Yes - I think it was him who at one time joked: we found the 'theory of everything' it's called evolution. Only halfway tongue in cheek I'm sure.
Jan
No doubt. I take caution not to go too far overboard. 2+2=4, money doesn't grow on trees, conservation of energy, to make an omelette you have to crack an egg, aren't things subject to evolution.
We will have to differ on that. I think you say that because it is what is said. I might have 30 years on the planet. I think the view will change. I have given a way that " self invents " might work. To just say it does is not good enough. I call it " transient mass mutation" the transient bit is important. This allows a family to teach skills of survival on top of the change of animal. If this happens all the way along from fish upwards it could work. " It does because it does " is not very good. People found it hard to beleive bacteria didn't arrive from nowhere. If Quantum stuff is OK why not that ? Seems we haven't changed much. Pasteur spent years prooving the very very obvious ( And Jenner ). Many died. The Bordeaux wine industry beleived him. The one thing that hasn't evolved in humans is vision. If you stop to think this is the black and white arguements made. Creatationists have the super sceintist. Non creationists have, " it is because it is " perpetual motion principle. That is when the presure of events builds up suddnely a fully viable population emerges. This is nonsense. Anyone who knows the first thing about viable genetics knows the gene pool needs to be reasonably large. OK , Europeans might come from 5 women. Even so they carried the genetic variation required , that passed down. Two mutations, who by goodness knows what happy accident made a family won't do it. Even the creationists crede says other humans existed ( it does ). It has to be the dice were loaded. It need not be by other than a virus. As said before my vision only goes that far. If transient it will leave no fossil evidence.
The cheapest things often show great improvement when small upgrades done. I bought a bathroom radio with a voucher from one of our big stores. It was that or loose the money. Even if I wanted to spend more money none was more suitable. It takes big batteries as the factor. The sound has the predictably awful honky colouration. Mod one taking 10 minutes to add webbing behind the cone. The webbing was an off cut from cushions. Last night I thought I could make a small improvement. 10 minutes extra work. Painted the cone with non waterproff PVA wood glue. The speaker is small even by cone tweeter standards. I kept the glue off of the centre and the edge. The water vapour in the bathroom will keep it softer ( it doesn't go white as it can, so not a great effect ). The little driver was re-glued and a piece of acoustic foam fitted ( circa 50 x 35 x 20 mm ). The result is rather better than should be possible. Less awful than my friends DAB expensive radio. That one is more dynamic but sounds very processed. If it took 30 mintutes in total, it wasn't more. I suppose it has 500 Hz to 5 kHz. It sounds more. Nearly all cheap speakers can be re-engineered. They always seem to have reasonable motor pieces. I wish I had the courage to do my Beta 12 Lta. They sound like they need it. BTW . PVA makes the sound sweeter as well as more accurate ( voice chest harmonics ). All plastic cones seem to make it harsher ( structure too simple ), polyproperlene is not totally problem free even if BBC endorsed. The mass added is small using PVA. I suspect HF improves as resonance is heldback. One could argue resonance is like increasing mass ( very much ). Thus the damped cone is faster. I found this out when repairing 1940's radios. The nearly all sounded more powerful when repaired. No electronics involved.
The cheapest things often show great improvement when small upgrades done. I bought a bathroom radio with a voucher from one of our big stores. It was that or loose the money. Even if I wanted to spend more money none was more suitable. It takes big batteries as the factor. The sound has the predictably awful honky colouration. Mod one taking 10 minutes to add webbing behind the cone. The webbing was an off cut from cushions. Last night I thought I could make a small improvement. 10 minutes extra work. Painted the cone with non waterproff PVA wood glue. The speaker is small even by cone tweeter standards. I kept the glue off of the centre and the edge. The water vapour in the bathroom will keep it softer ( it doesn't go white as it can, so not a great effect ). The little driver was re-glued and a piece of acoustic foam fitted ( circa 50 x 35 x 20 mm ). The result is rather better than should be possible. Less awful than my friends DAB expensive radio. That one is more dynamic but sounds very processed. If it took 30 mintutes in total, it wasn't more. I suppose it has 500 Hz to 5 kHz. It sounds more. Nearly all cheap speakers can be re-engineered. They always seem to have reasonable motor pieces. I wish I had the courage to do my Beta 12 Lta. They sound like they need it. BTW . PVA makes the sound sweeter as well as more accurate ( voice chest harmonics ). All plastic cones seem to make it harsher ( structure too simple ), polyproperlene is not totally problem free even if BBC endorsed. The mass added is small using PVA. I suspect HF improves as resonance is heldback. One could argue resonance is like increasing mass ( very much ). Thus the damped cone is faster. I found this out when repairing 1940's radios. The nearly all sounded more powerful when repaired. No electronics involved.
It's not the place to discuss this further, but you can meaningfully discuss, in evolutionary terms, why in THIS universe 2+2=4 and not, say 2+2=4.5 or 3.
Jan
But man's life, his survival specifically, is most definitely the opposite.
In an isolated 'tribe', the group, or significant portion, may in time acquire the gene though it has no useful purpose. Until it gains one through "the current situation or environment." It's that mindless, purpose-less complex chaotic process. Sometimes the adaptation can have an immediate advantage, sometimes not.
I've mentioned before the reptilian jaw bones evolving to mammalian ear bones. I maintain there had to be some intermediate stage where the bones weren't particularly useful for either. But those creatures possessing such surely had other survival characteristics that allowed the process to continue.
How so? Or is your view on that related to religion? We can't discuss THAT here of course.
jan
Indeed. Genes that code for blindness will not be seen spreading through the whole population. Those mutations DO happen of course but do not propagate because blindness has no advantage for getting more offspring - quite the opposite.
Yes it's possible that there was a stage where it wasn't particular useful before it morphed into ear bones. Think human appendix -probably was at one time useful, maybe even critical, but no longer.
But I don't see a requirement that there MUST be an intermediary useless stage.
Jan
No. Man's nature-provided tool for survival is his mind.
Not instinctual. Learned.
So are our eyes, our toes, our knees. How is the mind an exception?
Edit: just saw your edit
Learning is an ability that came along from evolutionary processes just as everything else.
jan
Agreed. I purposely just said "not useful for either." It is difficult to imagine usefulness in an advantage context, though. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been one, or more.
Maybe I'm not heeding my own advice!
However, some degree of blindness increases the number of doable partners considerably. Therefore, our eyesight might have been so much better !!
Interesting discussion. As a result, I stumbled upon Bicameralism (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - intriguing concept ...
This is any chaotic system passing through resonance. We just have to live with it. The way to overcome resonance is to add energy. If metal things brake. The reason this happens if life is a casino. There isn't the real money in the system to pay people if they wanted to see their money. That's very obvoius. The way it works is well above the old world upper limits. I think I was told 6 to 1 was unsafe. As far as I know it was runing above 8 to 1. That is the money is lent out 8 times of that which really would be in a linear system. Sorry to deliberately simplify.This subject would consume this forum for 1000 years is my guess without significant extra clarity.
For what it is worth I support the casino system ( no capital letter ). Better that than a linear system. Like bacteria we have to live with our sucess. We are marginally more intelligent ( discuss ) so can solve the problems. Toyota and Tesla have thrown their patents open. It can happen. They realise if they don't it will not happen. I think it is too late for climate change discussion, it started 1720. We will have to adapt. Don't buy a house less than 30 metres above sea level. I can and should get a good price. If my kids can live there is anyones guess.
Yes, and it came along while lost was speed to catch, claws to grab, smell to find, fangs to kill, fur, etc.So are our eyes, our toes, our knees. How is the mind an exception?
Edit: just saw your edit
Learning is an ability that came along from evolutionary processes just as everything else.
People can lose sight, toes, knees, and still survive. Lose the ability to think, you're done.
Not rustling but hunting:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/proseminar/Bramble_Leib_2004_nature.pdf
We often underestimate our ancestors abilities and intelligence, which is foolish, given that we are here....
we became bipedal so we could run futher, but the kenyan case is specific selection for better running due to lifestyle choices.
Where do you get the daft idea that vision has not evolved? Of course it has. Our eyesight is nowhere near as advanced as some (no UV detection, eyeball inside out), but those enhancements clearly were not of great benefit or there would be more tetrachromic people out there. 'explain the eye' is a very weak argument.
Indeed. If the eye was intelligently designed it would be MUCH better. For one thing, that blind spot wouldn't be at the stupid location it is currently
Jan
However, some degree of blindness increases the number of doable partners considerably. Therefore, our eyesight might have been so much better !!
The payoff is that some women are a pleasure to look at
Depends on the definition of "good idea." Lots of incorrect and harmful ideas survive because they have a certain attractive esthetic value. There's a tautological aspect to defining "good idea" as "idea that has persistence and spreads." Mayr's critique of the meme concept is trenchant and, at least for me, quite compelling.
A side note: Dennett makes a great case for evolution being an algorithmic process. I know you've read his stuff, but I want to throw out a hearty recommendation to anyone interested in the subject to peruse "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," a very readable account of his notion aimed at non-specialists.
"An organism is a gene's way of making more genes."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.