Perspectives on Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

---

If I told you my bucket pool was the contents of two buckets, is it suddenly not a thing.  Does the water disappear or something..when there's more than one bucket?  

If there were an indeterminate number of buckets, and their contents were not known, then we'd have a problem defining what it means to be one of your buckets, perhaps.

Hardly.  We don't need to know the exact contents of the buckets  (no matter how many there are) to call whats in them the bucket pool.  I take it you don't think that the water disappaears, and that it is a thing.   Excellent.  So, too, are the genetics which make up any given gene pool, however many organisms we include in it.....whether we've sequenced them or not.

 
So, if i added specificity..like..the gene pool of species x, or of subspecies y, or of all species.........and then I started adding species z...or subtracting some........

I'm not sure how to respond to this.  How do you add a gene pool?  You don't have access to the genetic information of the entire group, only a select number of individual members.

Adding species, you're 0/2 in this response..but sure, you can add another gene pool all you like. You can consider one gene pool, then add a bunch of other, unrelated organisms, and you'll have two gene pools to consider....I'm taking that as a cue that you're done.

You're on to "but you don't know every organisms sequence". That's true, but only an issue of practicality and nothing to do with whether or not a gene pool is a thing. Whether I know the sequence or not, the organisms in question clearly have genes, lol..the total stock of which is a gene pool.

If I sequenced four mice, two male and two female, and put them in a box to screw.....I'd know the gene pool of the entire breeding population of the box. I'd have to sequence every new mouse...because there would be changes to that pool. I wouldn;t -have- to sequence every mouse to know that there was a change in the gene pool, ofc. I could just refer to a single gene...hell, I could count the white vs mottled mice. Unless the box is full and filling with clones, the gene pool will change from generation to generation.

Have you, by chance, ever grown an heirloom tomato, or..conversely, attempted to grow from hybrid seed?

[bennyboy]

Hardly.  We don't need to know the exact contents of the buckets  (no matter how many there are) to call whats in them the bucket pool.  I take it you don't think that the water disappaears, and that it is a thing.   Excellent.  So, too, are the genetics which make up any given gene pool, however many organisms we include in it.....whether we've sequenced them or not.

My view is that evolution is a statistical descriptive term, not an actual process. Members of the set of "Human" drop and get added, and the sum DNA must shift this way and that; to me, evolution isn't "happening," and cannot be said to be a process.

Let's say you were driving a spaceship, and as you passed between galaxies, you had different readings of the materials within scanner range of your ship. You could say that the composition is "changing," but is it? Yes, in a relative sense, no in an absolute sense: because none of the things you are measuring are in a state of flux.

Or if you take a core sample from the Earth, you can say how the mineral composition "changes" as you go deeper and deeper. But it isn't, really, because it's your perspective that changes, not the actual thing.

Evolution is much like this-- we are taking completely new samples, and comparing them to previous samples. The change is perceptual.

But I think in the end the thing you and I are now talking about that is the semantics of "thing." It seems you think a thing is whatever a person chooses to imagine. If I start talking about "all red Smarties," then that is now a thing. Okay, we can say all genes, or all human genes, are a thing in that sense. But I'd still say that thing isn't undergoing a process. Each time the membership of that set changes, we have a new thing: Red-Smarties-Set-1, Red-Smarties-Set-2, and so on, and that what we are really talking about is a meta-thing: Smarties-ness or whatever. That is a metaphorical God-of-Red-Smarties, much like the Archetypal Man I mentioned in the OP.

In short, a species doesn't "adapt," it just gets replaced by a new set of members of the species which are better adapted.

[Succubus]

My view is that evolution is a statistical descriptive term, not an actual process.  Members of the set of "Human" drop and get added, and the sum DNA must shift this way and that; to me, evolution isn't "happening," and cannot be said to be a process.  

Let's say you were driving a spaceship, and as you passed between galaxies, you had different readings of the materials within scanner range of your ship.  You could say that the composition is "changing," but is it?  Yes, in a relative sense, no in an absolute sense: because none of the things you are measuring are in a state of flux.

Or if you take a core sample from the Earth, you can say how the mineral composition "changes" as you go deeper and deeper.  But it isn't, really, because it's your perspective that changes, not the actual thing.

Evolution is much like this-- we are taking completely new samples, and comparing them to previous samples.  The change is perceptual.

But I think in the end the thing you and I are now talking about that is the semantics of "thing."  It seems you think a thing is whatever a person chooses to imagine.  If I start talking about "all red Smarties," then that is now a thing.  Okay, we can say all genes, or all human genes, are a thing in that sense.  But I'd still say that thing isn't undergoing a process.  Each time the membership of that set changes, we have a new thing: Red-Smarties-Set-1, Red-Smarties-Set-2, and so on, and that what we are really talking about is a meta-thing: Smarties-ness or whatever.  That is a metaphorical God-of-Red-Smarties, much like the Archetypal Man I mentioned in the OP.

In short, a species doesn't "adapt," it just gets replaced by a new set of members of the species which are better adapted.

No.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In fact the word evolution was made popular first when it was used to refer to the step by step process of change in troops or naval ship formation as they deploy from March to battle during the 16-18th centuries.

When I was in the service, it was still used to refer to any generic exercise which involved adapting to circumstances -- i.e., rolling up to the fire scene, grabbing the hydrant was an evolution. It wasn't universal, but sitll widely used enough so that the meaning was understood parlance.

[The Grand Nudger]

My view is that evolution is a statistical descriptive term, not an actual process.  Members of the set of "Human" drop and get added, and the sum DNA must shift this way and that; to me, evolution isn't "happening," and cannot be said to be a process.  

Failing to object to a gene pool being a thing, you're now quibbling about whether or not evolution is a process...that happens to that thing.  

You're quibbling with what can be and has been demonstrated.......the theory of evolution...is not the idea that change occurs in a gene pool........that's one of the supporting facts.

Let's say you were driving a spaceship, and as you passed between galaxies, you had different readings of the materials within scanner range of your ship.  You could say that the composition is "changing," but is it?  Yes, in a relative sense, no in an absolute sense: because none of the things you are measuring are in a state of flux.

Just yes, Benny.  The composition of the material outside of your spaceship changes.....as your spaceship goes to different locations...with different shit in them. Just as if you drive your car through a city, there are different people all around your car. The people around you, like the rocks around you..aren't "changing in a relative sense" unless this is a weasel term with no specific meaning in context other than what was already implied in being in a moving vehicle. A useless deepity if ever there were one...and not even remotely competent as an objection to evolution being a process of change.

Or if you take a core sample from the Earth, you can say how the mineral composition "changes" as you go deeper and deeper.  But it isn't, really, because it's your perspective that changes, not the actual thing.

If you say so.

Evolution is much like this-- we are taking completely new samples, and comparing them to previous samples.  The change is perceptual.

You're right, it's perceptual..it's not like anything grew wings and flew or anything......jesus fucking christ. Is the difference between me and my children "perceptual"..or are you willing to allow that they are not clones?

But I think in the end the thing you and I are now talking about that is the semantics of "thing."  It seems you think a thing is whatever a person chooses to imagine.  If I start talking about "all red Smarties," then that is now a thing.  Okay, we can say all genes, or all human genes, are a thing in that sense.  But I'd still say that thing isn't undergoing a process.  Each time the membership of that set changes, we have a new thing: Red-Smarties-Set-1, Red-Smarties-Set-2, and so on, and that what we are really talking about is a meta-thing: Smarties-ness or whatever.  That is a metaphorical God-of-Red-Smarties, much like the Archetypal Man I mentioned in the OP.

In short, a species doesn't "adapt," it just gets replaced by a new set of members of the species which are better adapted.

You -started- with loon semantics..and haven't stopped.  Yes, species adapt.  Being replaced by better adapted members is -how- that species adapts. This is natural selection..part of the process we call evolution.

[bennyboy]

Failing to object to a gene pool being a thing, you're now quibbling about whether or not evolution is a process...that happens to that thing.  

I do object, but if you want to call it a thing, then that's just how you use the word. You can call every 3rd Sunday a thing if you want, but it doesn't really do much for your argument.

You're quibbling with what can be and has been demonstrated.......the theory of evolution...is not the idea that change occurs in a gene pool........that's one of the supporting facts.

Are you sure you're responding to me? That's not how I define evolution.

Just yes, Benny.  The composition of the material outside of your spaceship changes.....as your spaceship goes to different locations...with different shit in them.  Just as if you drive your car through a city, there are different people all around your car.  The people around you, like the rocks around you..aren't "changing in a relative sense" unless this is a weasel term with no specific meaning in context other than what was already implied in being in a moving vehicle.  A useless deepity if ever there were one...and not even remotely competent as an objection to evolution being a process of change.

No it's not. There's no process by which the things outside the spaceship change except perspective. You are moving THROUGH glass clouds, PAST stars, and so on-- they are not morphing in complex ways around your ship for your entertainment.

Or if you take a core sample from the Earth, you can say how the mineral composition "changes" as you go deeper and deeper.  But it isn't, really, because it's your perspective that changes, not the actual thing.

If you say so.

Pretty sure I just did. Your core sample is a static object, and it does not change based on where you choose to move your eyes-- or do you think it does?

You're right, it's perceptual..it's not like anything grew wings and flew or anything......jesus fucking christ.  Is the difference between me and my children "perceptual"..or are you willing to allow that they are not clones?

You and your children are different objects. You did not change into them.

You -started- with loon semantics..and haven't stopped.  Yes, species adapt.  Being replaced by better adapted members is -how- that species adapts. This is natural selection..part of the process we call evolution.

Then a species is not the sum total of members matching a genetic blueprint or a phenotype. Your bucket is broken.

If you put your bucket over your head, would you claim that the world got dark? Or would you say-- nothing's just, I just can't see the same things because my perspective is now inside a bucket?

[Anomalocaris]

Hardly.  We don't need to know the exact contents of the buckets  (no matter how many there are) to call whats in them the bucket pool.  I take it you don't think that the water disappaears, and that it is a thing.   Excellent.  So, too, are the genetics which make up any given gene pool, however many organisms we include in it.....whether we've sequenced them or not.

My view is that evolution is a statistical descriptive term, not an actual process.  Members of the set of "Human" drop and get added, and the sum DNA must shift this way and that; to me, evolution isn't "happening," and cannot be said to be a process.  

Let's say you were driving a spaceship, and as you passed between galaxies, you had different readings of the materials within scanner range of your ship.  You could say that the composition is "changing," but is it?  Yes, in a relative sense, no in an absolute sense: because none of the things you are measuring are in a state of flux.

Or if you take a core sample from the Earth, you can say how the mineral composition "changes" as you go deeper and deeper.  But it isn't, really, because it's your perspective that changes, not the actual thing.

Evolution is much like this-- we are taking completely new samples, and comparing them to previous samples.  The change is perceptual.

But I think in the end the thing you and I are now talking about that is the semantics of "thing."  It seems you think a thing is whatever a person chooses to imagine.  If I start talking about "all red Smarties," then that is now a thing.  Okay, we can say all genes, or all human genes, are a thing in that sense.  But I'd still say that thing isn't undergoing a process.  Each time the membership of that set changes, we have a new thing: Red-Smarties-Set-1, Red-Smarties-Set-2, and so on, and that what we are really talking about is a meta-thing: Smarties-ness or whatever.  That is a metaphorical God-of-Red-Smarties, much like the Archetypal Man I mentioned in the OP.

In short, a species doesn't "adapt," it just gets replaced by a new set of members of the species which are better adapted.

Yes. You don’t “age”. Your cells get replaced by a new set of cells which are more decrepit. In fact you don’t even exist as a person, but a statistical phenomenon. That which was you is mostly gone. A whole new set of cells in poorer condition now make up a new bag of mostly water that had stolen your identity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Failing to object to a gene pool being a thing, you're now quibbling about whether or not evolution is a process...that happens to that thing.  

I do object, but if you want to call it a thing, then that's just how you use the word.  You can call every 3rd Sunday a thing if you want, but it doesn't really do much for your argument.

Ofc you do.

Are you sure you're responding to me?  That's not how I define evolution.

Surprise, surprise.

No it's not.  There's no process by which the things outside the spaceship change except perspective.  You are moving THROUGH glass clouds, PAST stars, and so on-- they are not morphing in complex ways around your ship for your entertainment.

The answer is still "just yes"...is this what you -really- wanted to find somebody to bicker with about, though?  You have word use concerns entirely divorced from evolutionary biology.  

Pretty sure I just did.  Your core sample is a static object, and it does not change based on where you choose to move your eyes-- or do you think it does?

You'll have to find some loon who thinks it does to complain to.

You and your children are different objects.  You did not change into them.

Excellent, then QED, a change to the gene pool has been demonstrated.  The stock of genes did not contain my child's sequence, now it does.  OFC I didn't "change into my children".....but........where the hell does that come from in the first place? Do I even want to know...or will it be more of this?

You -started- with loon semantics..and haven't stopped.  Yes, species adapt.  Being replaced by better adapted members is -how- that species adapts. This is natural selection..part of the process we call evolution.

Then a  species is not the sum total of members matching a genetic blueprint or a phenotype.  Your bucket is broken.

A straight up loon non-seq.  Your brain is broken, Benny..not evolutionary biology, not the evolutionary process, not the gene pool, not the classification of species, and not my bucket.  

If you put your bucket over your head, would you claim that the world got dark?  Or would you say-- nothing's just, I just can't see the same things because my perspective is now inside a bucket?

I think that you might want to put a bucket over your head for shame.........

I find it impossible to put up with this much idiocy from you, man, lol. I have higher standards for you than for any of the random evolution objecting loons we get. They have a god affliction, their objections are a symptom of their condition.

[bennyboy]

Yes.  You don’t “age”.   Your cells get replaced by a new set of cells which are more decrepit. In fact you don’t even exist as a person, but a statistical phenomenon. That which was you is mostly gone.  A whole new set of cells in poorer condition now make up a new bag of mostly water that had stolen your identity.

Now you're getting somewhere!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gotta loves sophomore philosophy students.