Split from Pro/Anti Evolution Debate

[cladking]

At the moment it does seem like you're not even reading the provided links in previous posts, given the repletion of incorrect assertions, which makes it difficult for any progression of the discussion.

 

 

I don't agree with the links. A few are over my head but this isn't the problem. The problem is I disagree with their terms and perspectives.

 

I'm surprised what I'm posting isn't being challenged more.

 

"Environmental factors prevailing during early life that have been linked to long-term changes in lung structure, lung function and respiratory health include undernutrition, preterm birth, reduced intrathoracic space, respiratory infections, maternal tobacco smoking and exposure to allergens." https://www.karger.c...rly-life_03.pdf

 

 

You're talking about disease in populations and I'm talking about healthy individuals. A wheezing rabbit is more likely to be chased down! But the shape of the alveoli of its lungs probably has no direct bearing on whether it's wheezing or not. It might have some bearing on the likelyhood of acquiring disease but this is exactly the sort of "unfitness" that tends to be bred out of a species leaving all the rest equally "fit" but not equally likely to be killed in a near extinction.

 

The shape of the alveoli are as individual as fingerprints. To date I doubt humans have ever been selected on the basis of their fingerprints.

[swansont]

I'm a little surprised you would dismiss the contention that no two atoms are identical while we know so little about the individual atoms.

 

The physics behind the Pauli exclusion principle (Fermi-Diract statistics), and the corresponding physics for Bosons only works if the particles are identical. If they are distinguishable, then two fermionic atoms could e.g. occupy the same energy state in a quantum gas, but they don't. There is a lot of experimental results that confirm that atoms of the same isotope are identical. For subatomic particles, even more — the physics and chemistry or nuclei and atoms wouldn't work the way it does without that being true.

 

Of course the math works out in chemical reactiuons since with such an enormous sample of atoms there will be an "average" and the differences bewtween atoms is necesaarily small from our perspective. We can't really separate atoms by any parameter at the current time but then we don't understand the electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravitational forces and their interactions and natures. Under these conditions and considering the small size of atoms and their potential differences how are we to separate or study individiual atoms? Whose to say that if you have ten too many atoms of an element in aa chemical reaction that every single atom has the exact same probability of being combined as every other atom to an infinity of decimal points. Logically this is impossible because no two things in nature which we can observe are identical. Why would atoms and quarks all be identical?

Macroscopic systems aren't, so when we have complex assemblies, we study the bulk behavior, which is statistical. But, as I've pointed out, it is well-established that atoms and subatomic particles are identical, which is confirmed by their behavior. That you are not aware of this science doesn't change that fact.

 

The big question is whether this new knowledge causes you to reassess your position, or not.

 

[cladking]

 

The physics behind the Pauli exclusion principle (Fermi-Diract statistics), and the corresponding physics for Bosons only works if the particles are identical. If they are distinguishable, then two fermionic atoms could e.g. occupy the same energy state in a quantum gas, but they don't. There is a lot of experimental results that confirm that atoms of the same isotope are identical. For subatomic particles, even more — the physics and chemistry or nuclei and atoms wouldn't work the way it does without that being true.

 

Macroscopic systems aren't, so when we have complex assemblies, we study the bulk behavior, which is statistical. But, as I've pointed out, it is well-established that atoms and subatomic particles are identical, which is confirmed by their behavior. That you are not aware of this science doesn't change that fact.

 

The big question is whether this new knowledge causes you to reassess your position, or not.

 

 

I should never have introduced another argument into this but it seemed right at the time.

 

While I don't doubt what you're saying I very seriously doubt that we can possibly know that all atoms are perfectly identical on all parameters while we don't really understand basic things about them.

 

Perhaps they are much better understood than when I was in school.

"In other individual animals and life forms divergence of behavior from genetic causations will break down with experience and learning. ... In the "adult" most behavior is primarily the result of experience and knowledge ... Individual structure and genetics still play a primary and pivotal role in aging and preferences but moment to moment behavior approaches being strictly based on visceral knowledge ...But the key point here is that genetics are central to even behavior and genetics are expressed as higher probabilities of specific behavior ...This won't change throughout their lifetimes ... The genes which express as a preference to daisies are highly complex and affect much more of the animal than simply which food it prefers."

 

Could you please provide a citation for these statements... many of them are inherently flawed or outright incorrect.

 

 

It is simply observation and logic that animals behave based on experience. Cats that have never been trained to mouse by their mothers rarely have much of any hunting ability. Cats instinctly hunt but without experience they don't do much of it. Animals are sent away from the nest and many are required to find a zone to live or be killed. It's impossible for every eventuality to be predicted by their genes so every experience they survive adds to their knowledge and ability to adapt to their enviroment. An animal doesn't choose a course of study or ponder the means to acquire wisdom so its growth is largely the result of the endocrine system and other physical changes driven by genetics and by experience. Animals lack the ability to consider most abstractions or to extrapolate great deals of knowledge but mostly they lack complex language to acquire vast amounts of information from previous generations. This means that by definition most of their knowledge is visceral; they know what they know in their bones. Their knowledge of the world after adolescence is based almost solely on experience and memory. "Instinct" can only be overridden by knowledge. Since much of their behavior is still based on instinct, genetics still comes to the fore since genetics are the basis of instinct. This all adds up to mean that animal behavior is mostly determined by genetics.

 

It's very very different in humans because humans acquire language and its perspective. They then acquire through language huge amounts of information which is organized as "beliefs". Experience plays a minor role in most human behavior except as habit drives much of it. Beliefs born(e) of language drives almost all behavior. But humans are no different when it comes to change in species because this is driven primarily by behavior and it doesn't matter whether that behavior is caused by belief or experience. "Wrong" behavior is eliminated and "right" behavior is rewarded. Everyone will want to jump to the belief that this is meant religiously or something. Far from it. The behavior being selected is normally trivial and has nothing really to do with "morals" directly. Indeed, some aspect of being "moral" could be the catalyst that results in death and something that is considered "sinful" could be what protects survivors. But it has little or nothing to do in most cases with "fitness". "Fitness" might protect a few of those with the wrong behavior and "unfitness" might cause a few with the right behavior to die but generally the survivors are in most ways no more fit than those who die.

 

Generally humans should be omitted when concerning evolution because we are the odd man out due to our ability to not even notice our instincts and to act along various parameters that have a relationship with survival characteristics. All the same considerations apply but our behavior is more complex due to more complexity in our beliefs. The odds of some behavior being intimately linked to our genes is much lower in humans along with the far more diverse behavior. The same rules apply but it's far more difficult to see.

 

The interplay between various genes and their expression is, I believe, the direction that the current science is already headed. I'm merely proposing that the interplay between these genes is determinative of nature of the animal as well and is closely related to behavior.

Edited January 16, 2015 by cladking

[swansont]

 

I should never have introduced another argument into this but it seemed right at the time.

 

While I don't doubt what you're saying I very seriously doubt that we can possibly know that all atoms are perfectly identical on all parameters while we don't really understand basic things about them.

 

 

IOW, when presented with evidence that contradicts your notion, you are essentially unmoved. That answers that question.

 

What you're practicing is not science.

[Arete]

It is simply observation and logic that animals behave based on experience.

 

So you can't support anything you're postulating, then. In that case, you can't say things like "contrary to evidence/observation" because what you mean is "contrary to my anecdotal experience/own opinion".

 

Generally humans should be omitted when concerning evolution

 

Nope, you can directly observe human evolution... http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.abstract

 

Just echoing swansont here, but you appear to be simply making it up as you go, rather than applying any sort of science.

[cladking]

 

IOW, when presented with evidence that contradicts your notion, you are essentially unmoved. That answers that question.

 

What you're practicing is not science.

 

Science is observation and experiment.

 

It is my contention that you can add logic to observation and experiment to make a different kind of science. There's no reason this science must be less valid than traditional science since it still has experiment as a check to keep it tied to reality and it has logic as a check as well.

 

There must be many dozens of parameters in which atoms can vary. It's not my contention that they vary merely that if they don't then they might be the only things in nature that don't vary. It's also rather surprising that we can know so little about atoms yet know they are all exactly identical. I'm not saying they aren't since this is outside my main argument here anyway, I'm merely saying it's surprising there's a math proof they are identical at this point in time.

 

So you can't support anything you're postulating, then. In that case, you can't say things like "contrary to evidence/observation" because what you mean is "contrary to my anecdotal experience/own opinion".

 

 

 

If you train a rat to run a maze it gets better and better. Instinct and genes gets it through even before experience takes over.

 

 

Nope, you can directly observe human evolution... http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.abstract

 

Just echoing swansont here, but you appear to be simply making it up as you go, rather than applying any sort of science.

 

 

 

You can just tell a human being how to run a maze.

 

ALL things change. ALL species change. Humans are a species and they change. Change in humans is not the exact same causations as change in other species. Behavior is the cause of most change and human behavior is based on beliefs rather than genes and instinct.

[swansont]

Science is observation and experiment.

Science is also discarding hypotheses that don't work. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

 

 

It is my contention that you can add logic to observation and experiment to make a different kind of science. There's no reason this science must be less valid than traditional science since it still has experiment as a check to keep it tied to reality and it has logic as a check as well.

That's heavily dependent on what one considers logical. "Logical" is not equivalent to "makes sense to me"

 

 

There must be many dozens of parameters in which atoms can vary. It's not my contention that they vary merely that if they don't then they might be the only things in nature that don't vary. It's also rather surprising that we can know so little about atoms yet know they are all exactly identical. I'm not saying they aren't since this is outside my main argument here anyway, I'm merely saying it's surprising there's a math proof they are identical at this point in time.

Actually, what you said was "I very seriously doubt that we can possibly know that all atoms are perfectly identical on all parameters while we don't really understand basic things about them" So I take it your serious doubts are gone, replaced with this surprise.

 

Maybe, then, since there are many behavior that newborn animals have that are instinctual, and since they have them at birth, cannot have been learned, you can be surprised at that as well.

[cladking]

 

 

Maybe, then, since there are many behavior that newborn animals have that are instinctual, and since they have them at birth, cannot have been learned, you can be surprised at that as well.

 

Babies are born with little cause of behavior other than instinct. "Instint" is simple behavior already imprinted on them by their genes. A baby cries because it isn't comfortable and the mother tries to provide what it needs to be comfortable. However, babies of most species have consciousness even before birth or hatching. This consciousness is the source of learned behavior, or more accurately, through consciousness an individual learns to deal with his enviroment even if the sum total of the learning might be to peck its way out of an egg. Even a baby has huge amounts of sensory input to process to try to learn what things are important.

 

Learning and instinct play off of one another through out the individual's life. While young instinct plays a vital role and as the individual ages more and more behavior is the result of learning. One of the reasons babies have so few behaviors is that they have so little learning. It's different in humans because babies must learn the language of the parents. This language is so complex that any idea can be communicated including ideas that run contrary to instinct like "don't take candy from strangers". Most instincts are replaced by learning. As humans age almost all behavior of most types are determined by learning. People may have a predisposiution to wake up early or go to bed late. Some need more sleep, some less. But most people can adapt to the demands placed on them by jobs or situations.

 

Perhaps there is evidence saying hydrogen atoms are all identical. No one has ever succeeded in separating by size, weight, or any other characteristic so maybe the math is legitimate. But the fact remains that if there were any experiments or logic that rule out my interpretation of evolution then I'd be happy to change my opinion. Of course I can be wrong even if all of my arguments really were right. Evolution theory sprang up based on solid evidence and logic but I still believe it is wrong. "Survival of the fittest" is not the best explanation for the cause of the change in any species in most instances. It certainly plays at least a small role in the death or survival of many individuals but most of these deaths have more important and relevant considerations than "fitness". But more importantly, change in species occurs at bottlenecks and not because the less fit fail. Bottlenecks are caused by nature eliminating individuals with specific behaviors.

[swansont]

Babies are born with little cause of behavior other than instinct. "Instint" is simple behavior already imprinted on them by their genes.

 

Yes. Glad you agree that such behavior is genetic and not learned.