Strange

Pollarding is generally beneficial. (But that doesn’t look as if it has been done very well.) Coppicing is also beneficial (I heard of some trees in the UK that are 2000 years old because they have been coppiced every 20 years) but is done for different purposes.

Pollarding ca be beneficial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollarding

Actually, it can't be measured definitively. The length depends on the scale at which you measure it. So the fact of measuring it could be a scientific activity. But discussing what that measurement means is a philosophical one.

They must do. But I'm not sure if it can be easily detected or not. EEG works by measuring the voltages on the skin created by brain activity.

Only in as much as chemistry is em based because it involves the movement of electric charges, etc. But nerves communicate and transmit "electrical" signals by chemical processes, not in the same way as say a piece of wire or a transistor. (But this is where we get into semantics again; is it still an "electrical" signal even though it is generated by a sequence of chemical processes?) Another example that occurred to me is the phenomenon of blind-sight. Some people who having working eyes and optic nerves but have a defective/damaged visual system in the brain (and so are totally blind) are able to navigate around obstacles even though they cannot (consciously) see them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

That makes very little sense. According to you, then, sugar is exactly the same as salt, putty is as hard as diamond, the freezing point of all liquids is exactly the same, and water burns like concentrated sulphuric acid. What a strange world you must inhabit. So diamonds, mercury, water and cheese are all different states of matter? If you want to define "state of matter" that way, I suppose you can but it seems a bit silly. I think the only response to that is: bollocks. So this is just another silly reductionist argument: because everything comes down to quantum effects then everything from the shape of Mount Everest to the taste of bananas can be reduced to quantum theory. Again, trivially true but utterly pointless. Trivially true but a pointless and irrelevant observation. Consciousness also arises through the exchange of photons (and virtual photons) between the electrons in the atoms in the molecules in the proteins in the nerves in the brain ... All of which is true but does not explain anything. You might as well try and understand how the software to play a video works by looking at the movement of electrons in the channels of transistors. It is, in principle, but utterly pointless. As does the shape a snowflake, the behaviour of transistors, the properties of proteins, the structure of nerve cells, the behaviour of ion channels, the sensation of consciousness. You are doing a very good job of showing that the properties of matter, including consciousness, just emerge from particular arrangements of the component parts. I thought your intention was to do the opposite, but it seems you have failed. What would be? I can't imagine how this could be shown to be the case unequivocally. Whatever further evidence is produced, I think one could always say "yes but that is just part of the mechanism for receiving consciousness." One could falsify this hypothesis by demonstrating that there IS an external source of consciousness. But until there is such evidence, Occam's Razor applies. I suppose if we are ever able to produce a truly conscious AI then that would be evidence that consciousness can arise from "inert" matter. But as such a system would probably be so complex that we don't fully understand it (like the brain) then perhaps the same argument could be made: we have just made an artificial system for receiving the external consciousness. Or one could argue that it isn't the same as our (external) consciousness but a just mechanical replica (that just happens to be indistinguishable).

Maybe it would help if you said which part of the existing explanation you don't understand.

It is much simpler than that. All that is required is: 1. Heritable characteristics (We know this exists: compare yourself to your parents) 2. Variability of those characteristics in the population (We know this exists: look at the people around you) 3. Some of those characteristics having an effect on survival and/or reproductive success (examples of this can be seen all around us) 4. A source of further variation (sexual reproduction, errors during reproduction, random mutations, etc) As we know all of those exist, it would take divine intervention to stop evolution from happening. Regarding your points: 1. OK. Equivalent to my point 4. 2. It's not quite clear what this means. The cause of the modification doesn't have to be from the parents; it can be external, such as radiation changing germ cells or just errors during reproduction. 3. No. Changes can be beneficial, harmful or neutral. Or even a combination of these (e.g. sickle cell disease). Some that are beneficial or neutral when they occur may be harmful later or in combination with other genes (as in the offspring of sexual reproduction). Some that are harmful or neutral now may turn out to be beneficial in different circumstances (or in combination with other genes). Also, this positive or negative effect may be environment dependent. For part of the population (who have access to a particular food or who live higher up the mountain, or whatever) a change in the genome might improve their survival and reproduction. For another subset of the population, it might have negative consequences. This might then cause the two sub-populations to drift further apart (in the ecological sense): one group eating more of food A and the other concentrating on food B (or one moving higher up the mountain, and the other lower). And now, guess what, those sub-populations have taken the first step on the path to speciation. Importantly, as someone said above: evolution happens to populations not individuals. 4. Correct (my point 3). But that is only part of the story. They may have no effect (immediately) or they may have a negative effect. 5. Absolutely not. This is basically the "irreducible complexity" argument beloved by creationists. (They do love a good fallacy.) Organisms can accumulate a number of changes to the genome that have no effect on the organism (because they are not expressed, or because they produce a variant of a protein that behaves almost identically, or because the change has a negligible effect on the relative reproductive success of the individual). So changes can be accrued incrementally which later appear to be required "all at once". (I have only a limited knowledge of biology or evolution so I can't give any specific examples of this, but maybe someone else can if you want to pursue that point). I am puzzled by this. Do you read explanations in these books and then say to yourself, "I can't see how that could work so it must be wrong"? I know that is an easy trap to fall into. I used to do it a lot (I am still horrified that, in an attack of hubris on Usenet, I told one of the world's leading linguists that he was wrong - before I had even started studying linguistics). I still find myself doing it occasionally. The thing is to force yourself to be more open minded. Stop yourself from saying "that can't be right, it must be like this instead" (e.g. your point 5 above) and make a real effort to understand what is being explained. With regard to your point 5, the evolution of the eye might be a good example; it is very well understood (and has happened multiple times). It involved a series of incremental changes each of which added some extra functionality. (With, quite probably, some changes along the way that were neutral and some that were less useful until a later modification made them advantageous.)

That is not an additional fact, it is the first one I mentioned: "have to take into account both the relative velocity of the satellite and the receiver " Special relativity.

This is not true. GPS systems, for example, have to take into account both the relative velocity of the satellite and the receiver AND the different in gravitational potential. Ignoring either of these would give the wrong results. It is explained by applying the rules of special relativity. You can find many explanations on line (there are some excellent ones by "Janus" on this and other forums).

That is rather like the person on another thread asking where in the genes the shape of a hand is described. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the complete structure of the brain. Although I have no expertise in this, I have read many articles that give a plausible explanation of how this could happen. An entertaining read on this, and several other related subjects, is Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.

You might want to check how large the tree gets before it fruits ...

OK. So we can ignore that. (Don't forget that this is a science forum, not an "aesthetically appealing woo" forum.) Me too.

Gravity exists (i.e. it is a truth). We than have theories (from Newton and Einstein) that attempt to explain it. (Incidentally, I can' see any direct connection between gravity and Newton's third law. Other than Newtonian gravity is a force.) So applying that to evolution, the "truth" (fact) is that evolution happens. And the theory of evolution is our attempt to explain how and why it happens. Does that make sense?

Even if true (you have provided no evidence for this assertion) that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't arise in the brain, just that it also requires external stimuli. (Which, if true, wouldn't be too surprising.) You are trying to compare an idea which is consistent with the evidence (neural correlates of consciousness, changes to the brain changing consciousness, etc) with something for which there is zero evidence (a magical external source of consciousness). The latter may be correct, but as there is zero evidence for it, I'm not going to spend any time on it. You still haven't explained the relevance of this apparent non sequitur.

Because you were wrong. Everybody knows that. But the theory is (as far as we know) correct and it is the only model we have. You could say "we can't test the theory in these conditions so we will assume it doesn't apply". That isn't logical. A more sensible default position is, "we cannot be sure it is correct but there is no evidence it isn't so we will use it until we have a better theory". There is a branch of science call "theoretical physics".

You are very good with assertions, but not too good with evidence.

So what? Why should we take this book as an authoritative source (especially when we know that the authors have been wrong in the past)? Is it deemed to be "factually accurate" because they agree with The Truth According to Furyan? Or do they actually provide some logical argument? I don't have a preferred book on the subject. Or any book on the subject. (I suppose I could use the crackpot claim that I prefer to "think for myself" but I think the irony would be lost.)

What? You will need to explain that. What does quantum decoherence have to do with consciousness? (Apart from the pointless reductionist argument that everything is fundamentally due to quantum effects.)

This seems to be the same dishonest argument that Tour uses: "scientists should really look into this evolution thing". Because, of course, they have sat around for the last 160 years contentedly saying what a clever idea that Wallace-Darwin pair came up with. Whereas, of course, the theory has been repeatedly tested and challenged. I guess what Tour really means is, "they should keep looking into it until they find what I want them to". Sorry, but that isn't how science works.

You've never watched it then? You should. It is very good. But quite often factually wrong ... (which is fine; it's a comedy show) I see no reason to think the book is either funnier or more accurate. Also, citing an entire book as a reference isn't terribly helpful. "Hey I'm right; it says so in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica."

So your best source of support is a comedy show on TV? Is this related to using the Galileo Gambit to "prove" you are right?

The theory of evolution has been studied, analysed, tested, re-interpreted and extended for 160 years. I think if we were going to find out that it was all a huge misunderstanding, that would have happened by now.

Citation needed. But, again, I am not saying you are wrong (or right), just that you have given up intelligent discussion in favour of "I am right, you must believe The Truth" and now "they are laughing at me so I must be right". Both of which are ridiculous fallacies.

"The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma." Steven Novella "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong." Quietuus "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan