Then go research model based control, cretin, lol.

It describes one of many potential relationships. Things like ever so slightly more curved tissue just happen. They’re mutations.

They happen regardless of whether or not there is some second structure to receive any hypothetically improved information.

Sometimes they don’t happen even when there is.

(August 5, 2019 at 8:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 7:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Ok let's pretend consciousness serves no function. This is for the sake of argument, of course. What is the problem exactly? What is it the brain cannot do to account for "blind" perception? I agree that the eye is not enough for high level perception, so what again is the problem?

Well that's it, basically lol. Thats what the OP was about, that the eye is not enough. And I would like to see an evolutionary narrative that takes the rest of the story into account, because it seems to me the only way to avoid many problems with selection is a simultaneous co-evolution between the components, not a single-stepped, one at a time process. For example, what selective pressure can cause the eye patch to curve, before the animal is able to perceive direction? Or what would cause the perception of direction, before the eye patch begins to curve? It seems to me they have to evolve in sync.

It seems to me more like you lack imagination. Nobody said anything about single-stepped processes. Stuff like this happen gradually (ie, in a slope manner) over a long period of time, and people here have already explained to you the concept of co evolution. That's something you should've learned in biology, though, if you're going to challenge the theory.

(August 5, 2019 at 8:08 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 8:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Well that's it, basically lol. Thats what the OP was about, that the eye is not enough. And I would like to see an evolutionary narrative that takes the rest of the story into account, because it seems to me the only way to avoid many problems with selection is a simultaneous co-evolution between the components, not a single-stepped, one at a time process. For example, what selective pressure can cause the eye patch to curve, before the animal is able to perceive direction? Or what would cause the perception of direction, before the eye patch begins to curve? It seems to me they have to evolve in sync.

It seems to me more like you lack imagination. Nobody said anything about single-stepped processes. Stuff like this happen gradually (ie, in a slope manner) over a long period of time, and people here have already explained to you the concept of co evolution. That's something you should've learned in biology, though, if you're going to challenge the theory.

Well yeah, thats what I meant by single-stepped process. Not that it happens in a single step, but that the steps are single and gradual as opposed to multiple and simultaneous. In other words, by single-stepped I mean the eye evolves first and then brain, or they see-saw back and forth with one another But in a multi-stepped process I mean they evolve together, synchronously, and by the same amount.

I don't know how else to call it without referring steps. And I feel like I've been championing co-evolution on this thread, and arguing for it, but keep being told its all bullocks. So I don't know. I've been under the impression I'm not saying anything controversial, but I keep being told I dont' know what I'm talking about. It is what it is I guess.

Why would they evolve “by the same amount”?

It’s not something we see in evidence.

An incredibly sophisticated secondary system ( and still not predominantly brains) can, has, and does make use of very simple visual systems, and vv. Some exist without the others, even.

(August 5, 2019 at 8:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 7:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Ok let's pretend consciousness serves no function. This is for the sake of argument, of course. What is the problem exactly? What is it the brain cannot do to account for "blind" perception? I agree that the eye is not enough for high level perception, so what again is the problem?

Well that's it, basically lol. Thats what the OP was about, that the eye is not enough. And I would like to see an evolutionary narrative that takes the rest of the story into account, because it seems to me the only way to avoid many problems is simultaneous evolution between the components. For example, what selective pressure can cause the eye patch to curve, before the animal is able to perceive direction? Or what would cause the perception of direction, before the eye patch begins to curve? It seems to me they have to evolve in sync.

Sync implies preplanning.    There is no planning.   This is no synchronization per se.    There is only the physical reality of whether particular variation of this trait can or can't interacts with particular variations of that trait, and whether that interaction confers added survival utility, makes no difference to survival, and diminishes chance of survival.   The chance variation of certain configuration of surface cells that enable them to transmit a signal when light shines upon them interacts favorably with the chance variable of certain configuration of nerve cells to enable the organism take another timely action to better survive, so both of these chance configurations are passed on in genes, while other configuration died.   So the configuration that permitted the favorable interaction is not the new base line.   From the new base line, more variation with the light sensing cells, the nerve cells, and other components occurred.   These too are tested to the value of any interaction they have, and those exhibiting yet more favorable interaction is selected, and form yet another base line.  

Seem  simpler in concept than how homeostasis can actually work, doesn't it?   Or do you not really know how homeostasis works in detail but just like to throw around the jargon as if you did.


The development of the numerous traits needed to make organism that not only sees but perceives  takes on the appearance of synchronized no more by plan   than the innumerable ice crystals involved in an snow avalanche appeared to coordinate their paths to thunder down a gully by plan.  Understood?   They all appear to the untutored imagination as developing in synchrony to achieve a common goal of visual perception because they are all under the same survival constraint that favors better response to information carried by light, much as the avalanche all seem to share the goal of reaching the bottom of the gully not because they synchronized but because gravity and shape of the gully constrained them to move in this way,   understood?

No?  Of course not.



Of course not.

Coevolution, the new big word coopted for a small minded mistake, does not imply, even at the macro scale, that the two structures or species are at levels of parity.

One can be much better adapted than the other for the environment or task at hand. The rest of earths animals are feeling this pain right now.

What’s their destination? Death?

When creationist blab about how the eye can evolve in sync with the mind, they betray a colloquial perception that is totally at odds with any trained understanding of biology. Organs are for convenience of study because of particulars of human hardwire for cognition. Organs don't exist as independent entities that somehow "synchronizes" with others. They are all as integral parts of the organism as one photoreceptor cells is an integral part of a retina. Only thing that affects evolution is whether the configuration of the entire organism as one single whole, all interaction between all of its particular parts considered, favors survival or it doesn't. There is no such thing as synchronizing because they don't act independently.

(August 5, 2019 at 8:16 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 8:08 pm)Grandizer Wrote: It seems to me more like you lack imagination. Nobody said anything about single-stepped processes. Stuff like this happen gradually (ie, in a slope manner) over a long period of time, and people here have already explained to you the concept of co evolution. That's something you should've learned in biology, though, if you're going to challenge the theory.

Well yeah, thats what I meant by single-stepped process. Not that it happens in a single step, but that the steps are single and gradual as opposed to multiple and simultaneous. In other words, by single-stepped I mean the eye evolves first and then brain, or they see-saw back and forth with one another But in a multi-stepped process I mean they evolve together, synchronously, and by the same amount.

I don't know how else to call it without referring steps. And I feel like I've been championing co-evolution on this thread, and arguing for it, but keep being told its all bullocks. So I don't know. I've been under the impression I'm not saying anything controversial, but I keep being told I dont' know what I'm talking about. It is what it is I guess.

I don't see the problem personally. Back and forth alternating changes of varying degrees between two organs or two species work just as fine as long as this still allows for the organism(s) to be well adapted to the surrounding environment, and to survive and produce offspring that will inherit the combination and via time and chance have more refined combinations through successive generations.

(August 5, 2019 at 8:21 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Sync implies preplanning.    There is no planning.   This is no synchronization per se.    There is only the physical reality of whether particular variation of this trait can or can't interacts with particular variations of that trait, and whether that interaction confers added survival utility, makes no difference to survival, and diminishes chance of survival.   The chance variation of certain configuration of surface cells that enable them to transmit a signal when light shines upon them interacts favorably with the chance variable of certain configuration of nerve cells to enable the organism take another timely action to better survive, so both of these chance configurations are passed on in genes, while other configuration died.   So the configuration that permitted the favorable interaction is not the new base line.   From the new base line, more variation with the light sensing cells, the nerve cells, and other components occurred.   These too are tested to the value of any interaction they have, and those exhibiting yet more favorable interaction is selected, and form yet another base line.  

Seem  simpler in concept than how homeostasis can actually work, doesn't it?   Or do you not really know how homeostasis works in detail but just like to throw around the jargon as if you did.


The development of the numerous traits needed to make organism that not only sees but perceives  takes on the appearance of synchronized no more by plan   than the innumerable ice crystals involved in an snow avalanche appeared to coordinate their paths to thunder down a gully by plan.  Understood?   They all appear to the untutored imagination as developing in synchrony to achieve a common goal of visual perception because they are all under the same survival constraint that favors better response to information carried by light, much as the avalanche all seem to share the goal of reaching the bottom of the gully not because they synchronized but because gravity and shape of the gully constrained them to move in this way,   understood?

No?  Of course not.



Of course not.

I see nothing in synchronicity that implies planning, nor do I recall mentioning anything about planning. What do you gain by creating strawmen besides wasting both our times?

Unfortunately, you weren't clear about the timing of chance variations, thanks to your random fight against plans. What do you mean by "appear synchronized?" Are you saying they occur simultaneously or not? I don't know how something can appear synchronized, as you say, without occurring simultaneously. So please elaborate, because no, I don't understand.

(August 5, 2019 at 2:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 5, 2019 at 2:27 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: No way. You are claiming that an evolutionary "destination" exists. Therefore it is your burden to demonstrate such a destination exists. Put up or shut up.

Certainly, given that a destination can be identified by some state of rest, you can observe these states in many difference places. For example, this video of e. coli and antibiotics. Each stage of antibiotic concentration, leads to a new possible or ultimate destination. Some of the bacteria can't go further, because the antibiotics messes with their homeostatic balance, killing the bacteria. Their end state goes only as far as whatever concentration they can tolerate. Other bacteria that are more resistant find their state of rest at a higher concentration. They are in essence pushed there by en excess in the population at lower concentrations, and an absence of population at higher concentration, mixed with the internal adaptation to survive at that concentration. Hope that helps you understand selection and adaptation, and how they result in states of balance.

Bwahahahahaha. Evolution does not exist because evolution exists. That is some rock solid thinking you have there, not.