B
benjamin1973
Guest
[No message]
- Status
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No. You only asked about the sentence beginning “Eventually”. I could have explained how a single mutation begins to spread through a population, but you didn’t ask for that. Are you in fact the slightest bit interested?You’re stacking the deck right from the start .
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No. Apart from the meaninglessness of your last sentence, you’re confusing circular reasoning with iterative reasoning. If the genes for longer necks convey a reproductive advantage, then the next generation will have, on average, by inheritance, longer necks than the previous one.
No. Your long running problem is an attempt to apply creationist methodology to evolution. Creationist methodology requires no observation, relies exclusively on arguments from authority, and is taken as fact. Evolutionist methodology depends exclusively on observation, from which a rational explanation is derived, which can be modified in the light of new observations.
“Knowing what happened millions of years ago” shows creationist methodology. Evolutionists don’t know what happened millions of years ago, and knowing what happened is not relevant to evolution. Evolution is an explanation of what could have happened millions of years ago, based on the evidence we have before us. It is Creationists who think they “know” what happened millions of years ago because the bible tells them. They need no observation, and, since they misguidedly take the bible literally, think that it leads to “knowing” with absolute certainty…
“Or stories that allege this must have happened, with little or no supporting evidence.” This also shows creationist thinking. Evolutionists do not “allege what must have happened”, that’s what creationists do, based exclusively on their misguided argument from authority. Evolutionists produce a coherent explanation for observed evidence - that’s all. Where there is “little or no supporting evidence” for one detail or another, then a variety of suggestions are made and discussed, until new evidence narrows the field by eliminating those which don’t fit it.
“Most biologists are spending most of their time with things that are alive today, including some things that supposedly died off millions of years ago.” Does this mean anything? I think the first “things” applies to individual organisms, while the second “things” applies to groups of organisms. Organisms which are alive cannot include organisms which are dead. If there is no observational evidence for the existence of a species for millions of years, then the best explanation for that observation may be that the species has become extinct. If an example of that species is discovered alive, then that explanation is rejected, and a different explanation for the long gap is sought.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
You said that before, and I asked why you doubted them,. You didn’t reply. Would you care to explain?
The laws of probability are unknown to most creationists, so I am interested that you can discuss them. The trillions of years argument is usually applied to a single strand of DNA, mutating all at once into a different strand, as if dumping all the letters of a book into a box and drawing them out randomly might produce a different book. This is nothing like how DNA mutations work.
Great! So does evolution! Two possible explanations for the observed evidence. Now we can discuss which one fits the evidence best! Oh, no, sorry, I forgot. Creationism doesn’t need any evidence…
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yes. Sadly self-consciousness doesn’t fossilise very well, so direct observation is lacking. We will use morphological evidence to validate genetic similarities between similar organisms, and work from there.
Firstly, we have to be careful that we do not begin by defining “self-consciousness” as “exclusively human”. If we did that, we wouldn’t be able too derive any information from anywhere else, as it would by definition be excluded. (It sounds mean, but this is a mistake creationists often make).
Secondly, we can only produce explanations for observations. How do we know if a spider feels guilty? We have to work from the observations we can make about the only animals we are sure have self-consciousness (ourselves), and look for similar observations in other organisms. This can be tricky, and we have to be careful not to anthropomorphise. If we think that a guilty human hides in his house avoiding society, and notice that a spider hides in a crack in the wall avoiding society, that doesn’t mean that the spider feels guilty.
Finally, having made appropriate observations, we can then attempt to relate them to brain structure, to see if degrees of self-consciousness can be related to neural network size or complexity.
So…
[Continued in Part Two!]
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
So…
[Continued from Part One]
We might begin buy saying that self-consciousness implies that an organism can distinguish itself from other organisms, and look for evidence of that. If a small fish, whose normal reaction to another fish is a savage attack, also tries to attack its reflection in a mirror, then we might suppose that it does not recognise itself, even when the ‘other’ fish behaves in exactly the same way. If an elephant, which has previously had a small brightly coloured sticker attached to its head, sees its reflection in a mirror and immediately flicks its trunk to the correct place on its head to remove the sticker, we might suppose that the elephant recognises that it is observing itself. It does not try to flick the sticker off the reflection’s head, nor try to look around behind the mirror to find the rest of the other elephant. It must recognise that the reflection is not another elephant, and is not itself, but is an image of itself. (Both these experiments have been carried out many times)
Think what must be involved in the fish’s and the elephant’s behaviour. The fish appears to be aware that the reflection is similar to itself, which it could not be unless it had some conception of itself to compare the reflection to. It may be self-aware, but not necessarily self-conscious. The elephant, on the other hand, seems to appreciate itself as an entity, such that at by one definition of self-consciousness, the elephant is self-conscious.
Elephants are not very close relatives of humans, and many animals which are much closer relatives of humans do not display this kind of self-consciousness, so as an inherited trait it appears to have risen at least twice. On the other hand our closest relatives, the great apes, display very high levels of self-consciousness by whatever criterion we care to test.
Neurologically, studies of brain tissue link consciousness to the development of the complexity and extent of the tectum, which is a part of the brain, such that it appears to be an emergent property of this development.
So it appears that self-awareness, followed by self-consciousness are gradually emergent properties over the course of evolution. Conscience may be at the most developed end of this progression. At this point creationists tend to jump up and down shouting “soul”, which however they seem very reluctant to define, or even to understand. The most common definition is something like “that which distinguishes humans from other organisms” which is, scientifically, unhelpful.
I could go on, but will pause for questions, or biscuits, or lack of interest…
[Continued from Part One]
We might begin buy saying that self-consciousness implies that an organism can distinguish itself from other organisms, and look for evidence of that. If a small fish, whose normal reaction to another fish is a savage attack, also tries to attack its reflection in a mirror, then we might suppose that it does not recognise itself, even when the ‘other’ fish behaves in exactly the same way. If an elephant, which has previously had a small brightly coloured sticker attached to its head, sees its reflection in a mirror and immediately flicks its trunk to the correct place on its head to remove the sticker, we might suppose that the elephant recognises that it is observing itself. It does not try to flick the sticker off the reflection’s head, nor try to look around behind the mirror to find the rest of the other elephant. It must recognise that the reflection is not another elephant, and is not itself, but is an image of itself. (Both these experiments have been carried out many times)
Think what must be involved in the fish’s and the elephant’s behaviour. The fish appears to be aware that the reflection is similar to itself, which it could not be unless it had some conception of itself to compare the reflection to. It may be self-aware, but not necessarily self-conscious. The elephant, on the other hand, seems to appreciate itself as an entity, such that at by one definition of self-consciousness, the elephant is self-conscious.
Elephants are not very close relatives of humans, and many animals which are much closer relatives of humans do not display this kind of self-consciousness, so as an inherited trait it appears to have risen at least twice. On the other hand our closest relatives, the great apes, display very high levels of self-consciousness by whatever criterion we care to test.
Neurologically, studies of brain tissue link consciousness to the development of the complexity and extent of the tectum, which is a part of the brain, such that it appears to be an emergent property of this development.
So it appears that self-awareness, followed by self-consciousness are gradually emergent properties over the course of evolution. Conscience may be at the most developed end of this progression. At this point creationists tend to jump up and down shouting “soul”, which however they seem very reluctant to define, or even to understand. The most common definition is something like “that which distinguishes humans from other organisms” which is, scientifically, unhelpful.
I could go on, but will pause for questions, or biscuits, or lack of interest…
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
How’s the biscuit?
No lack of interest here: a fascinating post. No doubt there is more you can say; if so, I await with interest.
Sometimes people talk about consciousness not simply as the recognition of oneself as an entity, but as the ability to imagine oneself in different situations, to be aware of oneself in a narrative, as it were. Have you any thoughts about that?
No lack of interest here: a fascinating post. No doubt there is more you can say; if so, I await with interest.
Sometimes people talk about consciousness not simply as the recognition of oneself as an entity, but as the ability to imagine oneself in different situations, to be aware of oneself in a narrative, as it were. Have you any thoughts about that?
R
ratio1
Guest
Thank you. That’s interesting! Definitely not lack of interest.
Just so my small brain is getting this right…so can we say it is a stepwise gradual process then?
That is there is self awareness then there is consciousness then there is self consciousness then there is conscience?
Just so my small brain is getting this right…so can we say it is a stepwise gradual process then?
That is there is self awareness then there is consciousness then there is self consciousness then there is conscience?
T
Techno2000
Guest
What is causing the transitional ancestral forms reproductive systems to shut down?Techno2000:
No. You only asked about the sentence beginning “Eventually”. I could have explained how a single mutation begins to spread through a population, but you didn’t ask for that. Are you in fact the slightest bit interested?You’re stacking the deck right from the start .
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Please understand that there’s no such thing as a “transitional form” in living things. Every thing is the species it is when it’s born, and has the reproductive and survival mechanisms that the species has. An archeopteryx wasn’t a modern bird waiting to happen-- it was an archeopteryx, a viable species with its own makeup and behaviors that were presumably well-adapted for the time and climate in which it lived.
A fossil is “transitional” in a conceptual sense-- that it shows an intermediary between an ancient species and a more recent one over perhaps millions of years. It’s like saying that orange is a transitional color between red and yellow. Orange is its own color, but when a 3rd-party observer is trying to piece together the rainbow, we can see that is is a step between the other two.
A fossil is “transitional” in a conceptual sense-- that it shows an intermediary between an ancient species and a more recent one over perhaps millions of years. It’s like saying that orange is a transitional color between red and yellow. Orange is its own color, but when a 3rd-party observer is trying to piece together the rainbow, we can see that is is a step between the other two.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yum…
There’s no doubt that consciousness has many facets, and the ability to place oneself in a different situation may well be one of them. One way of trying to find out which, if any, are exclusively human, is to attempt to observe them in other animals. Hanging about in the jungle for days on the off-chance is time consuming (although it has brought in dozens of previously unexpected observations of animal behaviour which have extended the boundaries of self-awareness to a remarkable degree), so sometimes experiments are designed which might produce the observations which would show that other animals think as we do. If we observe the trait, it shows that it is not exclusively human. Unfortunately if we do not observe the trait, it shows nothing, but if we do it often enough with no positive result, we may decide that the best explanation is that it is an exclusively human trait.
The experiment designed to test this sort of thing is called the Sally-Anne test, originally designed to explore autism. A child watches a play, starting with Sally and Anne in a room. There also are two baskets or boxes in the room. Sally puts a marble into a basket and leaves the room. Anne switches the marble to the other basket. Sally comes back in. The child is asked where Sally will look for her marble. If they are able to put themselves in Sally’s place, and realise that she won’t know that the marble has been switched, they answer the basket in which she placed the marble. If they can’t, they answer the basket in which the marble now lies.
A similar experiment has been conducted with apes. As they can’t understand the question, let alone answer it, their understanding of ‘where Sally will look’ was determined by where they looked as Sally came in, anticipating that that was where ‘Sally’ would go. As it happens, apes don’t care about Sally’s marble, so for their version, the marble and Anne were combined into a man in a gorilla suit, and the ‘baskets’ were small haystacks. The apes watched the man seeing King Kong hide in a haystack. Then the man left the enclosure. King Kong then ran across and hid in the other haystack. The man then re-entered with a big stick! If the apes looked at where King Kong originally hid, it was supposed they recognised what it was like to be the man. If not, then that supposition could not be made.
The results were far from absolutely conclusive. 29 apes (8 bonobos, 14 chimps and 7 orang utans) were shown 2 tests each. 4 didn’t look anywhere in particular. 8 of them looked at the empty haystack both times, and 6 looked at it once, but otherwise lost interest. The other 11 looked at the empty haystack once and the occupied haystack once.
There’s no doubt that consciousness has many facets, and the ability to place oneself in a different situation may well be one of them. One way of trying to find out which, if any, are exclusively human, is to attempt to observe them in other animals. Hanging about in the jungle for days on the off-chance is time consuming (although it has brought in dozens of previously unexpected observations of animal behaviour which have extended the boundaries of self-awareness to a remarkable degree), so sometimes experiments are designed which might produce the observations which would show that other animals think as we do. If we observe the trait, it shows that it is not exclusively human. Unfortunately if we do not observe the trait, it shows nothing, but if we do it often enough with no positive result, we may decide that the best explanation is that it is an exclusively human trait.
The experiment designed to test this sort of thing is called the Sally-Anne test, originally designed to explore autism. A child watches a play, starting with Sally and Anne in a room. There also are two baskets or boxes in the room. Sally puts a marble into a basket and leaves the room. Anne switches the marble to the other basket. Sally comes back in. The child is asked where Sally will look for her marble. If they are able to put themselves in Sally’s place, and realise that she won’t know that the marble has been switched, they answer the basket in which she placed the marble. If they can’t, they answer the basket in which the marble now lies.
A similar experiment has been conducted with apes. As they can’t understand the question, let alone answer it, their understanding of ‘where Sally will look’ was determined by where they looked as Sally came in, anticipating that that was where ‘Sally’ would go. As it happens, apes don’t care about Sally’s marble, so for their version, the marble and Anne were combined into a man in a gorilla suit, and the ‘baskets’ were small haystacks. The apes watched the man seeing King Kong hide in a haystack. Then the man left the enclosure. King Kong then ran across and hid in the other haystack. The man then re-entered with a big stick! If the apes looked at where King Kong originally hid, it was supposed they recognised what it was like to be the man. If not, then that supposition could not be made.
The results were far from absolutely conclusive. 29 apes (8 bonobos, 14 chimps and 7 orang utans) were shown 2 tests each. 4 didn’t look anywhere in particular. 8 of them looked at the empty haystack both times, and 6 looked at it once, but otherwise lost interest. The other 11 looked at the empty haystack once and the occupied haystack once.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
In a word, yes. However, although the complete set of mental processes that characterise humans today is best explained as gradually extending emergent properties from increased neuronal interaction, the difference between us and the few remaining hominoid species does appear distinct.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
If you followed the model, you will have seen that the reproductive capacities of the ‘normal’ animals does not shut down. It proceeds at the same rate throughout. It is only because it is out-performed that the ‘normal’ population declines.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Thank you.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Of course you can’t show any of this happening in the real world, it’s pure speculation that such things happen . What do you mean by outperform? It’s eating up all the food of the previous transitional form causing it to starve to death?Techno2000:
If you followed the model, you will have seen that the reproductive capacities of the ‘normal’ animals does not shut down. It proceeds at the same rate throughout. It is only because it is out-performed that the ‘normal’ population declines.
T
Techno2000
Guest
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous.”-Charles Darwin
" If any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."-Charles Darwin
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No. You would understand some of the science a little better if you actually read some of it. There is no need for anything deleterious to happen to the original population and their descendants. The new form simply reproduces a little better, and so becomes gradually more numerous. Go back and read the mathematical model again, if you really want to understand. If you don’t, then don’t ask for clarification.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Are you getting these quotes because you have read and understood anything Darwin actually wrote, or from a creationist quote-mine? You don’t seem to have understood what I or Benjamin have said regarding transitional forms, so I can hardly suppose you have understood Darwin either.
Consider that you are descended from your grandfather via your father. Your father is, in a real sense, transitional between your grandfather and you. You may have children, and for them, you are a transitional stage yourself. What does it feel like!
T
Techno2000
Guest
Ok, I re-read it, nothing like this is occuring in the real world now. If so please give me an example, if not then its pure speculation .
T
Techno2000
Guest
Wrong , my grandfather and I aren’t morphing into a completely different species.
- Status