Discussion:
inherited behavior
(too old to reply)
Dale
2014-01-16 02:25:51 UTC
Permalink
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection

obvious some inherited behavior is passed down in genetics, some species
do things always the same

so why can't newly learned behavior be inherited?

randomness is claimed in a couple sciences, like quantum mechanics,
radioactive decay which is actually part of quantum mechanics, and
biological genetic mutations

quantum mechanics and radioactive decay cannot be random because the
uncertainty principle says they are uncertain, randomness would be a
certainty

if you don't buy that randomness is a certainty, or want to talk about
mutations, you would have to test and validate that there is no
correlation from ANY other variable and its own self because it could be
self causal, that would require a MANOVA of all variables in the scope
of the randomness

if you are a determinist this is easy, EVERYTHING is causally related,
EVERYTHING is in scope, so such an experiment, designing the experiment,
or even thinking about the experiment might cause the randomness, in
fact if you are a determinist ALL things are causal and there is NO SUCH
THING as randomness OR EVEN uncertainty for that matter

if you are NOT a determinist then you must identify the scope before
designing the experiment to identify correlation or not, but the
definition of randomness says there is no scope, perhaps not even
itself, therefore the only scope to experiment on is itself, you would
have to find out when a random event starts, but if it is truly random
then time does not even correlate with it

so, randomness is not testable, therefore it is not a theory and not
even a hypothesis, only conjecture by the rules of science as
established now, and yes, including random mutations
--
Dale
Mayayana
2014-01-16 04:29:49 UTC
Permalink
|I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
|

No. That's the weak point in the theory of
evolution. It really doesn't hold water.

| obvious some inherited behavior is passed down in genetics, some species
| do things always the same
|
| so why can't newly learned behavior be inherited?
|

Look up epigenetics. It's what you're talking about.
It makes evolution theory plausible and is potentially in
accord with the idea of intelligent design (though not
necessarily in accord with theism). On the other hand,
the believers of scientism won't be able to accept that,
because an idea like intelligent design can't be
"relevantized" within the narrow confines of scientific
method.
Dale
2014-01-16 05:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
|I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
|
No. That's the weak point in the theory of
evolution. It really doesn't hold water.
| obvious some inherited behavior is passed down in genetics, some species
| do things always the same
|
| so why can't newly learned behavior be inherited?
|
Look up epigenetics. It's what you're talking about.
It makes evolution theory plausible and is potentially in
accord with the idea of intelligent design (though not
necessarily in accord with theism). On the other hand,
the believers of scientism won't be able to accept that,
because an idea like intelligent design can't be
"relevantized" within the narrow confines of scientific
method.
I looked it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I agree with it, but I do include changes to DNA based on learned
behavior which is also passed on in DNA
--
Dale
J. Clarke
2014-01-16 13:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
|I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
|
No. That's the weak point in the theory of
evolution. It really doesn't hold water.
| obvious some inherited behavior is passed down in genetics, some species
| do things always the same
|
| so why can't newly learned behavior be inherited?
|
Look up epigenetics. It's what you're talking about.
It makes evolution theory plausible and is potentially in
accord with the idea of intelligent design (though not
necessarily in accord with theism). On the other hand,
the believers of scientism won't be able to accept that,
because an idea like intelligent design can't be
"relevantized" within the narrow confines of scientific
method.
If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
Mayayana
2014-01-16 15:24:52 UTC
Permalink
| If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
| this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
|

You seem to be asking what god is the designer if
it's not a god. I'm not claiming any god. I'm not claiming
anything.

I said that epigenetics could support
intelligent design, but not necessarily a theistic version
of it. The view that DNA expression can be changed --
and that those changes may be able to be passed on in
some cases, as a result of environment, behavior, or
even thought -- presents a possibility somewhere in between
the two dueling dogmas of scientific materialism and divine
creativity. (We could, ourselves, be divine creativity in
some sense if our thoughts and actions mold our physical
selves.)

Many years ago I remember reading about a study
where a man experimented with fish in mountain pools.
Some had markings to blend in with pebbles in their
pool. Some had unpatterned skin to blend in with sand
at the bottom of their pool. It was found that fish
moved between pools could change their skin fairly
quickly to adapt their camouflage. Random mutation can't
account for that, but epigenetics might possibly explain it.
Then there's the question of what intelligence might be.
Are the fish expressing intelligence? We could come up
with numerous ways to view the situation. Maybe the
skin change is triggered by light reflections off the
bottom of the pool. Maybe it's a kind of consciousness
we don't recognize. Maybe we need to expand our
understanding of "God's in the sugar bowl". Whatever it
is, the fish responded "intelligently" to their environment.

To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
design both provide an important service: They allow us
more space to actually reflect on these things without
being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
J. Clarke
2014-01-16 18:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
| this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
|
You seem to be asking what god is the designer if
it's not a god. I'm not claiming any god. I'm not claiming
anything.
You're claiming "intelligent design without a god". So what does the
designing? Where is this intelligence located?
Post by Mayayana
I said that epigenetics could support
intelligent design, but not necessarily a theistic version
of it.
But you have not demonstrated how the intelligence doing the designing
can exist without there being a designer.
Post by Mayayana
The view that DNA expression can be changed --
and that those changes may be able to be passed on in
some cases, as a result of environment, behavior, or
even thought -- presents a possibility somewhere in between
the two dueling dogmas of scientific materialism and divine
creativity. (We could, ourselves, be divine creativity in
some sense if our thoughts and actions mold our physical
selves.)
Sorry, but that's not "intelligent design", that's natural selection
with a few bells and whistles.
Post by Mayayana
Many years ago I remember reading about a study
where a man experimented with fish in mountain pools.
Some had markings to blend in with pebbles in their
pool. Some had unpatterned skin to blend in with sand
at the bottom of their pool. It was found that fish
moved between pools could change their skin fairly
quickly to adapt their camouflage. Random mutation can't
account for that, but epigenetics might possibly explain it.
Why invoke "epigenetics" when "chromatophores" fully suffices?
Post by Mayayana
Then there's the question of what intelligence might be.
Are the fish expressing intelligence? We could come up
with numerous ways to view the situation. Maybe the
skin change is triggered by light reflections off the
bottom of the pool. Maybe it's a kind of consciousness
we don't recognize. Maybe we need to expand our
understanding of "God's in the sugar bowl". Whatever it
is, the fish responded "intelligently" to their environment.
I'm sorry, but a chameleon changing color is not evidence of
"intelligent design".
Post by Mayayana
To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
design both provide an important service: They allow us
more space to actually reflect on these things without
being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
"Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
obfuscating the issue.
Dale
2014-01-16 18:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mayayana
| If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
| this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
|
You seem to be asking what god is the designer if
it's not a god. I'm not claiming any god. I'm not claiming
anything.
You're claiming "intelligent design without a god". So what does the
designing? Where is this intelligence located?
Post by Mayayana
I said that epigenetics could support
intelligent design, but not necessarily a theistic version
of it.
But you have not demonstrated how the intelligence doing the designing
can exist without there being a designer.
Post by Mayayana
The view that DNA expression can be changed --
and that those changes may be able to be passed on in
some cases, as a result of environment, behavior, or
even thought -- presents a possibility somewhere in between
the two dueling dogmas of scientific materialism and divine
creativity. (We could, ourselves, be divine creativity in
some sense if our thoughts and actions mold our physical
selves.)
Sorry, but that's not "intelligent design", that's natural selection
with a few bells and whistles.
Post by Mayayana
Many years ago I remember reading about a study
where a man experimented with fish in mountain pools.
Some had markings to blend in with pebbles in their
pool. Some had unpatterned skin to blend in with sand
at the bottom of their pool. It was found that fish
moved between pools could change their skin fairly
quickly to adapt their camouflage. Random mutation can't
account for that, but epigenetics might possibly explain it.
Why invoke "epigenetics" when "chromatophores" fully suffices?
Post by Mayayana
Then there's the question of what intelligence might be.
Are the fish expressing intelligence? We could come up
with numerous ways to view the situation. Maybe the
skin change is triggered by light reflections off the
bottom of the pool. Maybe it's a kind of consciousness
we don't recognize. Maybe we need to expand our
understanding of "God's in the sugar bowl". Whatever it
is, the fish responded "intelligently" to their environment.
I'm sorry, but a chameleon changing color is not evidence of
"intelligent design".
Post by Mayayana
To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
design both provide an important service: They allow us
more space to actually reflect on these things without
being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
"Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
obfuscating the issue.
there is something called "conservation of information"
where did the information we have today come from and where will it go to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_information#Law_of_conservation_of_information
--
Dale
Martin Brown
2014-01-17 11:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mayayana
understanding of "God's in the sugar bowl". Whatever it
is, the fish responded "intelligently" to their environment.
Why do you want to always invent Goddidit magick to explain away
everything that you do not understand? Superstitious medieval mindset!
Post by Dale
Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but a chameleon changing color is not evidence of
"intelligent design".
Post by Mayayana
To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
design both provide an important service: They allow us
more space to actually reflect on these things without
being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
"Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
obfuscating the issue.
there is something called "conservation of information"
where did the information we have today come from and where will it go to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_information#Law_of_conservation_of_information
The "law" you quote is complete bollocks. Try hitting a hard disk with a
sledgehammer as GCHQ are inclined to ask newspapers to do these days!

The simplest self organising redox chemical reaction is so easy to do
and tolerant of the mix ratios that it can be replicated in any high
school chemical laboratory with fairly standard reagents.

Reagents are :

potassium perbromate (oxidiser)
malonic acid (reducer)
cerium sulphate (catalyst)
1M sulphuric acid (solvent)
Ferroin (indicator)

You can run it without the indicator using the Ce(III) colourless and
Ce(IV) yellow as a self indicator in a test tube but in a thin layer you
really do need the indicator to make the rings more visible.

Dissolve equal amounts of perbromate and malonic acid in the 1M
sulphuric and then add a pinch of cerium sulphate and away it goes.



The sad thing was that poor Belousov was not believed in the 1950's when
he tried to publish a paper about his serendipitous discovery and never
gained any credit for his novelty chemical clock reaction. A decade
later Zhabotinsky stumbled on the same mix and it didn't become common
knowledge in the western scientific community until nearly 1970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction

Conway's game of life is another example of extremely simple rules
leading to a dynamical system so complex that it is Turing complete.

Liesgang rings are another well known in this case diffusion limited
self organising structure that occurred in dichromate gelatine when
accidentally contaminated with silver nitrate (actually on topic for
some of the groups this superstitious nutter dross is cross posted to).

http://www.insilico.hu/liesegang/history/history.html

As a footnote autocatalytic reactions in the primordial soup of very
short RNA fragments is one way that life quite possibly got started.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Mayayana
2014-01-16 19:55:47 UTC
Permalink
| > To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
| > design both provide an important service: They allow us
| > more space to actually reflect on these things without
| > being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
|
| "Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
| pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
| obfuscating the issue.

From the point of view of dogma there's only "our side"
and "the opposing side". Anything else is nonsense,
obfuscation, or a stubborn refusal to fight. (You're
saying that I must either accept your terms of battle
or be dismissed as a fool talking nonsense.)

I'm proposing that it could be useful to set aside the
two extremes and think about other possibilities. But
you need to actually try that before you can understand
what I wrote.
J. Clarke
2014-01-17 00:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
| > design both provide an important service: They allow us
| > more space to actually reflect on these things without
| > being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
|
| "Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
| pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
| obfuscating the issue.
From the point of view of dogma there's only "our side"
and "the opposing side". Anything else is nonsense,
obfuscation, or a stubborn refusal to fight. (You're
saying that I must either accept your terms of battle
or be dismissed as a fool talking nonsense.)
I'm proposing that it could be useful to set aside the
two extremes and think about other possibilities. But
you need to actually try that before you can understand
what I wrote.
In other words you want to redefine "intelligent" to "instinctive action
by a fish" and "design" to "happened in reaction to instinctive action
by a fish".
Dale
2014-01-16 16:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
a designer could be all in your head, ever watch the movie "The Matrix",
or hear of the veil of maya?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29#In_Vedanta
--
Dale
Eric Stevens
2014-01-16 08:50:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:25:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
Why not? They can certainly lead to failure.
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
Dale
2014-01-16 09:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:25:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
Why not? They can certainly lead to failure.
you cannot even say something is random unless you run a MANOVA across
ALL the variables in the universe

quantum mechanics, etc., are uncertain, not random, and a strict
empiricist would doubt that and ALL math without statistics

a fact does not mean one sigma, not 2 sigma, not 3 sigma, not 6 sigma,
but 100%
--
Dale
Eric Stevens
2014-01-16 21:34:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:19:39 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:25:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
Why not? They can certainly lead to failure.
you cannot even say something is random unless you run a MANOVA across
ALL the variables in the universe
quantum mechanics, etc., are uncertain, not random, and a strict
empiricist would doubt that and ALL math without statistics
a fact does not mean one sigma, not 2 sigma, not 3 sigma, not 6 sigma,
but 100%
You are evading my response to your initial proposition. Why is that?
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
Martin Brown
2014-01-16 09:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:25:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
Why not? They can certainly lead to failure.
Not only that but these days you can evolve computer solutions to
problems by the same sort of genetic algorithms with sexual
reproduction, random mutations and selection of the fittest.

Natural selection merely ensures that the fittest organisms go on to
reproduce and statistically have more offspring than weaker ones. It
doesn't take many generations to make a noticeable improvement.

100 1% incremental improvements is 270% of the original.


Back in the 1980's Scientific American had an article on evolve your own
simple computer life form that had rather minimal genetics but rapidly
evolved to cope with environmental constraints or else died out.

ISTR in times of plenty with a dense patch of food they spiralled round
tightly to stay on the spot and breed rapidly and in a famine they moved
across the screen in long sweeps to cover the maximum amount of new
ground. It was amazing to watch them evolve (or all expire) as you
altered their food supply availability and very instructive.

There is probably a Matlab simulation out there somewhere. My old
implementation of it was tied to CGA or Hercules graphics cards.

Virtual fruit fly is a descendant of this early work but now includes a
very large number of characteristics in the simulation.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Dale
2014-01-16 10:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:25:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
Why not? They can certainly lead to failure.
Not only that but these days you can evolve computer solutions to
problems by the same sort of genetic algorithms with sexual
reproduction, random mutations and selection of the fittest.
Natural selection merely ensures that the fittest organisms go on to
reproduce and statistically have more offspring than weaker ones. It
doesn't take many generations to make a noticeable improvement.
100 1% incremental improvements is 270% of the original.
Back in the 1980's Scientific American had an article on evolve your own
simple computer life form that had rather minimal genetics but rapidly
evolved to cope with environmental constraints or else died out.
ISTR in times of plenty with a dense patch of food they spiralled round
tightly to stay on the spot and breed rapidly and in a famine they moved
across the screen in long sweeps to cover the maximum amount of new
ground. It was amazing to watch them evolve (or all expire) as you
altered their food supply availability and very instructive.
There is probably a Matlab simulation out there somewhere. My old
implementation of it was tied to CGA or Hercules graphics cards.
Virtual fruit fly is a descendant of this early work but now includes a
very large number of characteristics in the simulation.
thanks
--
Dale
Eric Stevens
2014-01-16 21:37:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:33:10 +0000, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:25:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
Why not? They can certainly lead to failure.
Not only that but these days you can evolve computer solutions to
problems by the same sort of genetic algorithms with sexual
reproduction, random mutations and selection of the fittest.
Genetic algorithms are used to help optimise the design of comples
devices such as gas turbines.
Post by Martin Brown
Natural selection merely ensures that the fittest organisms go on to
reproduce and statistically have more offspring than weaker ones. It
doesn't take many generations to make a noticeable improvement.
100 1% incremental improvements is 270% of the original.
Back in the 1980's Scientific American had an article on evolve your own
simple computer life form that had rather minimal genetics but rapidly
evolved to cope with environmental constraints or else died out.
ISTR in times of plenty with a dense patch of food they spiralled round
tightly to stay on the spot and breed rapidly and in a famine they moved
across the screen in long sweeps to cover the maximum amount of new
ground. It was amazing to watch them evolve (or all expire) as you
altered their food supply availability and very instructive.
There is probably a Matlab simulation out there somewhere. My old
implementation of it was tied to CGA or Hercules graphics cards.
30 years ago!

We are old.
Post by Martin Brown
Virtual fruit fly is a descendant of this early work but now includes a
very large number of characteristics in the simulation.
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
Loading...