Evolving Evolution

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why is the idea of God so negative for you?

[swansont]

Or, to paraphrase Pierre-Simon Laplace

We have no need of that hypothesis

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

1- And on what is that based on? There is plenty of evidence of neutral mutations, there are established models suggesting why they stick around and on top it is well-known that they are key drivers of evolution, as they expand the genetic space for traits to develop. This is all well-documented under the neutral theory of evolution. In fact, I recommend to read literal book on that matter (Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution). It is the pretty much the de facto model in molecular sciences since the late 80s.

2- You will need significantly more than just a different perspective to overthrow the massive mountain of literature that is based on it.

1- My original statement was : Neutral mutations are frequent changes in DNA that don't affect an organism's survival or reproduction. While they don't directly drive evolutionary change, they contribute to genetic diversity, creating a reservoir of variations that can later support beneficial mutations. And I stand by it.

2- No overthrowing of theory necessary. Both chance and intention can play a role in evolution, especially if you include cultural evolution. Adding intention into the mix does not disprove evolutionary theory; it just increases complexity by recognizing that intentional actions can also influence change. And God is not necessarily required for intention to be brought into the evolutionary picture

 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Both chance and intention can play a role in evolution

There’s plenty of evidence of the former, but not the latter.

[iNow]

Luc likely means “intention” specifically in the process of sexual selection, not evolution as a whole 

[Luc Turpin]

In this post, I will put forth the idea that evolution is often viewed as an entirely chance-driven process, and that alternative factors, such as cognition or cell communication, might play significant roles in shaping life’s complexity. While evolution is indeed driven by genetic variation and natural selection, it’s important to consider whether the purely mechanistic view of life—which focuses solely on genes, chemicals, and random events—can fully explain the complexity and adaptability seen in biological systems.

Regarding cognition and cellular communication: while it’s commonly accepted that genetic inheritance and biochemical reactions drive much of evolution, the role of cellular communication cannot be underestimated. Cells communicate through intricate signaling pathways that determine processes like growth, differentiation, and response to the environment. These processes suggest that organisms are not simply passive reactors to random genetic mutations but are actively engaging with and adapting to their environments through highly sophisticated systems. For instance, when cells in multicellular organisms communicate to coordinate immune responses or repair damaged tissue, they are making decisions based on information, not just reacting mechanically to stimuli. This type of behavior implies that some degree of “cognitive” processing may be occurring at cellular and molecular levels, challenging the purely chemical, deterministic model.

To suggest that birds, or any other organisms, are solely propelled by non-intentional autonomic reflexes or randomness also overlooks the adaptability and purposefulness inherent in many biological behaviors. Birds migrate not to random destinations, but with a high degree of navigational precision. They rely on environmental cues for orientation. This suggests that their behavior is guided by a complex system of responses, not merely mechanical reflexes or randomness. Evolution has equipped them with remarkable cognitive tools that aid in these processes, and it’s crucial to recognize that not all biological systems are mere machines operating without intent.

Moreover, the focus on randomness and mechanistic processes can limit our understanding of the full range of factors at play in evolution. There might be additional variables, such as emergent (the word I hate to use) properties or even forms of intelligence within biological systems, that are often overlooked when we insist on reducing everything to genetic and chemical interactions. A more holistic view would consider that evolution is not just the outcome of random mutation and selection, but may also involve intricate feedback loops, cooperation among cells, and the “decision-making” of biological systems at various levels.

To summarize, while the mechanistic view of evolution driven by random mutations and natural selection is undeniably fundamental, it’s essential not to disregard the potential roles of cognition, communication, and other emergent properties in the evolution of life. These factors do not negate the principles of evolution but may add depth and complexity to our understanding of how life develops and adapts. In embracing these additional variables, we open up the possibility for a more nuanced view of the evolutionary process.

Edited Thursday at 12:53 PM by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

In this post, I will put forth the idea that evolution is often viewed as an entirely chance-driven process, and that alternative factors, such as cognition or cell communication, might play significant roles in shaping life’s complexity. While evolution is indeed driven by genetic variation and natural selection, it’s important to consider whether the purely mechanistic view of life—which focuses solely on genes, chemicals, and random events—can fully explain the complexity and adaptability seen in biological systems.

It depends on the scale at which one view's the issue, given enough time and all becomes clear... 😉

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It depends on the scale at which one view's the issue, given enough time and all becomes clear... 😉

Time does not negate the fact that cognition exists and might have played a role in evolution

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Time does not negate the fact that cognition exists and might have played a role in evolution

Who's???

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Time does not negate the fact that cognition exists and might have played a role in evolution

So what?

Unless you can show that cognition is arrived at independent of genetics/biology, then there’s nothing about it that contradicts evolution.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

it’s important to consider whether the purely mechanistic view of life—which focuses solely on genes, chemicals, and random events—can fully explain the complexity and adaptability seen in biological systems.

It not only can, but does 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

There might be additional variables

And when you name them and support them, they’ll be considered. I could equally claim that leprechauns drive evolution, but until I give further reason to explore that more deeply it can be dismissed and ignored. 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

just the outcome of random mutation

It’s not purely random. There are environmental factors at play and certain probabilities are far more likely to occur than others. Those are selected more often and it’s nice a simple dice roll every time.

While these thoughts and ideas may be new to you, they’re not new to science and the nearly 200 year old study of evolution. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

So what?

Unless you can show that cognition is arrived at independent of genetics/biology, then there’s nothing about it that contradicts evolution.

The question of whether cognition is independent or not is irrelevant; what truly matters is whether cognition plays a role in evolution and whether it has been adequately considered—which it has not.

 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It not only can, but does 

Cognition exists as a fundamental aspect of reality, yet it is overlooked or dismissed within a mechanistic worldview. Therefore, the worldview is vastly defficient and incomplete

 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It not only can, but does 

And when you name them and support them, they’ll be considered. I could equally claim that leprechauns drive evolution, but until I give further reason to explore that more deeply it can be dismissed and ignored. 

I named cognition and it is being ignored.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

While these thoughts and ideas may be new to you, they’re not new to science and the nearly 200 year old study of evolution. 

That the environment plays a role and that it has been know for century is not new to me. The point remains. Cognition exists and is being ignored by evolution and almost all of science.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The question of whether cognition is independent or not is irrelevant; what truly matters is whether cognition plays a role in evolution

Which we already know is “yes”

11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

and whether it has been adequately considered—which it has not.

And you say this from the perspective of your vast knowledge of the topic?

You provided an article which pointed to a few unusual cases; if this were common and a large piece of the puzzle, people would have noticed. But it’s still all under the umbrella of evolution; the issue of dependence on biology is extremely relevant. You seem to have a narrow view of evolution, but that’s an issue of your understanding, rather than the theory. 

24 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I named cognition and it is being ignored.

Partly because of your history on the subject. We are not going to be discussing those details. 

[KJW]

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Cognition exists and is being ignored by evolution and almost all of science.

Humans use technology to modify the genetics of various organisms. Is this part of evolution or separate from it?

 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1-Which we already know is “yes”

2-And you say this from the perspective of your vast knowledge of the topic?

3-Partly because of your history on the subject. We are not going to be discussing those details. 

1- The theory of evolution primarily emphasizes biological processes.. It does not delve into cognition—the mental processes involved in perception, memory and reasoning. So, how can one claim that it does?

2- My understanding of the topic is irrelevant to the fact that the theory of evolution does not address cognition.

3-Discussing cognition in the context of evolution does not require focusing on where it is coming from. Therefore, the conversation should not be dismissed based on this assumption.

1 hour ago, KJW said:

Humans use technology to modify the genetics of various organisms. Is this part of evolution or separate from it?

My understanding is that humans using technology to genetically modify organisms can be considered part of evolution, but it is a form of evolution that is much more directed than usual with natural evolution.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The theory of evolution primarily emphasizes biological processes.. It does not delve into cognition—

Hogwash.  Look into cognitive genomics.  It's an active area of research.  

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5791763/#:~:text=A wealth of twin and,variance in diverse cognitive abilities.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- My understanding of the topic is irrelevant to the fact that the theory of evolution does not address cognition.

It directly impacts your lack of awareness. Also apparently your ability to Google and find many links about cognition and its impact on evolution.

There’s also the hubris of thinking that you came up with something not already addressed by professionals in the field.

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Hogwash.  Look into cognitive genomics.  It's an active area of research.  

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5791763/#:~:text=A wealth of twin and,variance in diverse cognitive abilities.

 

If the field of cognitive genomics is so active, why is there little discussion about its role in shaping evolution in the same way as genes, chemicals, and random events? Why has it not been incorporated in some shape or form into the theory? Why is there resistance towards this?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

It directly impacts your lack of awareness. Also apparently your ability to Google and find many links about cognition and its impact on evolution.

There’s also the hubris of thinking that you came up with something not already addressed by professionals in the field.

The ideas presented here include some of my own, as well as many from others, which I aim to share as accurately as possible. I do not claim to have originated most of them. Additionally, the concepts discussed have been explored by professionals who have faced challenges in effectively communicating their ideas. My only presumption is that a prevailing mindset in science is hindering the consideration of ideas that extend beyond the current scientific paradigm.

Edited 19 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The ideas presented here include some of my own, as well as many from others, which I aim to share as accurately as possible. I do not claim to have originated most of them. Additionally, the concepts discussed have been explored by professionals who have faced challenges in effectively communicating their ideas. My only presumption is that a prevailing mindset in science is hindering the consideration of ideas that extend beyond the current scientific paradigm.

This reminds me of the moment I clicked on a link, that asked if anyone knows anything about a 'pictured flower' that's unknown to science, bc I was a professional gardener (self taught) for a couple of year's; What did I imagine I could contribute? That there is what I call a 'tulip'... 😉

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

This reminds me of the moment I clicked on a link, that asked if anyone knows anything about a 'pictured flower' that's unknown to science, bc I was a professional gardener (self taught) for a couple of year's; What did I imagine I could contribute? That there is what I call a 'tulip'... 😉

I don't seem to get the drift of it 😑

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

I don't seem to get the drift of it 😑

Hubris often blinds us...

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

I don't seem to get the drift of it 😑

Was not thinking as usual: now I get it! Yes, it might be me in the same situation or might be me representing others that are not in the same predicament as I.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Hubris often blinds us...

I am not always smart, but most of the time, I am not driven by hubris.

Not as smart as you dimreepr, not as smart as many on these forums, but I have ideas, mostly from others, that need to be shared

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

but I have ideas, mostly from others, that need to be shared

They have been, that's the point; from Socrates to Trump... 🙏

You have to have a compelling reason to think otherwise... 

If you can't expand our understanding of the knowledge we have, then you can't be a doctor of anything... 😉

[Luc Turpin]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They have been, that's the point; from Socrates to Trump... 🙏

You have to have a compelling reason to think otherwise... 

If you can't expand our understanding of the knowledge we have, then you can't be a doctor of anything... 😉

I am making a strong effort to expand both my own and others' understanding of current knowledge, but I admit I'm struggling to convince anyone that there may be more to it than what science currently reveals.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am making a strong effort to expand both my own and others' understanding of current knowledge, but I admit I'm struggling to convince anyone that there may be more to it than what science currently reveals.

Not strong enough to convince a PHD panel, so not a doctor; join the club... 🙄