Evolving Evolution

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

why is there little discussion about its role in shaping evolution in the same way as genes, chemicals, and random events?

Maybe for the same reason there’s little discussion of the role bagettes play in violin music or marmalade plays in the construction of churches

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

My only presumption is that a prevailing mindset in science is hindering the consideration of ideas that extend beyond the current scientific paradigm.

Which is a common attitude we get from crackpots. Maybe you shouldn’t act like that.

Replace the physics bit with this evolution discussion in the last panel

https://xkcd.com/675/

[Luc Turpin]

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

Yes, not a doctor, but a pretentious S.O.B I am! 😊

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe for the same reason there’s little discussion of the role bagettes play in violin music or marmalade plays in the construction of churches

In case iNow’s point is unclear, consider that chromosomes often contain thousands of genes and there are millions of extant species, and a much larger number of extinct ones. You’ve pointed to a handful of examples where cognition plays a role. Which do you think is going to get more emphasis in studying the subject?

 

[Luc Turpin]

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe for the same reason there’s little discussion of the role bagettes play in violin music or marmalade plays in the construction of churches

Some evidence seems to suggest, at the very least, that both baguettes and marmalade nourish the violinist playing music and the construction worker building churches.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which is a common attitude we get from crackpots. Maybe you shouldn’t act like that.

Replace the physics bit with this evolution discussion in the last panel

https://xkcd.com/675/

I may be mistaken, but I am certainly not a crackpot. My goal is not to overturn anything, but to offer new information or a different perspective of things that could enhance our understanding of what we already know. The recent posts clearly demonstrate that we are not engaging in scientific inquiry, but rather resorting to character assassination.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I may be mistaken, but I am certainly not a crackpot.

Then stop acting like one.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

My goal is not to overturn anything, but to offer new information or a different perspective of things that could enhance our understanding of what we already know.

New information, or new-to-you information?

If it’s from some other author it’s not new, as such. The author of this article is promoting a book, so the information here is likely several years old.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The recent posts clearly demonstrate that we are not engaging in scientific inquiry, but rather resorting to character assassination

That’s not actually a defense of what you’ve posted. If you would engage in robust scientific inquiry, there would be nothing to critique.

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

In case iNow’s point is unclear, consider that chromosomes often contain thousands of genes and there are millions of extant species, and a much larger number of extinct ones. You’ve pointed to a handful of examples where cognition plays a role. Which do you think is going to get more emphasis in studying the subject?

 

Cognition is a fundamental aspect of all living organisms, yet it has often been overlooked as a driving force in the natural sciences. From cellular cognition—such as sensing and cooperative behaviors—to plant cognition, which includes environmental sensing, communication, and decision-making, to animal cognition, encompassing spatial memory, problem-solving, tool use, and social behaviors, the cognitive processes within living systems are far-reaching and complex. Yet, despite the trillions upon trillions of cognitive interactions that have occurred since the emergence of life, I must ask: why would it not have had an impact on nature and why science has ignored this?

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then stop acting like one.

New information, or new-to-you information?

If it’s from some other author it’s not new, as such. The author of this article is promoting a book, so the information here is likely several years old.

 

That’s not actually a defense of what you’ve posted. If you would engage in robust scientific inquiry, there would be nothing to critique.

Nothing to add here

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Cognition is a fundamental aspect of all living organisms, yet it has often been overlooked as a driving force in the natural sciences.

You should have caught on by now that simply stating something is insufficient. You need to back it up. If you continue to refuse to do so, there’s no point in discussion.

As someone pointed out earlier, the vast majority of species are single-celled. So the claim is massive overreach and/or abuse of what cognitive means

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

From cellular cognition—such as sensing and cooperative behaviors—to plant cognition, which includes environmental sensing, communication, and decision-making, to animal cognition, encompassing spatial memory, problem-solving, tool use, and social behaviors, the cognitive processes within living systems are far-reaching and complex. Yet, despite the trillions upon trillions of cognitive interactions that have occurred since the emergence of life, I must ask: why would it not have had an impact on nature and why science has ignored this?

Trillions is a very small number in this context, and science isn’t ignoring it just because you’re unaware of it.

[Luc Turpin]

Trillions upon trillions of cognitive interactions, spanning billions of years and countless species, yet almost no influence on evolution?, should have been my statement.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You should have caught on by now that simply stating something is insufficient. You need to back it up. If you continue to refuse to do so, there’s no point in discussion.

As someone pointed out earlier, the vast majority of species are single-celled. So the claim is massive overreach and/or abuse of what cognitive means

Trillions is a very small number in this context, and science isn’t ignoring it just because you’re unaware of it.

So why almost no mention of it in the theory of evolution as one of it's fundamental elements?

As for evidence, I have provided some and will get much more to share.

Also, single-celled organisms have cognitive abilities as well as being influenced by random mutations. So why call one out and not the other?

When is cognition talked about with random mutations in a conversation on evolution?

[TheVat]

Wow.  Cognition and evolutionary theory is an active area of research - not sure @Luc Turpin   why you keep doubling down on this assertion that it's being ignored.  The cognitive buffer hypothesis is yet another example. 

 The cognitive buffer hypothesis posits that domain-general intelligence is favoured directly by natural selection to help animals cope with novel or unpredictable environments, where general intelligence is adaptive because it enables individuals to exhibit flexible behaviour, and thus find innovative solutions to problems threatening their survival and reproduction.

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5413890/

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

As someone pointed out earlier, the vast majority of species are single-celled. So the claim is massive overreach and/or abuse of what cognitive means

The someone was me, IIRC.  I am starting to wonder if cognition is being confused with some broader range of biological stimulus and response.  I will add a wiki link, in hopes that it will provide a definition that clarifies that it is something more than reacting.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

 

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe for the same reason there’s little discussion of the role bagettes play in violin music or marmalade plays in the construction of churches

Chartres could not have been built without baguettes and marmalade!  Do you know nothing of the French people??

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

both baguettes and marmalade nourish the violinist playing music and the construction worker building churches.

34 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Chartres could not have been built without baguettes and marmalade!  Do you know nothing of the French people??

A role so insignificant that it's not written about in scientific journals. In the same way, sleep and urination play a role in building churches and playing violin, yet you're not equally asking why nobody is writing about that.

Furthermore, people ARE writing about a role played in evolution by cognition... so you're basically wrong from every conceivable perspective and just digging in your heels for no apparent reason. 

Edited 9 hours ago by iNow

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Also, single-celled organisms have cognitive abilities as well as being influenced by random mutations. So why call one out and not the other?

You’re redefining cognition to the point where it’s meaningless, as has been pointed out before. You don’t get to define terms to mean what you want. If you want to discuss science you use science’s definitions. Stimulus-response is not cognition.

[studiot]

Just now, iNow said:

and urination

When I was a small child I was very worried why characters in films and books never went to the toilet.

[KJW]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

When I was a small child I was very worried why characters in films and books never went to the toilet.

And now that I'm an adult, I wonder why couples in TV shows always cover themselves when getting out of bed after having sex.

 

[studiot]

Just now, KJW said:

And now that I'm an adult, I wonder why couples in TV shows always cover themselves when getting out of bed after having sex.

 

😀

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

When I was a small child I was very worried why characters in films and books never went to the toilet.

I note that some in the American audience of the wildly popular series 24 expressed concern that since the action supposedly unfolded in real time Jack Bauer was apparently never relieving himself or (and this is sooo American) hydrating .  And these worriers over Mr Bauer's kidneys and bladder were, ostensibly, adults.

Nowadays, of course, a lot of streaming (ha) content now regularly shows characters using the toilet, which imposes a level of realism that I never really felt necessary.  For me, it adds nothing to the narrative flow (cough) or character development.  

This may be where moderators step in to break away an offtopic digression.  And perhaps say, "urine trouble."