|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Evolution and consciousness are not seperate, the experience happens and thus the experienced must as well.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,761
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19612826 - 02/24/14 03:44 PM (10 years, 15 hours ago) |
|
|
because of people like you the separation is going to be impossible, so that is that.
did you know that the jewish term "kosher" means separate? what you did with the dogma is not kosher.
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19612832 - 02/24/14 03:46 PM (10 years, 15 hours ago) |
|
|
Consciousness evolves in complexity over time Novel quantum states entangling with quantum stable states Are the evolution of the universe, consciousness and life as we know it. Therefore consciousness by its initial occurence must not have existed prior to evolution because the two are codependent and happen at the same initial occurence.
they are intimately connected.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19614541 - 02/24/14 10:36 PM (10 years, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Most materialists maintain that evolution is a strictly physical phenomena, and that human consciousness emerged due to the physical evolution of the brain.
I think its much more accurate to say that consciousness is whats evolving, and that physical changes follow, not the other way around.
This happens at an ever accelerating pace.
Proprietors of evolution claiming that consciousness has little to do with it, or subscribe to the whole 'survival of the fittest' type of logic surrounding evolution either cannot see or refuse to see that consciousness has been the driving factor in all living things, and that consciousness has evolved and is evolving always.
In my experience, my best guess is our consciousness's can tap into the blueprints of future evolutions of our species, where eventually some future evolution of us may be free of the gravity of 3d space and time and pain. Some of us seem capable of tuning into some of those advantages here and now. Perhaps someday some future evolutionary species will wear a band that lights up and says "go see a doctor", and they'll never experience the discomfort of muscle tension we do, all brain/body pain perception could be gone in a future species...
I don't feel it's necessary to presume shit about Consciousness with a capital C determining our course with Ultimate Meaning because my trips seemed to have an ontology about them.... I have one wild imagination.....
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19615232 - 02/25/14 03:07 AM (10 years, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Evolution and consciousness are not seperate, the experience happens and thus the experienced must as well.
Our discussion was the idea that consciousness is primary to evolution. The idea that evolution and consciousness are not separate isn't the same idea. It's a shocker, I know. 
May I ask why you're shifting the discussion away from the idea that we were originally talking about? Did you forget that you considered it your job to explain why the research you posted supported that idea?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
The idea that consciousness is leading evolution is perhaps a better explanation for the gaps in the strata and explosions in genetic diversity (Cambrian explosion).
If consciousness is the real cause of evolution than you would not expect evolution to be taking place all the time, instead you would expect it to happen only when necessary. It is necessary for evolution of forms to take place only when consciousness is in need of physical body to meet its needs. If there is already a species form available for consciousness to utilize than consciousness will do so and no new evolution is necessary.
SO consciousness is leading evolution than you would expect evolution to be taking place at the height of consciousness. That is the highest form of consciousness at that time needs new vehicles/bodies whereas lower consciousness' already have forms available. So evolution would be happening for the most complex species' of animals while lower life forms would remain the same form.
Punctuated equilibrium is one possible explanation for the gaps in the strata. However it does not explain why rapid evolution happens for only some species in the environment while other more primitive species' are left the same.
Personally I find this hypothesis intriguing and am doing my studies into the biological evidence.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: If consciousness is the real cause of evolution than you would not expect evolution to be taking place all the time, instead you would expect it to happen only when necessary.
Evolution, however, is taking place all the time, regardless of the question of whether consciousness is its catalyst.
Quote:
However it does not explain why rapid evolution happens for only some species in the environment while other more primitive species' are left the same.
Different species have different capabilities of adaptation, dependent upon the specific variables that they're encountering. That's the nature of being different.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,761
|
|
all species are subject to evolutionary process no species are evolving it is not really a verb it never was a verb that can be done
like when I evolved from a monkey or like when we evolved from monkeys
that did not happen it never happened
all the monkey like populations had children some died some looked a bit different
later some monkey like creatures great grandchildren looked a bit different and only mated with the different looking ones.
later all the monkey like creatures looked different (evolution) and some were hairy all over and others walked upright
I simplify for those that are catching on slowly.
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: all species are subject to evolutionary process no species are evolving it is not really a verb it never was a verb that can be done
Not all verbs are things "that can be done". It really is a verb, an intransitive verb.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,761
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: all species are subject to evolutionary process no species are evolving it is not really a verb it never was a verb that can be done
Not all verbs are things "that can be done". It really is a verb, an intransitive verb.

llinguistically that is true, however, people are not using the language properly. individuals cannot evolve (in the sense of becoming other species) species cannot evolve (in the sense of becoming other species) it is not a thing that is done - ever!!!
species are said to have evolved from ancestor generations when the phenotypes of descendent species have become distinct from other descendent species, and the descendents species can no longer mate with the other descendent species (prior to that it is just genetic drift and or mutations).
it is about speciation. why does nobody understand that?
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Evolution, however, is taking place all the time, regardless of the question of whether consciousness is its catalyst.
This however, is of course simply what is assumed to be true though isn't it. According to Darwinian or synthesis evolution than yes it is taking place all the time (mutations/adaptations always taking place). It simply has to for the theory to make any sense. This is still debatable however and IMO the evidence is very weak that it is happening all the time. Most species' have stayed the same for 100 of millions of years and the ones that we can see evolve in the strata, they seem to evolve in a series of forms that are all complete and not half evolved.
Quote:
Different species have different capabilities of adaptation, dependent upon the specific variables that they're encountering. That's the nature of being different.
Yes it's a possible explanation, sitll however it is possible that the explanation is inadequate. Personally I would rather consider alternative explanations and see which is best. As oppose to just assuming your explanation must be correct because of course darwinian theory is just perfect and complete.
I would like to see some evidence that evolution is taking place all the time. I believe we have never in history of mankind witnessed one species turn into a new one, not even in bacteria. I believe a series of experiments with fruit flies was designed to test this, however it failed to show anything except that the fruit flies evolved rather superficial adaptations. Never a new species.
The fossil record doesn't really support the idea that evolution is happening all the time since we do not seem to find half completed species. It doesn't show evolution happening all the time either but happening in bursts and explosions of new species. Not new species that do not fit there environments but ones that are sophisticated and fit them perfectly.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I simplify for those that are catching on slowly.
Maybe a comprehension mutation will evolve.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
since we do not seem to find half completed species
WTF? Really?
Someone failed biology miserably.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,761
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I simplify for those that are catching on slowly.
Maybe a comprehension mutation will evolve.
Maybe I am a mutant? Many of my remote cousins are following a different phenotypic branch as comes to comprehension - or black box intuition, I am not sure if any want to mate with me; there is not guarantee that comprehension - or black box intuition is a heritable trait. At least half of my distant cousins don't have compatible mating equipment anyway. And the rest are getting sperm donors on-line, or catching what falls from the masturbation discussion.
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
WTF? Really?
Someone failed biology miserably.
I do not mean to say there there is no fossil evidence of species' transitioning into new ones, there is. What I mean is that each species (or stage in the transition) is fully formed and functional instead of having parts that are useless or half formed.
The fossil record should show more transitional forms that lead to nowhere and have no real functional purpose.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
The fossil record should show more transitional forms that lead to nowhere and have no real functional purpose.
Evolutionary dead end = few members and few generations of that species.
Evolutionary success = many members and many generations of that species.
Now let's say that 0.001 percent of dead critters fossilize. Now do the math.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,761
|
|
fossil record keeping has to be improved big time to keep track of all the crummy combinations.
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Interesting read regarding the fly experiments. Is this accurate? What do you make of this?
Quote:
Enter Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly. Drosophila maintains several characteristics that make it the perfect specimen for laboratory mutation experiments. First, the female fly is extremely fertile. She can potentially lay 100 eggs a day, up to 2,000 eggs in her life (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Second, Drosophila grows from an egg to an adult in 10-12 days, thus producing up to 30 generations per year (p. 157). Due to these and other ideal traits, since 1901 the fruit fly has been one of, if not the, most often used organisms in genetic mutation experiments. Reeve and Black noted: “The exploitation that made Drosophila the most important organism for genetical research was its selection by the embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan for his studies of mutation...” (p. 157).
Since the early 1900s, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred in laboratories across the globe. Scientists performing these experiments have introduced fruit flies to various levels of radiation and countless other factors designed to produce mutations. Sherwin noted that over 3,000 different mutations have been documented in the fruit fly gene pool (n.d.). These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.
So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can take place, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
What do we see? Fruit flies. That is all we see. After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any different kinds of creatures from Drosophila. Concerning the fruit fly stasis, late evolutionist Pierre Grassé stated: “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times (as quoted in Sherwin, n.d.). Norman Macbeth highlighted the late evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt’s thoughts about the fruit fly: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” (1971, p. 33). The bottom line of all experiments ever done on fruit flies is that they stay fruit flies.
The "evolution" of bacteria like e coli does not produce new species, but only mutants missing genetic information. Such bacteria have resistance to antibiotics because they lack sensitivity to them, but when returned to a normal population of bacteria, they disappear. Claims of speciation were based on measurement error--see second link.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations.
This doesn't make sense. Beneficial is a function of the fitness landscape, which is always changing. With respect to a lab and experiments its changing very fast. Which flies are selected is up to the whim of the researcher. If the flies reproduce, their traits allow for reproduction in their current fitness landscape.
Quote:
If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can take place, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
I dont think this is true at all. Why does the author claim this?
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Evolutionary dead end = few members and few generations of that species.
Evolutionary success = many members and many generations of that species.
Now let's say that 0.001 percent of dead critters fossilize. Now do the math.
Yes I know, the species would fail in the environment and die, but still there is something that counter balances this math.
The fact that for every successful design there has to be a good 100x more than are not successful. If evolution is really going to create intricate and complex pieces of "machinery" completely RANDOMLY than it must be generating a shitload of random variations that are simply useless and down right weird. Where are the fossils?
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
|