Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next >
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
    #22474011 - 11/03/15 11:33 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

what about eugenics :hitler:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: White Beard]
    #22474017 - 11/03/15 11:34 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

IMO eugenics isn't necessarily a bad thing on it's own, but as soon as it becomes race subjective then it becomes a problem.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: laughingdog]
    #22474273 - 11/04/15 01:26 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Food availability was mentioned as part of the research..however, just to help put it in perspective, greater food availability implies a better quality of life, correct?

as a whole, this research implies that quality of life experience seems to be much more involved in evolution than previously thought.
What they are saying is Darwin wrongly intuited evolution to be a pure numbers game, "Evolutionary theory is all about reproductive success, or the number of 'successful' offspring an individual can produce. The more successful offspring, the more genes encoding successful traits are passed on to the next generation."

A seemingly pragmatic and logical premise given the assumption made by Darwin, that real-time experience (consciousness) does not affect evolution in any way.

"However, advances in fecundity selection theory reveal that a higher number of successful descendants can actually result from the production of fewer offspring which can be looked after more efficiently. We therefore need to acknowledge that fertility should be more efficient, not necessarily higher, and that males can have a substantial role in influencing the production of efficient broods."

Through the lens of Darwinism, this observation is counter-intuitive. According to this increasingly debatable evolutionary theory, fewer offspring should not result in a higher number of successful descendants...

"Looked after more efficiently" could be interpreted as "better quality of life provided by parents".

basically, a higher incidence of successful traits in a given population occurs when good parenting (aka good development) is occurring.
This is expected given the premise that consciousness is primary to evolution, as experience is encoded and passed on through multiple generations, eventually leading to favored traits.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22474292 - 11/04/15 01:40 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

hTx said:
Sounds a lot like consciousness influencing evolution, eh?




Sure does.  Funny how everything everyone thinks is so obviously right is usually so dreadfully wrong.



I think we are beginning to see a paradigm shift.

It seems the evidence is already here, now we just need a few brave scientists to relate it all in a new theory which involves consciousness.
I think this study was a move in the right direction, as they disrupted a fundamental principle in Darwinism and imply, albeit a bit indirectly, that experience influences evolution much more than originally thought.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
    #22475138 - 11/04/15 09:24 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Yeah, here we are seeing that genetic fitness is directly related to conscious behavior on the part of the parent, and a conscious response on the part of the offspring.  It seems, rightly, that with studies like this one, a qualitative and quantitative shift is going to have to occur that brings consciousness more to the fore, whether most of these biologists like it or not.  It seems to me this will be done on multiple levels, as well.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22475174 - 11/04/15 09:39 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I don't think any biologists are denying consciousness has a role to play in evolution. Any evolved trait has a roll to play. However, I'm not convinced that consciousness is central to evolution. Consciousness can influence evolution but isn't necessary for evolution to occur.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22475175 - 11/04/15 09:40 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cognitive_Shift said:
IMO eugenics isn't necessarily a bad thing on it's own, but as soon as it becomes race subjective then it becomes a problem.




I hope designer babies become a thing in my lifetime.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: White Beard]
    #22475430 - 11/04/15 10:37 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

White Beard said:
I don't think any biologists are denying consciousness has a role to play in evolution. Any evolved trait has a roll to play. However, I'm not convinced that consciousness is central to evolution. Consciousness can influence evolution but isn't necessary for evolution to occur.




hTx and I respectfully disagree.  We'll see.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22475647 - 11/04/15 10:49 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

White Beard said:
I don't think any biologists are denying consciousness has a role to play in evolution. Any evolved trait has a roll to play. However, I'm not convinced that consciousness is central to evolution. Consciousness can influence evolution but isn't necessary for evolution to occur.




hTx and I respectfully disagree.  We'll see.




Care to explain why? There are things that are mindless and just reproduce (e.g. bacteria), yet still evolve.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: White Beard]
    #22476068 - 11/04/15 11:31 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

White Beard said:
Care to explain why? There are things that are mindless and just reproduce (e.g. bacteria), yet still evolve.




Well this entire thread is an effort to explain why.  I don't feel I have anything of value to add at this time to the thread, but feel free to dig through what's already here.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22476389 - 11/04/15 12:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Could you write a brief abstract of the key pieces of evidence that support your thesis? If you guys have something substantial, may as well turn it into a paper and try and get it published.

Every piece of evidence I've seen in this thread show that conscious thought can effect evolution, which I'm not denying. However, your guys thesis is that consciousness is the central driving force in evolution, which I'm not convinced on.


Edited by White Beard (11/04/15 12:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: White Beard]
    #22476438 - 11/04/15 12:43 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Well if you're asking whether there is appreciable scientific evidence to support this view, the answer is there is not much.  Nor is there any against it.  hTx and I have posted several links to respected sources about glimmers of evidence showing up in the scientific establishment, which is still quite biased against the notion, if it even entertains it.  Again, searching for those pieces of evidence in the thread is all I can really suggest.  I do not feel the need to repost them, and I do not wish to go out of my way to get embroiled in this again.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,680
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22476669 - 11/04/15 02:02 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

is it an animal?
not, it's fernidnando
is it a plant?
no, it's ferdinando
is it as stone?
no, it's ferdinando
it's ferdinando
its ferdinando


--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
    #22477373 - 11/04/15 04:58 PM (8 years, 3 months 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 medium for which all living things interact with their environment, and that consciousness has evolved and is evolving always.





what you say sounds nice but what does it actually provide in the way of useful information?

"I think its much more accurate to say that consciousness is whats evolving, and that physical changes follow, not the other way around."

This doesn't tell us why. It implies something grand and wonderful about the world, but what?

If consciousness is evolving it must have been involved to start with,
(since you say it comes first in contradiction to the "materialists"), so you're saying: a stupid (or not yet evolved very basic) level consciousness started and ran life from the beginning?

Like string theory or the vague idea that quantum states explain consciousness or "free will" ,  it sounds like a fascinating idea on the surface but doesn't seem to me to hold much water, simply when judged interms of it's own lack of internal logic.


Edited by laughingdog (11/04/15 05:09 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: White Beard]
    #22477592 - 11/04/15 05:54 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

White Beard said:
Could you write a brief abstract of the key pieces of evidence that support your thesis? If you guys have something substantial, may as well turn it into a paper and try and get it published.

Every piece of evidence I've seen in this thread show that conscious thought can effect evolution, which I'm not denying. However, your guys thesis is that consciousness is the central driving force in evolution, which I'm not convinced on.




Yeah, as DQ said, there is a plethora of information contained within this thread that really delves into the reasoning, evidence, and logic behind the proposed paradigm shift in understanding evolution.

I have been meaning to go through it all and write up a brief abstract as you say, however, this is going to take some time..


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
    #22477925 - 11/04/15 07:15 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Is there an identified gene which is associated with high rates of obesity?


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: laughingdog]
    #22478175 - 11/04/15 08:16 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
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 medium for which all living things interact with their environment, and that consciousness has evolved and is evolving always.





what you say sounds nice but what does it actually provide in the way of useful information?

"I think its much more accurate to say that consciousness is whats evolving, and that physical changes follow, not the other way around."

This doesn't tell us why. It implies something grand and wonderful about the world, but what?

If consciousness is evolving it must have been involved to start with,
(since you say it comes first in contradiction to the "materialists"), so you're saying: a stupid (or not yet evolved very basic) level consciousness started and ran life from the beginning?

Like string theory or the vague idea that quantum states explain consciousness or "free will" ,  it sounds like a fascinating idea on the surface but doesn't seem to me to hold much water, simply when judged in terms of it's own lack of internal logic.



actually, while a simple premise, this implies quite a lot of depth..it is probably why DQ doesn't want to get into it, there is a lot of explaining and logical inferences to be made.

For instance, with relation to novelty, we can easily conceptualize an answer as to why it is this way..Not only that, but we can describe a mechanism of action that aligns with what is observed, as well as predict future possibilities such as transhumanism and AI.


Anyways, a brief summary:
What we are seeing as the universe ages are accelerating instances of novel events in the present moment.
If you can picture time simply as the expansion of the universe, from its alleged beginning to its present state, then we can break down the evolution of the universe into simple concepts that are observable.
First, some basic premises:
1) There is an increasingly large singularity of novelty located here-and-now which is defining the present moment.
2) There is a past. Best represented as present moments which settle into building blocks of complexity.
3) The building blocks allow the singularity to undergo exponential growth, due to the increasingly novel interaction of past events in the present.
4) Therefore the universe grows according to exponentially increasing levels of novelty.

This aligns with the observation of accelerating expansion of the universe.

If we look at the evolution of life we observe the exact same pattern. 
1) Life began very, very simply. Viruses, single-celled organisms, bacteria.
2) These once novel albeit simple life-forms eventually became the building blocks of modern day life.
3) Life exploded in diversity and complexity while retaining simple organisms.
4) Coincidentally, leading to the human being..the birth of which marks an obvious exponential increase of novelty and complexity.

Where does consciousness come into play?
If defined as the medium of awareness and potential for experience to occur, we see how every living thing has at-least a basic consciousness.
Since we added "Potential for experience", we can say things like basic consciousness within a syntax that makes sense (can we agree this is at least part of it?).

There is a certain aspect of decision-making inherent in living things, even within single-celled organisms.
When perceived in this light, to say that successful decision-making has no part in evolution seems quite absurd doesn't it?

Now, what we also have is the organisms interaction and response to the environment, and diversity of life across many differing environments.
It has been shown quite recently that neurons constantly rewrite their DNA in response towards the environment, that life experiences effect generations, as well as strong development within an organisms life leads to greater instances of strong genes.

it is as if DNA is encoding its own experience and keeping a record for future adaptions, while also expanding its own complexity and potential for novelty.
  In fact, this is exactly what I am proposing is happening.

If this were indeed so, it would, from a retroactive point of view, look exactly like natural selection. The explanation of natural selection allows for the diversity of life we see now, however it ignores such things as development of the organism contributing to evolution.
As shown above, if natural selection through random mutation were true, one would expect a pure numbers approach directly related to the success of the species with regards to future evolution/adaption.
However, this is observed to not be the case. Instead, the research is essentially showing that development of the organism through better parenting leads to a greater number of successful descendants. Experience directly affects evolution.
Honestly, it seems like common sense.

However, to many dogmatic biologists, this finding is like..wait what?
If viewed through the lens of current accepted evolutionary paradigm, this is impossible, and does not align with "science". It will be explained away with all sorts of darwinist arguments which will prove logically invalid in comparison to the observations made in the research.

Alternatively, I am attempting to provide a more accurate map of what appears to be happening.
This implies that DNA is, in a way, its own grand designer, and marries both creationist and materialist theories and observations into a workable and falsifiable thesis. 
Although I'm sure, both creationist and materialists will not accept the proposed model despite its inherent objectivity.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22478228 - 11/04/15 08:29 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

White Beard said:
I don't think any biologists are denying consciousness has a role to play in evolution. Any evolved trait has a roll to play. However, I'm not convinced that consciousness is central to evolution. Consciousness can influence evolution but isn't necessary for evolution to occur.




hTx and I respectfully disagree.  We'll see.



Hey, making progress.

Over a year ago nobody would even admit in this thread that consciousness had any role in evolution, even after I began posting evidence.

As back then, the Darwinism was strong. :grin:

There wasn't a study like this one though, which essentially takes a pillar out of Darwinism.

They are calling for an "update and a revision."

Haha
:facepalm:


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] * 1
    #22478402 - 11/04/15 09:12 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I would just add in passing that Lamarckism is making a huge comeback in academic biology, which is another major thorn in the side of institutional Darwinism.  Incidentally, Larmarckism is much closer in its treatment of the live intelligence of DNA to your theory than it is to neo-Darwinism, for which this resurgence is a major, fundamental problem.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22478421 - 11/04/15 09:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I would just add in passing that Lamarckism is making a huge comeback in academic biology, which is another major thorn in the side of institutional Darwinism.




:facepalm:  I don't even know where to begin...  I'ts not called Lamarkism, its called epigenetics.  Its has a superficial similarity to Lamarkism, but is not the same.  Its not "making a huge comeback".  Its been around and is around.  Its not a thorn in "in the side of institutional Darwinism".  There is no such thing as "instututional Darwinism".  That is a misnomer invented by creationists and believers.  Nor is it a thorn at all.  Its a piece of the theory and description of life.

You are speaking talking points directly from the Discovery Institute.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next >

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* DNA - Further Proof against Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
rizingfire 7,883 85 12/13/09 11:25 AM
by EntheogenicPeace
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,958 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Mr. Mushrooms 13,870 267 04/20/09 03:22 PM
by zouden
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )
Smack31 5,730 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* The History of Evolution
( 1 2 all )
rizingfire 4,461 26 12/19/09 09:30 PM
by Icelander
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )
top 5,371 54 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* is scientism a kind of dogma?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
DividedQuantumM 3,876 103 02/05/14 06:32 PM
by lessismore
* Deconstructing evolution.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
daytripper23 4,508 75 01/13/10 04:22 PM
by andrewss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
29,259 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.