(August 4, 2019 at 7:45 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(August 4, 2019 at 7:36 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: ........ I fail to see how selection and adaptation doesn't lead to states of homeostasis between an organism and its environment, and you fail to give any good arguments against it besides repeating its not a biological fact. This wasn't even the point of OP so its not a hill I care to die on.

Hello Mr Breezy.  

Could you, perhaps, give an explanation of "Environmental homeostasis" of which you speak?

Cheers.

Now that I think about it, the "environmental homeostasis" I had in mind is just the straight forward biological homeostasis you learn in any introductory class. So "environmental" is redundant.

As for an explanation, living organisms need to maintain a balanced difference between their interior and the exterior environments to live and function. That difference goes away when an organism dies, and hence they slowly decompose and become indistinguishable from the environment. So maintaining that difference is the purpose of homeostasis, and maintaining homeostasis is the purpose of behavior and adaptation. Homeostasis is a balancing act that keeps the organism and environment separate. If an organism is not adapted to its environment homeostasis cannot be maintained and the animal most likely dies.

P.S.

I think its worth noting that even the death of an organism or the extinction of a species, functions as a state of rest or "destination" as well. So the way I would illustrate it, is with a staircase. Each step is a homeostatic "pocket" where the animal can survive in a specific environment given its infrastructure. Some organisms are higher up the staircase than others. And some are extinct on the ground.

(August 4, 2019 at 7:36 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 4, 2019 at 7:22 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: It doesn’t matter why you’re proposing the thing you are, the proposal is not a part of evolutionary theory or any biological fact.

Determinism and fatalism are not interchangeable.  As you refer to their being a “set of tracks” that would be fatalism.

Then lets agree to disagree. I fail to see how selection and adaptation doesn't lead to states of homeostasis between an organism and its environment, and you fail to give any good arguments against it besides repeating its not a biological fact. This wasn't even the point of OP so its not a hill I care to die on.

There would have to be stasis in the creature and the environment individually before there were the possibility of some mutual stasis.

Think that over. Just the pure implausibility of it. An unchanging world. Then remember that mutations occur. An unchanging world with unchanging creatures.

Neither of these things describe our world, or our biology.

(August 4, 2019 at 8:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(August 4, 2019 at 7:36 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Then lets agree to disagree. I fail to see how selection and adaptation doesn't lead to states of homeostasis between an organism and its environment, and you fail to give any good arguments against it besides repeating its not a biological fact. This wasn't even the point of OP so its not a hill I care to die on.

There would have to be stasis in the creature and the environment individually before there were the possibility of some mutual stasis.

Think that over.  Just the pure implausibility of it.  An unchanging world.  Then remember that mutations occur.  An unchanging world with unchanging creatures.

Neither of these things describe our world, or our biology.

I don't see the implausibility of it. For one, equilibrium doesn't imply an absence of change: planetary orbits, oscillations, cycles, are all balanced movements. So perhaps the destination of a species is stasis for some, and some sort of cyclical loop for others. 

To throw more wood into the fire, I wouldn't doubt if even mutations go away. The more balanced an organism is with its environment the more likely a mutation is to knock it off balance than to improve it. So I wouldn't doubt it if species eventually evolve safeguards against mutations. Our own genes already have redundancy built into them, as well as other mechanisms that attempt to correct unwanted mutations.

Oh my god. This fucking eye shit. I can't even read it. Be original.

Go away?

Mutations don’t go away, the creatures and populations carrying them may go extinct or fail to pass them on.

Mutations aren’t wanted or unwanted. There is no want. They happen.

Again, there is no destination. You keep talking about perhaps this perhaps that. “Destinations” simply isn’t how we observe biology to act. Being incapable of adaptation isn’t even a perceptual kind of destination or improvement or balance. It’s just the text on a populations tombstone.

Your perhaps-es refer to some other world, some other biology. That’s not evolutionary theory’s problem.

@John 6IX Breezy

I thought you were a Christian?

(August 4, 2019 at 8:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @John 6IX Breezy

I thought you were a Christian?

Seventh Day Adventist and a student of Psychology. Talk among yourselves!

(August 4, 2019 at 8:37 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Go away?

Mutations don’t go away, the creatures and populations carrying them may go extinct or fail to pass them on.

Mutations aren’t wanted or unwanted.  There is no want.  They happen.

Again, there is no destination.  You keep talking about perhaps this perhaps that.  “Destinations” simply isn’t how we observe biology to act.  Being incapable of adaptation isn’t even a perceptual kind of destination or improvement or balance. It’s just the text on a populations tombstone.

Your perhaps-es refer to some other world, some other biology.  That’s not evolutionary theory’s problem.

Mutations do happen, but for reasons that will be diminished and protected against, as can be observed with codon degeneracy. Destinations do exist, as can be observed by the interplay between selection and adaptation. But again, agree to disagree.

We either work from a common basis of fact, or we don’t.

Your issue with evolutionary theory appears to be that you are unsatisfied with facts of biology or this world, and prefer some other biology and some other world.

Your problem, not a problem for evolutionary theory.

(August 4, 2019 at 8:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @John 6IX Breezy

I thought you were a Christian?

I wasn't aware that being Christian gave me any insight into how eyes were created. At most Christianity claims by whom, not how, it was created. Not that any of this even matters to the OP, which I don't recall mentions anything about God, Creation, or Christianity.

---

(August 4, 2019 at 8:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: We either work from a common basis of fact, or we don’t.

Your issue with evolutionary theory appears to be that you are unsatisfied with facts of biology or this world, and prefer some other biology and some other world.

Your problem, not a problem for evolutionary theory.

Most disagreements between people have little to do with facts, and more to do with how they are interpreted. And no, so far I've spent most of our conversations disagreeing with you, not evolution. If anything, I've been defending the theory. I would be content is someone takes what I mentioned in the OP, and develops a better explanation for the evolution of vision that accounts for the rest of the visual system. I would love a theory of evolution that was actually intelligible.