Is the Cambrian Explosion the End of Phyla Evolution?

[talus]

Convergent Evolution

Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It seems none emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Evolution could not have formed life.

The selection of a miniscule fraction (the one out of 10³⁷⁸) of protein combinations that function for life from the vast number of possible combinations that function cannot have been by random point mutations on the DNA of the genome. It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion, billion, billion… (repeated forty times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated this same trick a trillion times! If proteins generation were a random process, then as with random word generation, the results would also be gibberish, but with life to form it would be fatal gibberish.

Are you familiar with the phenomena of convergent evolution? It seems that nature provides a format for rigorous statistical testing of evolution.

It seems that the emergence of organs similar in shape or function in animals of different species is convergent evolution. Such organs are designated as homologous if they arise by inheritance from common descent. The organs are analogous if the similarities satisfy the same need or function but were formed by independent evolutionary paths, rather than by a common ancestry. It seems from the graphs posted earlier demonstrate that nature's test for evolution failed.

 

[Zero]

Quoting Behe?

*yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Quoting Behe? *yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.

Sorry to bore you but I did not quote Dr. Behe. But you are right in one respect, you are wasting both your times as it appears that you cannot discuss things that disprove your truths.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It seems none emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Evolution could not have formed life.

Nah, it was just cheaper and easier to fill the empty niches with peripheral modification of the surviving phyla. This whole argument of yours is just built around a belief that your analysis of something in the past is the only cogent one, and frankly, my dear, it isn't.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid: ... calibrated.With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, theory formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date. [/color]

talus: Nereid you might just find that the new science theory dealing with multi-cellular life could result in all previous data and observations amassed to date as erroneous and obsolete as abiogenesis in light of new insights into nature.

With respect, that's not how I understand 'data and observations'. First, think of Newtonian dynamics and General Relativity (GR). The former does a pretty good job of accounting for observations of the positions solar system objects, and making accurate predictions of their future positions. This applies even to observations of the Moon made with laser ranging (based on retroreflectors left by the Apollo astronauts) - down to ~1 cm. However, over a century ago there were observations that couldn't be accounted for, e.g. perihelion advance of Mercury. GR can account for these; and GR can account for all the Newtonian dynamics can too. The newer theory encompasses *all* data and observations amassed before it came along.

So a new theory of the evolution of multi-cellular life will need to account for the observations and data which the current theory/theories account for. This would include (just a short list) genetic inheritability, extinction of species, the fossil record, ...

[Edit: fixed formating in quote, for clarity]

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: *SNIP
3) "Evolution explains better than anything else" is not proof or evidence of the reality.
*SNAP

General Philosophy really isn't the best place to have this discussion; firstly, the relationship between science and reality is actively discussed elsewhere in PF (Mentat is quite keen on just such discussions), and I must say that talus would almost surely benefit for a deeper study - this sentence isn't about science at all.

talus wrote: *SNIP
Mentat claims to have created mutations by changing phenotypes in his own lab. Quite a feat for a human being. I suspect that Mentat should not only be world famous by now but a Nobel Peace Prize winner if this were true.

talus too could create mutations which change phenotype in his own lab (note the order of causation in talus' statement is backward), it's not hard to do.

talus wrote: 4)Speciation has been observed Mentat says. Where?

The peppered moth is perhaps the best studied example of multi-cellular organisms in the wild; there are several examples of speciation in the lab. For bacteria, just think of the appearance of anti-biotic resistant strains.

This discussion is beginning to resemble the other thread.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote:There is actually so much evidence for both evolutionism and creationism as to make them basically one in the same.

Nereid: What is 'evolutionism'? What are the three (five? ten?) leading, testable predictions of 'creationism'?[/color]

talus replied: I neither advocate evolution nor creation.

'Evolutionism' and 'creationism' are your terms talus; I'd appreciate a straight answer to a very simple question about them. Let me ask again:

What is 'evolutionism'?

If 'creationism' is claimed to be science, what are the three (five, ten) leading, testable predictions?[/color]

talus wrote: The fact that I asked for any verifiable proof of evolution in an earlier post might be a start.

The confusion continues:
- 'evolution' is a fact
- there are various scientific theories concerning how it operates
- as they're scientific, the theories cannot 'prove' anything
- a great many falsifiable statements/predictions can be made from evolutionary theories, ranging from the time scale for the rise and spread of myxomatosis resistance in the Australian rabbit population, through the efficacy of influenza vaccinations, to predictions about fossils that will (and won't) be found in rocks of certain ages.

If 'creationism' (whatever it is) claims to be in the same domain as evolution theories, it needs to provide at least a similarly detailed set of falsifiable statements and predictions.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: If any evolutionary model that we choose is such that each of the thousands of steps in a hypothetical mutation must be in sequence and any errorneous or out-of-order mutations is fatal, the number of trials required in the process would be in the magnitude of 4¹⁰⁰⁰ or deciminal notation 10⁶⁰⁰. But this construct may be too strict. All "erroneous" mutations for example may not be fatal. It is possible to envision a sequence in which the thousands of steps can be be accomplished with far fewer than the random 10⁶⁰⁰ trials.

With the statistics of probability, it is not the mathematics that is difficult. The difficulty is choosing the model that reasonably approxiamtes the real world. If we take take the most "optimistic" or forgiving set of assumptions in the thousands of mutations sequence, then the difficulty of achieving say a desired organ fades to triviality. Evolution must be a miracle at the very least.

I've read this three times, and I still don't understand it; would you be so kind as to take it slowly, step by step, and explain?

 

[Grim]

Originally posted by Zero
Quoting Behe?

*yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.

and those of use who refuse to be tied to the religion and seek to find the truth about this kinda stuff?.


i.e ME

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grim
and those of use who refuse to be tied to the religion and seek to find the truth about this kinda stuff?.


i.e ME

If you want "truth", you'll have to first agree on terms, definitions, and standards. Otherwise, we aren't even speaking the same language, and rational debate isn't possible.

For instance, evolution is not a theory of the origins of life. If you attack evolution for "origin of life" issues, that is what we call a "strawman" argument; you are attacking a false, weaker version of something that you create, instead of attacking the actual idea.

As another example, if you ask for "absolute proof", you are not speaking the language of science. Science never makes the claim of being able to prove anything 100%, and the term "theory" is used to denote the very best we can ever hope to do. That's why us scientific types get mad when people say evolution is "just a theory"...it shows a lack of understanding of the word "theory", as though something can graduate from "theory" and become a "proven fact".

You also have to understand productive methods, and non-productive methods; you have to be able to determine what ideas are supported, and which are just conjecture. If you want to know which ideas are the "best" ideas, you've got to be able to wade though dogma, ulterior motives, unfounded assertions, and all sorts of messes.

 

[Grim]

ahh well we can never get the absolute truth about evloution unless there was someone watching it happen, what I am looking for is more substantial evidence, something that as well as deepening my understanding will give me ammo to fire back at those religous zealots who assume that the first thing you want to do when you get up in the morning is hear about god, you know the type...

I also happen to be particpating in a forum thread that's currently 41 pages and we are only just starting the evolution debate

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grim
ahh well we can never get the absolute truth about evloution unless there was someone watching it happen, what I am looking for is more substantial evidence, something that as well as deepening my understanding will give me ammo to fire back at those religous zealots who assume that the first thing you want to do when you get up in the morning is hear about god, you know the type...

I also happen to be particpating in a forum thread that's currently 41 pages and we are only just starting the evolution debate

Have you checked out the Talk.Origins Archive?

You are probably wasting your time, though...the creationists don't speak the same language, intentionally, so that they can maintain their ignorance.

 

[Canute]

I'm off my turf here but I'm not sure that Neo-Darwinists aren't a bit too quick off the mark in crying 'creationism' whenever someone challenges their theory. There are many valid objections to the theory that do not imply Creator Gods.

For instance Neo-Darwinist selection is not capable of accounting for the evolution of consciousness. Also, if an ecological system is seen as a complex system then it is also not possible to account for what drives it towards increasingly complex, what it is that motivates the system. This is also a problem in more general computational studies of complexity.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Canute
I'm off my turf here but I'm not sure that Neo-Darwinists aren't a bit too quick off the mark in crying 'creationism' whenever someone challenges their theory. There are many valid objections to the theory that do not imply Creator Gods.

For instance Neo-Darwinist selection is not capable of accounting for the evolution of consciousness. Also, if an ecological system is seen as a complex system then it is also not possible to account for what drives it towards increasingly complex, what it is that motivates the system. This is also a problem in more general computational studies of complexity.

Good questions, worthy of a discussion in Biology IMHO.

However, talus - whose position and assertions this thread is about - introduced the terms 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' (without defining either, I might add) and has said his interest is philosophical (he's not been clear - at least as far as I can see - as to whether he would like to discuss any scientific basis for either of these undefined '-isms').

A personal observation: from reading some of the discussions here in PF, related to 'evolution' (often as not it's abiogenesis) and 'creation science', I'm struck by how parochial it seems. I mean, it seems to be just a bunch of christians in the US who get worked up, and certainly far from a unified christian view at that. Where are the challenges from Islam, Judaism, Buddhism??

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Nereid
However, talus - whose position and assertions this thread is about - introduced the terms 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' (without defining either, I might add) and has said his interest is philosophical (he's not been clear - at least as far as I can see - as to whether he would like to discuss any scientific basis for either of these undefined '-isms').

Point taken.

A personal observation: from reading some of the discussions here in PF, related to 'evolution' (often as not it's abiogenesis) and 'creation science', I'm struck by how parochial it seems. I mean, it seems to be just a bunch of christians in the US who get worked up, and certainly far from a unified christian view at that. Where are the challenges from Islam, Judaism, Buddhism?? [/B]

I think the reason may be that Christianity is the most scientific of all religions these days. It has no subtle teachings about 'emptiness' or 'the two Brahman' which actually might be true. As a result it has no plausibility as a metaphysic, or rather it doesn't have one. God just exists for some reason. All the subtlety was taken out when the Gnostics were branded heretical and the Gnostic Gospels stricken from the records.

If you read the Gospel of Mary (or Thomas) you suddenly find Jesus talking the language of Buddhism, of 'non-dual' doctrines. Bear in mind that Mary was Jesus's acknowledged favourite follower and was said at the time to have had a better understanding of his teachings than the other disciples. It was only a few centuries later that she was demoted to reformed prostitute with nothing to say, some say for male chauvinist reasons, some say because her teachings contradicted Peter's and the rest.

Had the Church been founded on her and other more Gnostic interpretions of Jesus's teaching I suspect Christians would be as quiet on these issues as Buddhists.

However Buddhists are not being quiet about Neo-Darwinism because they agree with it. It is just that they know there is no scientific evidence to contradict it. The idea that human consciousness plays a role in human behaviour and thus in our evolution as a social species seems abhorent to Darwinists. Why this is I quite honestly have no idea. It seems to threaten the status quo in some way.

Anyway, with no scientific evidence to decide the matter there is nothing to be done but hope for a change of paradigm. It may be that the 'problem of conscious' will lead to such a change, but it's going take a couple more decades by the look of it.

Sorry, got carried away there.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Zero
Have you checked out the Talk.Origins Archive?

*SNIP

That is an awesome website Zero.

I'm still reading through it, but one paragraph in particular seems very relevant (or it would be if we were discussing science; unless and until talus returns to answer the questions put to him, we can't know if he's interested in science or not):

"The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have the predictions borne out. Evolution easily meets this criterion. In several of the above examples I stated [plant Divisions, equivalent to Animalia phyla], closely related organisms share X. If I define closely related as sharing X, this is an empty statement. It does however, provide a prediction. If two organisms share a similar anatomy, one would then predict that their gene sequences would be more similar than a morphologically distinct organism. This has been spectacularly borne out by the recent flood of gene sequences -- the correspondence to trees drawn by morphological data is very high. The discrepancies are never too great and usually confined to cases where the pattern of relationship was debated."

My personal summary: all the painstaking work done by paleontologists has been confirmed, to an extraordinary extent, by a completely independent line of research.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
I'm off my turf here but I'm not sure that Neo-Darwinists aren't a bit too quick off the mark in crying 'creationism' whenever someone challenges their theory. There are many valid objections to the theory that do not imply Creator Gods.

For instance Neo-Darwinist selection is not capable of accounting for the evolution of consciousness. Also, if an ecological system is seen as a complex system then it is also not possible to account for what drives it towards increasingly complex, what it is that motivates the system. This is also a problem in more general computational studies of complexity.

You're a bit off the mark. Plus, you keep making those absolute statements, like "evolution CANNOT explain". The real point is that evolution doesn't CLAIM to explain consciousness. So that criticism is irrelevant.

As far as the "complexity" argument, creationists misuse information theory to support their bogus claims. Why would they need to lie and misrepresent, if there really IS support for their claims?

The bigger issue is not who is right and who is wrong. The real issue is strict intellectual honesty, accounting for all the evidence, proper logic, and correct use of terms and definitions.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
That is an awesome website Zero.

I'm still reading through it, but one paragraph in particular seems very relevant (or it would be if we were discussing science; unless and until talus returns to answer the questions put to him, we can't know if he's interested in science or not):

"The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have the predictions borne out. Evolution easily meets this criterion. In several of the above examples I stated [plant Divisions, equivalent to Animalia phyla], closely related organisms share X. If I define closely related as sharing X, this is an empty statement. It does however, provide a prediction. If two organisms share a similar anatomy, one would then predict that their gene sequences would be more similar than a morphologically distinct organism. This has been spectacularly borne out by the recent flood of gene sequences -- the correspondence to trees drawn by morphological data is very high. The discrepancies are never too great and usually confined to cases where the pattern of relationship was debated."

My personal summary: all the painstaking work done by paleontologists has been confirmed, to an extraordinary extent, by a completely independent line of research.

That's EXACTLY the point. Ask a creationist what's coming next, and he'll say "I don't know, whatever God decides". Science, however, can make decent predictions, for instance scientists can predict how long a new antibiotic is going to work before the germs adapt to it.

Plus, of course, pre-DNA evolutionary science pretty much predicted what we would find in today's modern genetics, even though they had never seen a DNA helix. The strength of evolutionary theory is evident in the fact that it fits in with ideas and evidence that no one had even thought of 150 years ago.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
You're a bit off the mark. Plus, you keep making those absolute statements, like "evolution CANNOT explain". The real point is that evolution doesn't CLAIM to explain consciousness. So that criticism is irrelevant.

The bigger issue is not who is right and who is wrong. The real issue is strict intellectual honesty, accounting for all the evidence, proper logic, and correct use of terms and definitions.

Couple of points. You can't complain that I make absolute statements and then make the same statement yourself. Secondly if there is an aspect of species that current evolutionary theory cannot explain in principle it seems to me that something is missing from the theory. As you say, intellectual honesty demands that all the evidence is accounted for.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
Couple of points. You can't complain that I make absolute statements and then make the same statement yourself. Secondly if there is an aspect of species that current evolutionary theory cannot explain in principle it seems to me that something is missing from the theory. As you say, intellectual honesty demands that all the evidence is accounted for.

What absolute statement did I make?

And, what aspect of biology is current evolutionary theory not able to explain in principle?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
What absolute statement did I make?

And, what aspect of biology is current evolutionary theory not able to explain in principle?

You said that orthodox evolutionary theory does not claim to be able explain consciousness. I said it cannot explain it. I don't see the difference. Or do you think Neo-Darwinism will suddenly change?

I didn't say that current evolutionary theory could not explain all the aspects of biology. Of course it does since biology is defined as what current evolutionary theory can explain. My point was that it doesn't cover all the facts.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
You said that orthodox evolutionary theory does not claim to be able explain consciousness. I said it cannot explain it. I don't see the difference. Or do you think Neo-Darwinism will suddenly change?

I didn't say that current evolutionary theory could not explain all the aspects of biology. Of course it does since biology is defined as what current evolutionary theory can explain. My point was that it doesn't cover all the facts.

See, here's one of the places where the lack of scientific knowledge really hurts the discussion. You made an unfounded absolute statement: "evolution cannot explain consciousness". Putting aside the illogic of that statement, the relevant point is that evolution doesn't have to explain it, because consciousness doesn't fall under the definition of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain chemistry, or black holes, or auto mechanics either, so does that in some way invalidate evolution?

Faulting evolution for not explaining consciousness to your liking is like faulting a car for not being able to fly.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
See, here's one of the places where the lack of scientific knowledge really hurts the discussion.

It's ok, mine isn't perfect either.

You made an unfounded absolute statement: "evolution cannot explain consciousness".

To make it clear - Neo Darwinist orthodoxy is an account of the evolution of zombies. In this view the evolution of life on Earth would have unfolded precisely as it has if there was no such thing as consciousness. This is consistent with the view of the 'hard' sciences, whose theory rests on the assumptions that the universe is causally complete, that it is entirely physically determined and that consciousness is non-causal.

This entails that the existence of consciousness cannot be explained by science, and that the 'evolution of consciousness' is an incoherent idea, making consciousness non-existent within current evolutionary theory ex hypothesis. It certainly cannot explain it.

Putting aside the illogic of that statement, the relevant point is that evolution doesn't have to explain it, because consciousness doesn't fall under the definition of evolution.

If you look carefully you'll see this is tautological.

Consciousness is associated only with living species as far as we know. Science routinely assumes that it arises from biological brains. If so it evolved. The fact that evolutionists choose to define 'evolution' so as to exclude it is neither here not there.

Evolution doesn't explain chemistry, or black holes, or auto mechanics either, so does that in some way invalidate evolution?

That isn't quite the point. At the moment the orthodox view is that consciousness is non-causal. It is therefore ignored by most neo-Darwinists (even though Darwin did not do this). Yet if it is a product of brains and brains evolved then it evolved. Yet how could it evolve if it is non-causal, if it does not contribute to 'fitness'? We must assume then that it did not evolve. In this case it is the only known case of a species-wide feature appearing, becoming more complex, and passing from generation to generation without fail since the dawn of time for no reason at all.

Faulting evolution for not explaining consciousness to your liking is like faulting a car for not being able to fly. [/B]

I don't fault evolutionists at all for not explaining consciousness. Nobody can do it. I blame them for it defining out of existence when it clearly exists and is clearly connected to biological function.

If machines were conscious then you'd have a point. But only biological entities that have evolved have it. It would some coincidence if this was not for biological reasons.

 

[Zero]

Why is it that every conversation turns into a justification for a person's idiotic, pseudoscientific BS?!?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Canute : To make it clear - Neo Darwinist orthodoxy is an account of the evolution of zombies. In this view the evolution of life on Earth would have unfolded precisely as it has if there was no such thing as consciousness. This is consistent with the view of the 'hard' sciences, whose theory rests on the assumptions that the universe is causally complete, that it is entirely physically determined and that consciousness is non-causal.

This entails that the existence of consciousness cannot be explained by science, and that the 'evolution of consciousness' is an incoherent idea, making consciousness non-existent within current evolutionary theory ex hypothesis. It certainly cannot explain it.

*SNIP

Consciousness is associated only with living species as far as we know. Science routinely assumes that it arises from biological brains. If so it evolved. The fact that evolutionists choose to define 'evolution' so as to exclude it is neither here not there.

*SNIP
At the moment the orthodox view is that consciousness is non-causal. It is therefore ignored by most neo-Darwinists (even though Darwin did not do this). Yet if it is a product of brains and brains evolved then it evolved. Yet how could it evolve if it is non-causal, if it does not contribute to 'fitness'? We must assume then that it did not evolve. In this case it is the only known case of a species-wide feature appearing, becoming more complex, and passing from generation to generation without fail since the dawn of time for no reason at all.

I don't fault evolutionists at all for not explaining consciousness. Nobody can do it. I blame them for it defining out of existence when it clearly exists and is clearly connected to biological function.

If machines were conscious then you'd have a point. But only biological entities that have evolved have it. It would some coincidence if this was not for biological reasons.

Forgive the rather crude SNIPping and SNAPping, but there are some good points here.

First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?

More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?

Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.

Or a 1-dimensional thing? e.g. Homo sapiens has 27.4 units of 'consciousness', Tachyglossus aculeatus (a.k.a. the echidna) has 3.56 units of 'consciousness', Magnolia virginiana (a.k.a. Sweetbay Magnolia) has 0.078 units of 'consciousness'.

Or something else entirely?

Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?

You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
Why is it that every conversation turns into a justification for a person's idiotic, pseudoscientific BS?!? [/B]

First you have to show that it does before wondering why. I must presume that you can't answer my comments.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
First you have to show that it does before wondering why. I must presume that you can't answer my comments.

Your comments have no bearing on evolution. Your little pet theory isn't science, and has no place in a scientific conversation.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Nereid

First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?

More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?

Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.

Or a 1-dimensional thing? e.g. Homo sapiens has 27.4 units of 'consciousness', Tachyglossus aculeatus (a.k.a. the echidna) has 3.56 units of 'consciousness', Magnolia virginiana (a.k.a. Sweetbay Magnolia) has 0.078 units of 'consciousness'.

Or something else entirely?

Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?

You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell?

Nereid, How can we argue that biological systems evolve, if humans are the only biological system conscious? From what did they evolve, from systems that are not conscious? Humans are conscious of the fact, that biological complexity, however that relates to consciousness, seems to give an organism its level of conciousness.
Why do we notice that as system complexity increases, the level of consciousness seems to also, whether we have talked to dolphins or not. This is a simple experiment, just ask your neighbor next door whether this is his or her conscious observation, that matches yours.
Can we not trust comparrison of human experience? My opinion is that consciousness seems to engulf a entity, it so does at a certain level depending on system complexity, system complexity facilitates its entrance not that it needs it. When your dead that system complexity is useless.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Nereid

First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?

I think you've outlined the issues well. I don't think we can include consciousness in Biology as it stands. At present Biology is defined so as to exclude it. However it's an odd situation when psychology is supposed to be a scientific disclipine but evolutionary theory denies that our psychology affects our behaviour.

More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?

We can't, and never will. However we can assume one way or the other, as we do now.

Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.

My guess is that at the very least all creatures that can 'act' have it, but this cannot be proved.

Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?

Possibly - but there's no evidence that this is the case. It seems reasonable to say that the bigger the brain the more like human consciousness the entity's consciousness will be. However in the end 'brains' are for computation and it's not clear yet how computation relates to experience.

You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell? [/B]

No I wasn't suggesting that conciousness is no different to bi-pedalism, and I'm not suggesting that evolutionary theory should explain consciousness. I'm suggesting that the fact that we are conscious affects our behaviour, and that this should be acknowledged in evolutionary theory. I know that it cannot be acknowledged at the moment (it would contradict physics for a start) but we are free to alter our assumptions and IMHO it's time we did.

Even Darwin saw this problem.

“In higher animals the use of the term ‘instinct’ to describe complex behaviour became progressively more difficult because of the interference of increasingly large doses of judgement and reason: ‘ The orang in the Eastern islands, and the chimpanzee in Africa, build platforms on which they sleep; and as both species follow the same habit, it might be argued that this was due to instinct, but we cannot feel sure that it is not the result of both animals having similar wants and possessing similar powers of reasoning.’ ” (D I 36 (Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex)

Current theory is very good at explaining how the genes for bi-pedalism became spread throughout the species once a few pioneers started to walk upright. What it does not explain is why they bothered to do so if they were not conscious that it gave them an advantage. At the moment it's as if they first stood up by accident.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Canute
Current theory is very good at explaining how the genes for bi-pedalism became spread throughout the species once a few pioneers started to walk upright. What it does not explain is why they bothered to do so if they were not conscious that it gave them an advantage. At the moment it's as if they first stood up by accident.

Huh?

There are several examples of bi-pedalism emerging by accident. Bipedal dinosaurs, for example. Bipedal insects. Bipedal lizards. Bipedal birds. (all of them!) And we do see an evolution in hip structure allowing humans to stand up for periods of time. Saying that they "decided" to stand up sounds suspiciously like Lysenkoism.

Yet how could it evolve if it is non-causal, if it does not contribute to 'fitness'?

I don't understand what you mean. Either it is a by product of increased brain complexity, which has other advantages, or it does have a survival value and does contribute to fitness. Both have reasonable evidence. Of course, evidence of consciousness does not exactly feature prominently in fossils, and even less if we adopt the metaphysical "experience" definition.

If machines were conscious then you'd have a point. But only biological entities that have evolved have it.

Prove it.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by FZ+
Huh?

There are several examples of bi-pedalism emerging by accident. Bipedal dinosaurs, for example. Bipedal insects. Bipedal lizards. Bipedal birds. (all of them!) And we do see an evolution in hip structure allowing humans to stand up for periods of time. Saying that they "decided" to stand up sounds suspiciously like Lysenkoism.

How often do you stand up without meaning to? It must come as a surprise when you do. I'll make the statement and let you disprove it - there is no evidence as yet that anything in the whole history of the planet stood up by accident. It is a neo-Darwinist assumption for which there is no evidence.

I don't understand what you mean. Either it is a by product of increased brain complexity, which has other advantages, or it does have a survival value and does contribute to fitness. Both have reasonable evidence. Of course, evidence of consciousness does not exactly feature prominently in fossils, and even less if we adopt the metaphysical "experience" definition.

You can argue that it is a by-product, as epiphenominalists do, but you cannot argue it that it bestows any advantage. To do is to contradict the scientific view. I agree that there is evidence that is does bestow an advantage (or disadvantage) but this is denied by evolutionary biologists (although there are exceptions).

Prove it. [/B]

Why do you think there is such a debate going on about whether non-biological organisms can be conscious? It's because no example has yet been found.

However I agree it cannot be proved - I was just stating the scientific orthodoxy.

 

[Zero]

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually bothered to understand what evolution was, before making claims about it?

I've not seen this much misunderstanding of evolution is so few posts in a long time. We've got "animals choose to evolve", we've got "why doesn't it explain consciousness(in a metaphysical mumbo-jumbo sort of way)?", we've got "it doesn't explain origins, so it must be wrong", plus varied and sundry creationist nonsense.

 

[Fliption]

Wouldn't it be nice if people in the process of having their dogmatic views challenged would actually stay on topic and not resort to propaganda?

I don't mind a sermon on having an honest, rational discussion but some people have no business preaching it.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually bothered to understand what evolution was, before making claims about it?

We agree at last. And what Fliption said.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Wouldn't it be nice if people in the process of having their dogmatic views challenged would actually stay on topic and not resort to propaganda?

I don't mind a sermon on having an honest, rational discussion but some people have no business preaching it.

Yeah, it would be nice if we could avoid propaganda...unfortunately, the dogma is coming from the creationist and pseudo-philosophical side.

Listen, Fliption, and tell me if I'm wrong:

We need to define what evolution can and cannot do, what science can and cannot do. Then, we need to stop faultying evolution and science in general for not doing what it admittedly cannot, and is not even claiming to be able to do. Thirdly, it would help if people wouldn't carry the baggage of previous and other ongoing debates into this on.


For instance, "consciousness"(whatever that is), is a dabate to have with the cognitive scientists. The evolutionists are only really concerned with gene frequencies over generations, and their effects on biological funtions. While the evolution of brains peripherally falls under evolution, the "materialist/idealist" debate really doesn't belong here, you know? It certainly doesn't invalidate or weaken evolution.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, it would be nice if we could avoid propaganda...unfortunately, the dogma is coming from the creationist and pseudo-philosophical side.

I've seen it from all views in these forums.

We need to define what evolution can and cannot do, what science can and cannot do. Then, we need to stop faultying evolution and science in general for not doing what it admittedly cannot, and is not even claiming to be able to do. Thirdly, it would help if people wouldn't carry the baggage of previous and other ongoing debates into this on.


For instance, "consciousness"(whatever that is), is a dabate to have with the cognitive scientists. The evolutionists are only really concerned with gene frequencies over generations, and their effects on biological funtions. While the evolution of brains peripherally falls under evolution, the "materialist/idealist" debate really doesn't belong here, you know? It certainly doesn't invalidate or weaken evolution.

But we're not really talking about what evolutionists are concerned with are we? We talking about what science ought to be concerned with in explaining the development of life. If someone now thinks that means climbing into a box called "gene frequencies over generations" then it seems someone has lost sight of the forest due to all the trees.

You may be right but it actually didn't jump out to me as an obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. I have long been asking the question, why are we conscious in light of how we supposedly developed? Since the scope of evolution is a theory of life development and life(at least some of it) is conscious then it's not obvious to me why this is out of scope.

Now if you're suggesting that all pet theories of todays science should be kept hidden from consciousness so they aren't affected by all its problems in order to avoid any paradigm shifts then I can't climb on board. It seems that any open, intelligent person would be naturally curious about the question I asked above.

 

[Zero]

Fliption, this isn't about who's right and who's wrong, this isn't about what is proper to be curious about, or which questions should be asked. It is, ultimately, about context. We HAVE to concern ourselves only with what evolutionary scientists are talking about, when discussing evolution, that is the only coherent way to go about it.

Now, I'm sure that there is a very specific group of people who call themselves "evolutionary psychologists" or some such, that would be interested in this debate, but the outcome of that discussion would likely(but not certainly) carry little weight in the overall scheme of evolutionary science. Picking apart a tiny bit of the overall subject generally doesn't lead to dismissing the entire field, don't you agree?

 

[Evo]

evolution vs anthropolgy

But we're not really talking about what evolutionists are concerned with are we? We talking about what science ought to be concerned with in explaining the development of life. If someone now thinks that means climbing into a box called "gene frequencies over generations" then it seems someone has lost sight of the forest due to all the trees.

You may be right but it actually didn't jump out to me as an obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. I have long been asking the question, why are we conscious in light of how we supposedly developed? Since the scope of evolution is a theory of life development and life(at least some of it) is conscious then it's not obvious to me why this is out of scope.

Now if you're suggesting that all pet theories of todays science should be kept hidden from consciousness so they aren't affected by all its problems in order to avoid any paradigm shifts then I can't climb on board. It seems that any open, intelligent person would be naturally curious about the question I asked above.

I have to agree with Zero, your questions don't have anything to do with the scientific study of evolution.

What you are discussing is more along the lines of biological anthropology. Here is a link to help you understand the difference.

Biological Anthropology

"But human history begins in a different place further back in time. It starts at least 4 million years ago, when a population of apelike creatures from eastern Africa turned onto a unique evolutionary road. Thus, the anthropologist's comparative perspective must be expanded to include more than prehistoric human societies, for behavior has primate roots as well. To fully understand humankind we must learn more about its place in the natural habitat of living things.

Biological (or physical) anthropology looks at Homo sapiens as a genus and species, tracing their biological origins, evolutionary development, and genetic diversity. Biological anthropologists study the biocultural prehistory of Homo to understand human nature and, ultimately, the evolution of the brain and nervous system itself."

http://www.aaanet.org/anthbroc.htm

 

[Fliption]

I will admit I don't have a clue what either of you are saying. To me this is like claiming that we understand how a car works. Our theory of how a car works explains everything that a car does except for the fact certain gases come out of the muffler. Our theory can't explain that, therefore it is out of scope for our car theory.

I'm sure I'm not understanding. I leave this analogy so you can see what I'm thinking.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid: First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?

Canute: I think you've outlined the issues well. I don't think we can include consciousness in Biology as it stands. At present Biology is defined so as to exclude it. However it's an odd situation when psychology is supposed to be a scientific disclipine but evolutionary theory denies that our psychology affects our behaviour.

But why is consciousness so excluded? Because you can't stick it under a microscope! If & when Acme produces a deluxe instrument for measuring consciousness, maybe things will be different.

Psychology in evolution? Hey, my wish is that astrophysics can provide unambiguous predictions about the future direction of the national debt.

Nereid: More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?

Canute: We can't, and never will. However we can assume one way or the other, as we do now.

Doesn't that take us beyond science then? Nothing wrong with that, but the corollary is then that's it's beyond the ken of any theory of evolution.

Nereid: Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.

Canute: My guess is that at the very least all creatures that can 'act' have it, but this cannot be proved.

A quibble, but 'proof' isn't part of science.

Nereid: Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?

Canute: Possibly - but there's no evidence that this is the case. It seems reasonable to say that the bigger the brain the more like human consciousness the entity's consciousness will be. However in the end 'brains' are for computation and it's not clear yet how computation relates to experience.

With the advances in neuroscience of the past decade or three, we may hope that many aspects of the 'computation/experience' relationship will be well constrained. Let's resume our discussion then.

Nereid: You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell?

Canute: No I wasn't suggesting that conciousness is no different to bi-pedalism, and I'm not suggesting that evolutionary theory should explain consciousness. I'm suggesting that the fact that we are conscious affects our behaviour, and that this should be acknowledged in evolutionary theory. I know that it cannot be acknowledged at the moment (it would contradict physics for a start) but we are free to alter our assumptions and IMHO it's time we did. *SNIP

Current theory is very good at explaining how the genes for bi-pedalism became spread throughout the species once a few pioneers started to walk upright. What it does not explain is why they bothered to do so if they were not conscious that it gave them an advantage. At the moment it's as if they first stood up by accident.

And IMHO, there's a big red line: put factors like consciousness (as presently understood - the future is another day) into evolution, and so much of what has lead to its success (in a nutshell, the scientific method) disappears.

But why should we - as scientists studying evolution - worry what critters thought or felt when they 'stood up'? We can observe behaviour, we can make hypotheses regarding the observed behaviour, we can test them (in principle, if not always in practice), and so on.

If we ever get to the point of studying the development of consciousness in eukaryotes, we may be able to hypothesise about the advantages it brings/brought to critters (or not); until then ...

 

[Evo]

I will admit I don't have a clue what either of you are saying. To me this is like claiming that we understand how a car works. Our theory of how a car works explains everything that a car does except for the fact certain gases come out of the muffler. Our theory can't explain that, therefore it is out of scope for our car theory.

I'm sure I'm not understanding. I leave this analogy so you can see what I'm thinking.

The problem is that what you are curious about doesn't fit into the "core" science of evolution. Your questions are valid, but not in this topic, they are a completely different discussion.

I have long been asking the question, why are we conscious in light of how we supposedly developed? Since the scope of evolution is a theory of life development and life(at least some of it) is conscious then it's not obvious to me why this is out of scope.

Because the study of evolution is concerned with biological changes, not thought processes. It is possible to study biological changes, it is not possible to study what human predecessors 2+ million years ago might have been thinking.

Nereid's post goes into more detail.

 

[Fliption]

I'm not interested in someone's ability to slice science up into nice and neat buckets. You're telling me that if you have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself, that you're going to ignore this relationship? Just because they're taught in two different buildings at the university?

 

[Evo]

I'm not interested in someone's ability to slice science up into nice and neat buckets. You're telling me that if you have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself, that you're going to ignore this relationship? Just because they're taught in two different buildings at the university?

Explain to me how you are going to study the relationship of consciousness and the possible effects it has had on biological evolution. I'm curious to hear how this can be done.

 

[Nereid]

I'm not interested in someone's ability to slice science up into nice and neat buckets. You're telling me that if you have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself, that you're going to ignore this relationship? Just because they're taught in two different buildings at the university?

Does anyone 'have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself'?

Perhaps you could clarify: what critters could you be referring to (other than homo sap.) - "some psychological characteristics of life"?

re 'the very method of development of the biology itself': we can go to a good library, pull down all kinds of books, of many different ages and written in many languages, and thus describe how 'biology' came to be what it is today. But I've got a sneaking suspicion you don't mean this - please clarify.

'could': there could be things happening in gamma ray bursts which, if we understood them, would shake the foundations of physics, lead to the replacement of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, etc, etc.

The good news about cross-disciplinary studies is that a) quite a few people trained in one field later go work in another (all science is better for it), and b) when enough data has been gathered, understanding become sufficiently stable and broad, tools refined (limits understood), etc, you do find new fields becoming established. One of my favourites is astro-biology; you may be interested in paleoecology.

 

[Fliption]

Explain to me how you are going to study the relationship of consciousness and the possible effects it has had on biological evolution. I'm curious to hear how this can be done.

It does not fit into a scientific box so that means it doesn't exists as far as the credibility of your theory goes? I never said it could be done. But the fact that it cannot be done means there is an explanatory gap in your theory. Saying it is not in scope therefore the theory is not lacking seems a bit intellectually dishonest to me.

 

[Fliption]

Does anyone 'have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself'?

Perhaps you could clarify: what critters could you be referring to (other than homo sap.) - "some psychological characteristics of life"?

The position has been presented that evolutionary theory explains the evolution of zombies. If we assume that consciousness is a product of evolution then the theory seems lacking. The only response that's been given to this is that the theory is not lacking because it isn't supposed to cover consciousness. That's for the scientist next door. That seems absurd to me.

 

[Canute]

The orthodox scientific view is that human consciousness evolved, yet orthodox evolutionists don't agree saying that evolution can be studied as if human beings were zombies. It is the orthodox view in 'analytical' philosophical circles that zombies cannot exist, yet apparently human beings are zombies. It is the orthodox scientific view that consciousness is non-causal, yet somehow human beings can collapse wave functions and in some theories can create new universes. It is the orthodox view that the universe is causally closed and strictly physically determined, yet the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM implies that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of conscious observers. Here we are, still evolving, still doing things on purpose, yet teleology is banned from evolutionary theory. As if maize evolved without intentional human intervention. Altruism is explained as if humans did not consciously know who is a stranger and who is kith and kin. The whole thing's a shambles. It only works because everyone stays in their 'disciplines' and passes the buck whenever there's a problem. Seems to me that particle physics is the only place where there's any sign of imagination or willingness to face facts.

 

[Canute]

But why is consciousness so excluded? Because you can't stick it under a microscope! If & when Acme produces a deluxe instrument for measuring consciousness, maybe things will be different.

So because we can't measure it we don't need to take it into account. It's an argument I suppose.

Psychology in evolution? Hey, my wish is that astrophysics can provide unambiguous predictions about the future direction of the national debt.

Can you explain altruism without presuming conscious awareness?

Doesn't that take us beyond science then? Nothing wrong with that, but the corollary is then that's it's beyond the ken of any theory of evolution.A quibble, but 'proof' isn't part of science.With the advances in neuroscience of the past decade or three, we may hope that many aspects of the 'computation/experience' relationship will be well constrained.

Not a chance, and it's becoming increasingly obvious.

Let's resume our discussion then.And IMHO, there's a big red line: put factors like consciousness (as presently understood - the future is another day) into evolution, and so much of what has lead to its success (in a nutshell, the scientific method) disappears.

Why? It doesn't mean that selection, genetic inheritance etc are wrong.

But why should we - as scientists studying evolution - worry what critters thought or felt when they 'stood up'? We can observe behaviour, we can make hypotheses regarding the observed behaviour, we can test them (in principle, if not always in practice), and so on.

Why do biologocal entities care whether they live or die or bother to behave in any particular way? You can say 'programmed by our genes', but this is not enough. Brain plasticity shows that.

If we ever get to the point of studying the development of consciousness in eukaryotes, we may be able to hypothesise about the advantages it brings/brought to critters (or not); until then ...

That's making my point seem ridiculous, as you know.

 

[Nereid]

The position has been presented that evolutionary theory explains the evolution of zombies. If we assume that consciousness is a product of evolution then the theory seems lacking. The only response that's been given to this is that the theory is not lacking because it isn't supposed to cover consciousness. That's for the scientist next door. That seems absurd to me.

What is a 'zombie'?

What is 'consciousness'?

 

[Nereid]

Canute: So because we can't measure it we don't need to take it into account.
Because we can't measure it, we *can't* take it into account.

Canute: Can you explain altruism without presuming conscious awareness?
What is 'altruism'? What is 'conscious awareness'?

Nereid: Doesn't that take us beyond science then? Nothing wrong with that, but the corollary is then that's it's beyond the ken of any theory of evolution.A quibble, but 'proof' isn't part of science.With the advances in neuroscience of the past decade or three, we may hope that many aspects of the 'computation/experience' relationship will be well constrained.[/color]
Canute: Not a chance, and it's becoming increasingly obvious.
I am not following you; neuroscience isn't advancing? the relationship between what the brain does - 'computation' (your word) - and experience isn't becoming better understood? No matter how much neuroscience we do, the relationship between computation and experience will forever by a mystery?