Watch Evolution in Action

originally posted by: Phantom423

Where in evolutionary theory does consciousness come into play? Can you provide a citation?

You want me to provide a citation for the existence of consciousness? That is ridiculous. Are you conscious?

The diversity of life doesn't guarantee consciousness. It doesn't even imply consciousness.

Are you conscious?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Where in evolutionary theory does consciousness come into play? Can you provide a citation?

You want me to provide a citation for the existence of consciousness? That is ridiculous. Are you conscious?

The diversity of life doesn't guarantee consciousness. It doesn't even imply consciousness.

Are you conscious?

You made the statement, as I recall. Was that an expression of your great scientific knowledge which the rest of us are not privy to?
Once again, a convoluted response intended to hide your ignorance.

How about the citations which were made previously and which you ignore. Still waiting......

originally posted by: Phantom423

How about the citations which were made previously and which you ignore. Still waiting......

What are you waiting on? You made no claims, you just posted a paper and told me to read it.

From my overview, it looks like they are just identifying varying alleles and assuming they formed through mutation and weren't always available in the gene pool. This is biased because they assume evolution to be true and treat their observations accordingly.

What points in the paper in particular do you think prove your point? We'll go from there.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Barcs

It is irrelevant because detrimental genes are not passed down.

By detrimental genes, I think he means things like diabetes, predisposition to cancer, asthma, hypothyroidism etc...

If that is the case, then he is changing the meanings of words as they are applied in science.

A gene is considered detrimental, when it causes an organism to not pass down genes or hinders the frequency in which they do this. Many diseases and other detrimental conditions are actually considered neutral because they don't affect the ability to reproduce (ie most diseases that take affect later in life). This is why most of those said conditions still exist. If they were truly detrimental mutations, then they wouldn't still be around. And also, one of those conditions could eventually become positive, kind of like how the sickle cell trait offers a resistance to maleria. Fitness is an incredibly temporary thing in evolution. Today's beneficial traits can be tomorrow's trash when the environment changes.

a reply to: cooperton

This is biased because they assume evolution to be true and treat their observations accordingly.

Where in any of the papers do they state that "evolution is true".

a reply to: cooperton

Logic really is not your thing is it? I have never ever stated that I believe in Intelligent design (tm). I have repeatedly said that evolution does not contradict my spiritual ideas.

The deities (as with all deities) evolved, which you'd understand if you read any Indo-European mythology. They are supernatural, so they arose some what differently in many cases, but they were not "always there" .

But specifically with the Tuatha de Dannan, read the myths to get how they interact with humans They interact with humans a lot, as do their descendants (the Aos Sí) especially when the veil between here and the Otherworld is at its thinnest

a reply to: Noinden

How does natural selection operate upon immortals?

a reply to: Astyanax

If you look at the Indo-European Myths they were not innately immortal, be it golden apples or something else. They certainly died. The idea of an omni everything deity, is somewhat specific to certain religions, and even then more modern than certain groups would like

An example would be the Divine Tuatha de Dannans (which probably means people of art, as opposed to People of the Goddess Danu (who is poorly attested)). Invaded Ireland, and won against the Fir Bolg (people of the bags or possibly spear), then fought the Fomorian peoples (lost, then won), finally being driven under the sidhe (mounds or hills) by the Sons of Mile (the first Gaels). The descendants of the Tuatha are called the Aos Sidhe, which some would call the Fae (not little winged buggers either, but the Sort that Bill Shakespeare wrote about in Mid Summers nights Dream).

You get a progression of deities. Its not a Biological evolution, its a mystical one. To some extent this is seen in all the Indo-European myths.

a reply to: Noinden

Good answer. In Buddhist doctrine the gods are considered as immensely long-lived but not immortal. They are subject to karma as all beings are.

Not sure of the Hindu position. I think the great divine principles of the Vedic trinity -- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva -- are eternal but the lesser gods, their aspects, transitory. Then again, there haven't been too many Brahma worshippers in the last millennium or two.

a reply to: Noinden

Though, of course, I can think of a more Occam-friendly answer. Gods evolve along with their cultures.

The science-fiction writer Brian W. Aldiss made this point (among many others) in the novel cycle Helliconia, which depicts the ascent of a planetary society from barbarism to high civilization. The inhabitants of Helliconia have (or believe they have) a means of communicating directly with their ancestors in the afterlife, and examples of this communication are given in each of the three novels of the cycle.

In the first, Helliconia Spring, the society is still in primitive hunter-gatherer mode. The ancestors are depicted as angry, selfish, malign and demanding of worship and offerings from their descendants, and not really very helpful when consulted. In a later book, Helliconia Summer, the society has achieved a high degree of civilization, but people still communicate directly with their ancestors — who have now grown polite and helpful.

I’m not sure what Aldiss was getting at, especially since I read these books more than half my life ago, but it strikes me that deities on good old Planet Earth have also evolved to be less and less barbaric as civilization has advanced. Concepts of divinity have grown more benign and refined along with the minds that conceive them.

a reply to: Astyanax

Hindu is hard to tell sometimes. Its got an Indo-European core with the Vedic bits, but its also blended with other ideas as well (as it should ... it evolved ).

So if you look at the Western Indo-Europeans, you see fallible, killable deities. They are still devine beings, but they are not omnipotent, omnipresent, omnipowerful. That is a more modern idea, and to me (its a gnosis sue me) less believable. Unless one is worshiping existence that is. Well then yeah all of existence is going to ignore you, because you are part of it. You don't notice a single organel in a single cell in your body do you?

a reply to: Astyanax

Gods do indeed evolve with their cultures, I prefer to look at it like Gainman did in American Gods

But often it is a new group of gods, so if you look at the Irish invasion myths (my area of knowledge). The Fir Bolg are similar to the Vanier in the Northern Germanic myths. The Tuatha are similar to the Asier. Indeed if you know any Dumezil, it makes sense Now your Fomorians are akin the Jötnar.

One myth specialist saw (in the Irish myths) that Balor (of the Baleful eye) was the old destructive "Sun God" (his gaze destroys everything), and his grandson Lug was the benign "Sun God". Now that is missing the point (Sun gods are Not common in the Indo-European myths), but has a kernal of an idea. Perhaps we invent our gods to our needs. I'm a Hard polytheist, so I see it more as "perhaps divine beings introduce them selves to us, based on our needs, and we show them worship".

That would explain the shift to duo-theism (Zoroastrianism) and monotheism (the Abrahamic faiths) about 2 and a half thousand to three thousand years back (perhaps a bit longer, Judiasm is hard to date properly thanks to people stomping them down, and destroying records). But more recently, polytheism and pantheism is appealing to many. Perchance its all a big cycle

There was a theoretical paper(evolution of mortality article on paper) with simulated organisms, showing that in some cases immortal populations are outcompeted and replaced by mortal populations. Such that even if the initial state is immortal, once mortality evolves it can easily supplant the immortal population.

By optimizing generation time to the environment, the rate at which new combinations of genes are tried out increases, increasing the rate of a adaptation towards the environment.

It is only now that we're about to allow for the ability to sequence dna, synthesize dna, and sometime this century have the algorithms and computational capacity to simulate complex molecular machinery, that a truly immortal organism can be that can outcompete all other lifeforms. That is the fate of the human machine civilization, technology will allow for the acquisition of immortality, and it will no longer be less fit, able to be outcompeted, as synthetic biology can gather all evolved solutions and even unevolvable solutions(think carbon nanostructure bones 10s of times stronger than real bone, muscles using new molecular machines tens of times stronger and faster than real muscle, fiber optic long range connections in neural tissue, advanced molecular computational elements, etc), and through the ability to self modify we've a species that cannot be outcompeted by any other species conceivable.

That is the peak of evolution, the final solution amongst all the dead end species that the evolutionary search program for a survival machine can come up with. A self modifying immortal species of godlike nature, transcending evolution by being able to engineer and acquire even complex adaptations without a new generation coming into being, being necessary. Humanity 2.0, or posthumanity as some like to call it.

The power to drastically lower metabolic rate, as happens in insects some supposedly able to be tens of hours without oxygen, the power to regenerate, the power to be immune to cancer. The power to be ageless, and highly resistant to all manner of toxins and injury.

Combined with the future power brought about by advanced brain computer interfaces, neural interfaces, any sensation or experience imaginable at the finger tips. Like gods virtual indistinguishable from real food will appear at our very whim. To experience a particular sensation we will not have to move or work for it, anything can be had instantly. Anything conceivable, from gustatory, to smell, even to sexual experiences, all at a moments notice. Unlike now, where you see something you want, and you have to wait and struggle for it. The control of the very sensory experience, the mind's eye, will allow one to experience any desired outcome without needing effort or consent.

For like a movie, sensory experience can, and will be, be controlled by an automated system able to generate, or simulate, in a sense a controlled indistinguishable from real multisensory experience a kind of hallucination a living dream but one where you cannot tell whether you're awake or dreaming. Your very thoughts will be able to control what you see, what you feel, what you smell, what you taste making it so that any fantasy you conceive of can take place without actually taking place, but indistinguishable from your point of view of it being the actual reality.

Your body can in principle, once an advanced enough neural interface is in place, it can be controlled and behave according to certain parameters, while you experience any fantasy at any moment. A virtual body controlled and superimposed upon the real world, a kind of mixed reality of a degree far beyond anything imagined yet. Where fantasy and reality meet. The final power of the computer, to free the mind from the shackles of reality, as a virtual world combines with the real world, and every desire granted by role play from the machine or other agents interacting with one in collaborative experience.(e.g. saw something you like, in a future mixed reality setting a virtual version of anybody can be controlled by machine or one of your friends and used however you please, none'd be the wiser as it is your memories that are changing and not the actual world.)

The misleading and/or vague usages and interpretations of the concept of "evolution" (in a biological context) continue strong on this forum...

originally posted by: whereislogic
The misleading and/or vague usages and interpretations of the concept of "evolution" (in a biological context) continue strong on this forum...

There will always be certain parties who enjoy using semantics to confuse the less savvy readers about what the theory of evolution actually says.

originally posted by: whereislogic
The misleading and/or vague usages and interpretations of the concept of "evolution" (in a biological context) continue strong on this forum...

Why did you bump a thread from 3+ years ago while added literally nothing to it?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
There will always be certain parties who enjoy using semantics to confuse the less savvy readers about what the theory of evolution actually says.

This isn't evolution in action. It's adaptation. It is specifically epigenetics, which works by increasing genetic expression of already-existent genes. When the antibiotic stress is removed from the bacteria, the population resumes normal, indicating it did not evolve at all.

Source

In the case study above they found a specific detoxification efflux pump that helps rid the microbe of toxins (the antibiotic). The microbe makes more of these pumps and therefor becomes more antibiotic resistant than it was initially. These traits are inheritable, but cannot go outside the bound of what the gene codes for, making it closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
There will always be certain parties who enjoy using semantics to confuse the less savvy readers about what the theory of evolution actually says.

This isn't evolution in action. It's adaptation. It is specifically epigenetics, which works by increasing genetic expression of already-existent genes. When the antibiotic stress is removed from the bacteria, the population resumes normal, indicating it did not evolve at all.

Source

In the case study above they found a specific detoxification efflux pump that helps rid the microbe of toxins (the antibiotic). The microbe makes more of these pumps and therefor becomes more antibiotic resistant than it was initially. These traits are inheritable, but cannot go outside the bound of what the gene codes for, making it closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism.

The example you have provided here is not the example observed in the opening post of this topic. And the experiment you linked is a case of artificial evolution, using man made circumstances to induce a mutation that was reversed by eliminating those elements.

a reply to: TerryDon79

without sustainable records we'll never see two species, maybe.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The example you have provided here is not the example observed in the opening post of this topic.

It is essentially the same method and procedure: Artificially induce an anti-biotic resistant strain (as shown in the OP). The article I presented takes the experiment a step further and prove that this effect is quickly reversible, that is because it is an epigenetic alteration, and not a mutation. Many other labs have confirmed this. Therefore it is not evolution that is being exhibited.