Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A straight line is only the shortest distance between two points on a plane. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere, for example, is a curved line.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Euclid.

Boru

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Period. 
Conceptually, any alternative conclusion is impossible to conceive. 

You didn't accept curved space on account of intuition/ comprehension. It doesn't "really" make sense to your mind. 
You bought it because one particular model of physics demands that mumbo jumbo.

You can test it with a ball and a Sharpie.

And yes, a lot of physics is counter-intuitive - always has been. So what?

Boru

[Jal]

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Period. 
Conceptually, any alternative conclusion is impossible to conceive. 

You didn't accept curved space on account of intuition/ comprehension. It doesn't "really" make sense to your mind. 
You bought it because one particular model of physics demands that mumbo jumbo.

You can test it with a ball and a Sharpie.

And yes, a lot of physics is counter-intuitive - always has been. So what?

Boru

No, you can't "test" gibberish. The test proves what - proves gibberish? 

When faced with a counter-intuitive postulate, it's probably worthwhile to try to decide whether:
(A) This conclusion merely "sounds" weird.
(B) This conclusion is clearly self-contradictory, or contradicts reality as we know it.

I have no objection to the use of Einstein's models in applied science. But this doesn't mean you have to take them literally! 
Newton didnt' take his theory of gravity literally! He said you'd have to be a fool to do that. 

The risk of taking a model literally is that, if the model turns out to be an imperfect representation of the real world, then some of your results and conclusions could be misleading (i.e. scientific hallucinations). 

So for example, it might someday turn out that dark matter doesn't really exist.  That may be a dumb example, as I don't know anything about dark matter, but maybe you get my point.

[OakTree500]

I'm not getting your point. Your giraffe example seems moot. You provide a scenario where Natural Selection would likely suffice while conveniently ignoring the scenarios in my OP  - scenarios critically dependent on the ability to rapid-respond to needs and danger (instead of waiting in vain for the Universe's domino-effect to randomly, blindly, and fortuitously shove the mammal in the needed direction at the right instant in time).

So I support that ultimately IS the point - that giraffe example, didn't happen over night, it still would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to happen, and even there - there was a chance the giraffe didn't have a mutation that allowed some of them to live at all - which in this case is ultimately "randomly, blindly shoving the mammal in the needed direction".

The way evolution works is: there is no "needed direction". Just multiple things happening all at once, and the ones living long enough pass on their genes. Those genes may not get passed on at all [then they die] and those that do get passed on, aren't necessarily to benefit of the animal in question, which may then also lead them to die off in different circumstances further down the line - Its a very large shit show of a process that occours based entirely round "chance"

[Jal]

And No, you can't use a ball and a sharpie to establish an exception to the rule that the shortest distance is a straight line.

[Jal]

I'm not getting your point. Your giraffe example seems moot. You provide a scenario where Natural Selection would likely suffice while conveniently ignoring the scenarios in my OP  - scenarios critically dependent on the ability to rapid-respond to needs and danger (instead of waiting in vain for the Universe's domino-effect to randomly, blindly, and fortuitously shove the mammal in the needed direction at the right instant in time).

So I support that ultimately IS the point - that giraffe example, didn't happen over night, it still would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to happen, and even there - there was a chance the giraffe didn't have a mutation that allowed some of them to live at all - which in this case is ultimately "randomly, blindly shoving the mammal in the needed direction".

The way evolution works is: there is no "needed direction". Just multiple things happening all at once, and the ones living long enough pass on their genes. Those genes may not get passed on at all [then they die] and those that do get passed on, aren't necessarily to benefit of the animal in question, which may then also lead them to die off in different circumstances further down the line - Its a very large shit show of a process that occours based entirely round "chance"

In that case your giraffe example only proves that some changes, being less urgent, might succeed over thousands of years.

But when I get thirsty, I  need to go find water NOW. I can't wait thousands of years.

[OakTree500]

But when I get thirsty, I  need to go find water NOW. I can't wait thousands of years.

The evolution part is having thirst for water like, at all.

You've had the signal that says "you need to drink some water" - and if you don't drink, that is your choice [being a human being who can actively ignore such a thing until you are about to die really]

Thirst as a point would have been something that evolved over time as well - as in, there would have been organisms that needed water and a chemical signal to the brain to say "you should drink something now" didn't evolve and they died. The fact you have thirst in the first place shows that evolution has occurred because you have the ability to be thirsty. 

Some organisms will have naturally hydrated, for one reason or another, while other organisms will have died off entirely because they didn't - many shared "chemical signals" prove we have a common ancestor to some degree also.

[Jal]

But when I get thirsty, I  need to go find water NOW. I can't wait thousands of years.

Sure - but you having "thirst" is not evolution. The evolution part is having thirst for water like, at all.

You've had the signal that says "you need to drink some water" - and if you don't drink, that is your choice [being a human being who can actively ignore such a thing until you are about to die really]

Thirst as a point would have been something that evolved over time as well - as in, there would have been organisms that needed water and a chemical signal to the brain to say "you should drink something now" didn't evolve and they died. The fact you have thirst in the first place shows that evolution has occurred because you have the ability to be thirsty. 

Some organisms will have naturally hydrated, for one reason or another, while other organisms will have died off entirely because they didn't - many shared "chemical signals" prove we have a common ancestor to some degree also.

How many species of mammal would survive even 1 year if they could no longer respond to thirst?

Again, you can't rely on a blind domino effect to take you to those destinations, as I exemplified in my movie-theater scenario at post 320.

Suppose for instance that, a domino effect happened to bring an animal near water. But woops! Today it has to stand in line because 10 animals got there first. Will the dominos play out in its favor? Or will they happen to push the animal in a different direction before it gets a chance to drink?  Or suppose the dominos, on yesterday, happened to incline its back and neck to the EXACT ANGLE needed to drink water. Yesterday it was so lucky! But today, due to overnight rain, the water level is 5 inches higher. NOW its entire face plunges into the water, and it drowns! 

Look there are too many fortuitous factors involved in everyday life for a species to survive on blind causality. Again, as I laid out in post 320, the phenomenology of mammalian behavior defies deterministic explanations. Said behavior is only explained by libertarian free will.

[OakTree500]

How many species of mammal would survive even 1 year if they could no longer respond to thirst?

Again, you can't rely on a blind domino effect to take you to those destinations, as I exemplified in my movie-theater scenario at post 320.

Suppose for instance that, a domino effect happened to bring an animal near water. But woops! Today it has to stand in line because 10 animals got there first. Will the dominos play out in its favor? Or will they happen to push the animal in a different direction before it gets a chance to drink?  Or suppose the dominos, on yesterday, happened to incline its back and neck to the EXACT ANGLE needed to drink water. Yesterday it was so lucky! But today, due to overnight rain, the water level is 5 inches higher. NOW its entire face plunges into the water, and it drowns! 

Look there are too many fortuitous factors involved in everyday life for a species to survive on blind causality. Again, as I laid out in post 320, the phenomenology of mammalian behavior defies deterministic explanations. Said behavior is only explained by libertarian free will.

Ok, dude....there is a lot to unpack here:

Maybe one more attempt to make sure you understand me.

Last night I hungered to see a movie.  I personally doubt that the Universe cares whether I goto a movie, I don't think it will adjust its domino effect to help me accomplish that.

Yet oddly enough, my body started donning attire, it pocketed the wallet, grabbed the keys, it ambled to the car, availed of navigation, parked at the theater,  purchased a ticket, used the facilities, found the correct auditorium, and pointed its eyes toward the screen.

Coincidentally, that entire set of dominos (i.e. actions) just HAPPENED  to fall AT THE SAME MOMENT that I happened to hungered for a movie.  Lucky me! Because if this deterministic Universe had just so happened to move my body in a DIFFERENT direction, my hunger to see a movie would never have been satiated.

Either I am going to believe in:
(A) Libertarian free will that moves my body toward the movie theater..
(B) An amazing set of coincidences that happen to CONSISTENTLY land me in the theater every time I hunger to see a movie.

I'm going with theory A. And if you still don't get why, I don't think I can do more to explain it.  Again, we'll agree to disagree

You didn't "hunger" to see a movie, you had a personal desire........which is evolution, because doing something that makes you feel happy, is rewarding - you brain release chemicals that make you feel better.

The universe itself, doesn't give a shit, but over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, humans [and other animals] evolved so that when you perform a specific action, you are "rewarded" with the feel good hormones in your brain - human beings obviously take this much further because we are more 'conscious' of what we do/why/when we do something but the premise is the same: you wanted to see a movie, because subconsciously you know that makes you feel "good". Its the reason why we do anything [what we would refer to be] positive on any day of the week - this is also why you can fall into the trap of over eating/drinking too much, because those sensations make you feel good, and you crave that reward more and more.
 
Thats literally it - I think you're confusing several pre-evolved things with what you think evolution is/how it works

Thirst is an example: "thirst" as a feeling you have, have already come to be - all animals have thirst, thats why you drink. Those that didn't have thirst as a sensation, are dead, thus cannot pass on that trait. You seem to believe animals will just "lose" the trait overnight, which wouldn't happen - you would need to be born without it, and pass on that trait over the course of generations upon generations. ANY change does/has/will take millions up millions of years of reproduction for that trait to become universal among a species of animal - those without those traits are already long dead OR will either die because of it/be bread out of the bloodline eventually. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your point is on this.

[Angrboda]

How to understand curved spacetime for our smooth-brained friends.





Curved spacetime needs no space pixies to make planets orbit in an ellipse.   No invisible forces needed!

Curved space is mumbo jumbo. Please don't pretend that anyone comprehends that term.
So the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line? Got it.

What about it specifically is mumbo jumbo? Be specific. Otherwise this is just hand-waving.

And you've still got the problem with your double standard that you dismiss well-evidenced science while giving a pass to all sorts of crackpot shit.

[Jal]

Curved space is mumbo jumbo. Please don't pretend that anyone comprehends that term.
So the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line? Got it.

What about it specifically is mumbo jumbo?  Be specific.  Otherwise this is just hand-waving.

And you've still got the problem with your double standard that you dismiss well-evidenced science while giving a pass to all sorts of crackpot shit.

I was quite specific. It is impossible for the human mind to imagine two points in space where the shortest distance is not a straight line.