zi Ko,
You're going in circles with your definitions of intelligence. First you offered a definition in your opening post, which was rather vague. Then during discussion you became more specific and said that everything in the universe has intelligence. Then later you endorsed Swain's definition as quoted in Message 194. And now you're back to your original vague definition again. This thread does not have much longer to run, this is no time to reset to square zero. If you have any useful and unambiguous definition of intelligence to offer, tell us now. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ziko writes: Selecting for flight distance and behavior means that he was selecting for mainly learnt staff. Your ability to misinterpret plain English and read into a passage what you want to see is amazing and incredible. It isn't like the passage you quoted is ambiguous. I can't explain it any better than Wikipedia and won't try. Any progress on that definition of intelligence? You're running out of time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
zi ko writes: A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. Yes, it is insane. And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence. All you've done is employed lack of comprehension as a debate tool. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Science is not advanced by someone who begins by saying, "I don't understand the science," nor by making up new word definitions. Your efforts are forever doomed because you are driven by a need to find support for what you want to believe instead of by what the evidence tells you.
Until you make learning as much as you can about the science your highest goal you'll continue to just entertain your fantasies while wasting our time. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024