Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 29, 2015 at 8:21 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 8:25 pm by Heywood.)
(January 29, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote:
(January 29, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: Nests get replicated. Reproduction is not needed for evolution just replication.
Nests are not replicated, they are constructed. One nest is not made from another.
Replication does not require the next generation to be constructed from the matter that composed the previous generation. I have no idea where you get that idea but its completely asinine. Constructing a copy of something is replication. Birds construct copies of the nest in which they were hatched. They are replicating nests.
(January 29, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote:
(January 29, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: Even biological evolution does not require reproduction. Let me give you an example.
Suppose Craig Venter wants to create himself a bacteria that shits out gasoline. Craig designs himself a bacteria and builds it. He then looks to see if the bacteria he built is shitting out gasoline and notices it isn't so he destroys it. He then has his computer make a small random change to the genome. Craig then builds a 2nd bacteria with this modified genome. Craig looks to see if this modified design of bacteria is shitting out gasoline and notices its isn't so he destroys it.
Now if the initial design of the bacteria shitted out something that was closer to gasoline than the modified design, Craig goes back to that initial design and has his computer preform another random modification to the genome. He builds another bacteria, observes to see if it shits out gasoline....etc.
If the modified design of the bacteria shitted out something that was closer to gasoline than the initial design, Craig keeps this modified design. Craig then has his computer make a 2nd random modification to it. Builds a bacteria and observes to see if it shits out gasoline....etc.
Craig repeats this process, tossing out the random modifications which cause the bacterial shit to be less like gasoline and keeping the modifications which do cause the bacterial shit to be more like gasoline. Eventually Craig will end up with a bacteria that shits out something very close to gasoline. Biology has evolved without reproduction.
This process can be automated and scaled up and in principle not one bacteria ever has to reproduce itself. The bacteria are being replicated via manufacture instead of reproduction. Replication is needed for evolution to happen....not replication by reproduction as you keep(errantly) insisting.
That is not evolution. That is invention; those bacteria are being constructed.
You have once again made a silly example that does not map to biological evolution. You have a profoundly deep misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Here is what evolution is: Imperfect replication of replicators. The rest follows.
Your definition of evolution is narrow minded. Benny claimed that I only look at human evolutionary systems and he is wrong. I'll look an any evolutionary system which satisfies the very reasonable definition I have provided. So lets ask the question, do birds nests evolve.
Are birds nests replicated? Yes this is obviously true.
Do birds nest contain heritable traits? I would say yes because the birds pass on the design from one generation to the next.
Do birds nest change? Yes, one copy is not exactly like another copy.
Is there selection? Yes, the better the nest the more likely the nest is going to be productive.
A birds nest like this is the product of evolution. The system of bird nest evolution requires the intellect of birds.
January 29, 2015 at 8:53 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 9:00 pm by Chas.)
(January 29, 2015 at 8:21 pm)Heywood Wrote:
(January 29, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote: Nests are not replicated, they are constructed. One nest is not made from another.
Replication does not require the next generation to be constructed from the matter that composed the previous generation. I have no idea where you get that idea but its completely asinine.
I didn't say that. Your reading comprehension is decaying.
Quote:Constructing a copy of something is replication. Birds construct copies of the nest in which they were hatched. They are replicating nests.
(January 29, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote: That is not evolution. That is invention; those bacteria are being constructed.
You have once again made a silly example that does not map to biological evolution. You have a profoundly deep misunderstanding of what evolution is.
[/hide]
Here is what evolution is: Imperfect replication of replicators. The rest follows.
Your definition of evolution is narrow minded. Benny claimed that I only look at human evolutionary systems and he is wrong. I'll look an any evolutionary system which satisfies the very reasonable definition I have provided. So lets ask the question, do birds nests evolve.
Are birds nests replicated? Yes this is obviously true.
Do birds nest contain heritable traits? I would say yes because the birds pass on the design from one generation to the next.
Do birds nest change? Yes, one copy is not exactly like another copy.
Is there selection? Yes, the better the nest the more likely the nest is going to be productive.
A birds nest like this is the product of evolution. The system of bird nest evolution requires the intellect of birds.
My definition of evolution is that of the modern synthesis stripped to its essentials. Your misinterpretation of evolution is epic.
You seem to be purposely conflating replication with assembly.
Birds' nests do not reproduce. Your conclusion is utterly stupid.
Why don't you write up your thesis and submit it to a scientific journal for publication?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
January 29, 2015 at 8:56 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 8:58 pm by IATIA.)
Birds with better nests have a higher survival rate. It is the bird that is evolving and the bird's ability that is evolving, not the nest.
(January 29, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote: Here is what evolution is: Imperfect replication of replicators. The rest follows.
One of the most succinct definitions I have seen in quite some time.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
January 29, 2015 at 9:28 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 9:28 pm by Heywood.)
(January 29, 2015 at 8:56 pm)IATIA Wrote: Birds with better nests have a higher survival rate. It is the bird that is evolving and the bird's ability that is evolving, not the nest.
I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation of what is being observed. In fact I have refrained from using bird's nest as an example for quite a long time because it is ambiguous. The bird is evolving but so is the nest. The two systems are linked. Anyway, the reason I bring it up now is because it shows that contrary to Benny and Chas's assertion, I just don't look at evolutionary systems created by humans. I look for things which look like they evolved and then ask how they might have evolved.
For instance, how did we end up with a diversity of minerals we have today? Early earth did not have many kinds minerals....a few hundred maybe. Now there are thousands of different kinds of minerals. Was the system responsible for the increase in the number of different kinds of minerals evolutionary? Well if it is it should contain the following elements:
Replication
Heritable traits
Change
Selection
I don't see them when I think about how the diversity of minerals came to be.
(January 29, 2015 at 8:53 pm)Chas Wrote: My definition of evolution is that of the modern synthesis stripped to its essentials. Your misinterpretation of evolution is epic.
You seem to be purposely conflating replication with assembly.
Birds' nests do not reproduce. Your conclusion is utterly stupid.
Why don't you write up your thesis and submit it to a scientific journal for publication?
Chas your strawmanning is what is utterly stupid. I am defining evolution. You are defining biological evolution. You are trying to say we are talking about the same things but we aren't.
(January 29, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: Chas your strawmanning is what is utterly stupid. I am defining evolution. You are defining biological evolution. You are trying to say we are talking about the same things but we aren't.
I am not strawmanning as I am responding to your thesis which is flawed by your poor definition and understanding of biological evolution.
Your thesis as stated in your first post in this thread is that biological evolution requires intellect because all of the things you call evolution require intellect.
So, since you are not talking about something that adheres to the definition of biological evolution, what you are doing says nothing about biological evolution.
So what is your point?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
(January 29, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: Chas your strawmanning is what is utterly stupid. I am defining evolution. You are defining biological evolution. You are trying to say we are talking about the same things but we aren't.
I am not strawmanning as I am responding to your thesis which is flawed by your poor definition and understanding of biological evolution.
Your thesis as stated in your first post in this thread is that biological evolution requires intellect because all of the things you call evolution require intellect.
So, since you are not talking about something that adheres to the definition of biological evolution, what you are doing says nothing about biological evolution.
So what is your point?
Your definition, that "evolution is the imperfect replication of replicators" fails to adequately describe memetic evolution. Memes don't replicate themselves. Minds replicate memes. You are straw manning because your attacking my argument as if I was only talking about biological evolution when it is clear that I am talking about much more than just biological evolution.
Your fantasy, that there is only biological evolution, is just that....a fantasy. It is not refutation of the argument I have made.
(January 29, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your fantasy, that there is only biological evolution, is just that....a fantasy. It is not refutation of the argument I have made.
From your original post in this thread.
(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.
Your are trying to show that inanimate objects evolve and then 'jump the shark' to bio-evolution. They are not the same. You did not evolve the same as a car. Life evolves without intellect. Life is random imperfect replication that is steered by viability.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
![[Image: 19VZ_VIJ_BIRD_5_19_1589418g.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.thehindu.com%2Fmultimedia%2Fdynamic%2F01589%2F19VZ_VIJ_BIRD_5_19_1589418g.jpg)
