Slashdot Mirror
Evolution of Intelligence More Complex Than Once Thought
palegray.net writes "According to a new article published in Scientific American, the nature of and evolutionary development of animal intelligence is significantly more complicated than many have assumed. In opposition to the widely held view that intelligence is largely linear in nature, in many cases intelligent traits have developed along independent paths. From the article: 'Over the past 30 years, however, research in comparative neuroanatomy clearly has shown that complex brains — and sophisticated cognition — have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages ...'"
Maybe in a few generations noone will be saying FR1ST P0ST!@!11111!!!1!!1!!one
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
If anyone assumes linearity in complex systems, it only shows they have no clue. In complex systems, linearity is the exception, not the rule.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
This proves that the Intelligent Designer:
- has never been taught of proper design practice and re-use of previous work
- has been sued by the other intelligent designer who built the previous brain for patent infringement and thus couldn't use the same brain but had to built a new one
- is so messy that instead of trying to dig again her/his/its plans of the previous (intelligent) design for brains somewhere under a mountain of junk, restarting everything from scratch is a better alternative
- isn't meticulous and precise enough be succeed making the same brain twice in a row
- is so bored the she/he/it needs to reinvent the wheel every week or so
- has Alzheimer's disease
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
As people who work with computers, we already know that the hard work is never done. What we often forget is that new, exciting changes in our field, whilst just stepping stones, are progress nonetheless.
I wouldn't make any big predictions for the future of our understanding, I think it's many years further off than we all hope. But I am always heartened to hear of progress, and optimism, in the field of scientific advancement.
I am feeling particularly uncynical today. Let's enjoy each new step.
... the same aspects of intelligence can arise independently in different species. I don't know if the article mentioned this (because its very long and I only had time to skim it) but this means the nascent potential evolutionary building blocks for intelligence are widely distributed in species in nature and given a chance will give riser to a smarter brain. Surely a more complex path to intelligence would be one that required specific stepping stones that only ever appeared in a small number of species and all had to occur in sequence?
What I don't believe is the "many have assumed" bit.
Parallel evolution is evident in all kinds of animal and plant features. I can't imagine why intelligence would be any different.
I strongly suspect that most evolutionary scientists don't consider these findings to be surprising. Still, it makes a better headline if you pretend it's a shock discovery.
. as if following some pre-determined path to a completed, human state.
Or, as if there are a limited number of adequate solutions to the problem 'control a bunch of muscles in order to survive in a three dimensional environment in which other organisms are trying to do the same thing'.
It seems like what we're seeing is that *if* a species randomly goes down the brain route, it'll either die out, or develop a brain very like other brains. Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all. Where's their "pre-determined path to a completed human state"?
No, it is not. Things of the same type evolving separately, only shows that those traits are successful.
It is also not new. It is pretty obvious that cephalopod and vertebrate brains evolved separately, and that bird and mammal advances over reptiles evolved separately.
Evolutionary Research SlowerThan Once Thought
there
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
So the upshot here is that the intelligence of any given creature is not a function of it's size or age (in evolutionary terms) but is very tightly geared towards the problems it likely faces in it's natural environment.
For example, even a spider can do quite tricky maths in order to work out how to spin a web between arbitrary fixed points, yet is completely flummoxed by even the simplest general knowledge quiz.
So what I want to know is, what was it about human beings that caused us to develop the capacity to drive cars, build computers and walk on the moon?
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
this means the nascent potential evolutionary building blocks for intelligence are widely distributed in species in nature and given a chance will give riser to a smarter brain.
It takes more than a chance - it takes evolutionary pressure. If something's already perfectly adapted to its environment without a brain, then it's unlikely to evolve one. A brain might even reduce the fitness of an organism (by diverting energy that could be better used for other survival/reproduction mechanisms).
I LIKE MONEY!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
From TFA:
The main modern group of bony fishes, the teleosts, first appeared about 200 million years ago, well after vertebrates ancestral to humans had emerged onto land, further proof of the independent development of their intelligence. In body-relative terms, the brains of these fishes are often comparable in size to those of land-dwelling reptiles. In the old phylogenetic scale, fish were considered "lower" than reptiles.
It seems that as soon as one specie in "arena" achieves a breakthrough in some ability, be it speed, strength, perception, or intelligence, it puts all the other affected (either as pray or competing for same resources as the advanced one) species under elevated evolutionary pressure and forces them to keep up.
I can imagine that we, ourselves, are unknowingly shaping future alien-like super-species, here on Earth! After we lose the lead and get overwhelmed by some new conqueror (super rats, Argentine ants, ... ?), another winning specie will continue to set pace for next and next...
Vice-versa, what was the beast who shaped us into our present form look like? Was that yet another human specie (e.g. the Neanderthals)?
You kid, but this is pretty good support for the intelligent design theory. Here we have multiple organisms evolving human traits independently... as if following some pre-determined path to a completed, human state.
Wrong, unless that "completed, human state" also looks like a super-intelligent squid capable of toppling the feeble empires of man.
The only reason there isn't a super-intelligent, man-eating squid race is because we beat the squids by a few evolutionary epochs, and their ancestors (who are currently living but less than super-intelligent) will probably go extinct before they have a chance to grow a better brain and develop an oceanic civilization of their own.
But rest assured, I'm sure they would have hypothesized an intelligent designer of their own. Only their intelligent designer would have tentacles on its face, and he would live under aquatic heat vents in heaven while sending the unfaithful to those hellish clouds way above the water.
So they're claiming there's some chance intelligence may eventually evolve in politicians?
I'll believe it when I see some solid evidence.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Everything is more complicated than you assumed.
Maybe a lot of people think that evolution is a kind of convergence to perfectness. Not at all. What evolution is: everyone will survive who is not bad enough to die before making its offspring. So if times come when a good brain eats too much resources and dumb brains are good - just give it a million years and dumbness rules. Then other times come and a good brain has to develop again. No sign of convergence to perfectness.
If you see evolution that way, the article is no surprise.
Let's try the alternative:
Comparative neuroanatomy findings indicate that all the various animals have identical brains that evolved identically, and that they all operate on a single function through a single pathway.
I could go on but I'm not going to page through the article to pick at it more, and in so doing satisfy their click-through quota.
I used to really like the old, stodgy, stuffy SciAm. It said what it meant clearly and didn't end up with an oral-pedal inversion by trying to say more than was warranted, or that it felt it had to pump up with hype in the name of market share.
I like the new SciAm too, but I liked it better when it was called OMNI.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
As I've wrote before (f*cking IEEE paywall):
"Convergent evolution is one of the most impressive concepts of Darwinian thought. As stated in the literature, "It is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection that numerous examples can be found in real nature, in which independent lines of evolution appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on what looks very like the same endpoint" [Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker, p. 94]. Eyesight is a good example of a remarkable biological tool that has appeared independently many times. For instance, the octopus' eye has evolved from a line independent of our lineage, and there are records of some 40 such "parallel" lines of evolution leading to the development of eyes [L. F. Land, "Optics and vision in invertebrates," in Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol. VII, H. Autrum, Ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1980, pp. 471-592]."
Thanks for the translation, I couldn't get past the recursive headline.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
When I said given a chance the evolutionary pressure was a given. You're not going to find an intelligent species arise out of the blue for no reason.
Sure, I could tell *you* knew what you were talking about. But if you're not precise with your words, the ID crowd get funny ideas.
I always figured one day humans would evolve into machines, and machines would continue to evolve.
But Vista changed my opinion about that.
Go tell that to him, but he won't be happy.
Disclaimer: he doesn't shoot the bearer of bad tidings, but he will eat his soul.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Everything is more complicated than you assumed. Even when you take this into account.
Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all.
Commence republicans/neocons jokes in 3... 2... 1...
- is artistic and enjoys exploring different ways of accomplishing the same thing.
....and realize your description can be as simple as you want to make it or so complicated, like in patent lawyer speak, that even a genius might have trouble following it.
There are different levels of knowledge where the further away you get from core knowledge the more complicated and error prone or distorted knowledge can become.
There is a cycle also to the evolution of knowledge, that it builds up to a point where it breaks down and a re-evaluation is done closer to the core, to again expand out in a modified direction.
The more correct the core knowledge base is the longer the extrapolated knowledge can hold up in its expansion.
Then there is the need to know. Does a bird need to know advanced math or how to fly thousand of miles back to where they were born? Dolphins are consider very intelligent but givemn their physical limitations and environment they live it, there is not much they can do to alter their environment, unlike the physical capabilities of man.
Evolution of the brain is based on the survival instinct that lends to mate selection and in turn genetics. Only abstract man very often disregards physical reality for abstract beliefs and these faulty beliefs often contributes to knowledge distortion not inline with physical reality and survival. So we have the cycle, the ups and downs in society. However, population growth and advancing technology have enables a wider scope of knowledge access and as such .... well knowledge begets knowledge.
What is intelligence, but the trivia of knowledge processing ability and the selection of what to consider as core knowledge.
If creatures have evolved enough intelligence to use tools and anticipate the future, then why aren't all animals intelligent? As some of them have been around for longer than us, why aren't they smarter than us? Some adaptions, such as flight, or vision, or a poisonous bite might seem to have to happen all at once, but intelligence can come by degrees - adding a few more brain cells here and here until you have the right balance, until you reach some natural limit where the head becomes too heavy or uses too much energy.
There has to be a payback for having intelligence. If the animal has something that can grasp objects, then it can use tools and do things that it would not normally be able to do. If you are a shellfish then there is not much you can do with your deep thoughts, so a smarter shellfish is less likely to survive.
This is guesswork, but maybe extra weight in our head makes us clumsier and vulnerable to neck injuries. That, and the energy requirements of the larger brain. But it's not really that much larger, is it? Birds have very compact brains - if this was an issue, then our brains would be smaller too. No - I think there has to be something else, but I can't see what it is.
Any ideas?
"If something's already perfectly adapted to its environment without a brain, then it's unlikely to evolve one." - Hence why society today is no longer even trying. Why struggle to improve when failure is rewarded as much as success?
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all.
I'm tired of you people picking on Bush. It's over for crying out loud.
Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
Where's their "pre-determined path to a completed human state"? :P
Terence McKenna would hate ya
Quote:
Animal life has been transfused with something either willfully descended into matter or trapped by some cosmic drama. Something in an unseen dimension is acting as an attractor for our forward movement in understanding. [...] It's a point in the future that affects us in the present. For example, if you were to do your Christmas shopping in July, then Christmas is an attractor for your summer shopping habits. Our model that everything is pushed by the past into the future, by the necessity of causality, is wrong. There are actual attractors ahead of us in time -- like the gravitational field of a planet. Once you fall under an attractor's influence, your trajectory is diverted.
Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
I like money too. We should hang out sometime.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all.
Are you referring to my boss?
In short:
"I'm afraid we're going to have to evolve a little further before we can understand how we evolved to this point. Unfortunately, we'll be beyond this point by then and busy lamenting this same fact regarding THAT point."
We're constantly being told that scientists have it all hammered-out; they know all there is to know. About everything.
Sure, they had to rename the dinosaurs.
Sure, 1/2 of them still think CO2 causes the Earth to HEAT instead of COOL.
But they're flawless, right? :>
It's kinda like "experts". Every Christmas season we hear "Experts predict a down Christmas season" and every year it's different.
"This phenomenon was UP this year, surprising experts"....they do this all the time- it's time to get new experts!
WHAT A CROCK!
Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist. Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples," which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization.
How long did astronomers look at the stars before they decided to stand up and say that the Earth was not the center of the Universe?
It seems that it has taken us about 150 years post-Darwin to stand up and say that the human brain is not the center of intelligence on Earth.
Anyone that looks at (fat, wasteful) modern society in proportionate cross-section should see that the vast majority of today's humans are just random actors following mostly reflex / instinct without much cleverness involved. Maybe when life was harder we were more clever because we had to be, but if an alien cognition researcher plucked Joe the Plumber out of middle America and put him to a test of higher cognitive power - I bet he'd come up lacking.
If we don't wipe them out entirely, we may be accelerating the evolution of squid by challenging them. Some challenges (like change in ocean chemistry / temperature) don't have obvious advantages for intelligence, but other challenges like varying their food supply and hunting them should perk up their cognitive gene pool pretty quickly.
Terence McKenna would hate ya :P
I heard he was on drugs! :-O
It turns out, thateverything is much more complex than we thought...
Yes yes, and Newton was a mystic and an alchemist, but that doesn't mean we should abandon calculus and classical physics. We don't dismiss all of psychology because of the quirks of Freud and Jung.
The map is not the territory. The part is not the whole. Evolution is not "Darwinism", relativity isn't "Einsteinism", and physics isn't "Newtonism". But engaging in an ad-hominem attack on a man centuries dead is sheer "Bozoism".
Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all.
Are you referring to my boss?
I was wondering how he knew my wife.
wear slip-ons
+1 fashionably cynical
Oh how I wish it were possible to have a discussion of biology on Slashdot without discussing mythology. Having to explain/defend the basic principles of evolution over and over to the the hordes of deliberately miseducated really is a tiring exercise.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
My cats are little autistic people. They have just as must right to the benefits of "personhood" as you do. Bigoted people that draw the personhood line right at H. sapiens sicken me. Treating other species as chattel merely because they aren't "made in our image" is incredibly ignorant. Perhaps this article will help to further dissuade people from adopting that perverse attitude in the first place?
Commence democrats/socialists jokes in 3...2...1...
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Why don't Republicans believe in Evolution?
Because the first generation in their sample was Abraham Lincoln. The last was George W. Bush.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Evolution theory does not require that a new species be introduced in a single generation. The theory contends that small genetic changes from one generation to the next accumulate over time, eventually giving rise to a new species. At every point, organisms from any given generation could produce fertile progeny with members of several previous and several subsequent generations. But, if genetic lines are allowed to diverge enough, at some point the accumulation of genetic differences would provide infertile offspring or no offspring at all.
If, on the other hand, this creationist argument is correct and evolution theory is flawed, this would suggest that different species should not be able to breed at all. If two separate species since the beginning of time could never produce fertile progeny, it would be very surprising if there were an example of two species that could produce hybrid offspring of any kind regardless of that offspring's ability to reproduce. Unfortunately for the creationist, this argument offers no explanation for the existence of the mule or the many other sterile cross-species hybrids.
Addressing the micro- vs. macro-evolution argument as a whole is easily done. The taxonomic categorization of organisms is a construct defined by people. It is not reasonable to presume without evidence that there exists some cellular mechanism that prevents genetic mutations with regard for human-created taxonomies. Once one admits that evolution occurs within a species, it naturally follows that mutations could conceivably accumulate to any degree without regard for species or any other invented taxonomic boundary.
Conversely, discounting macro-evolution while accepting micro-evolution is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc, all the way back to the beginning of life itself. There is no logic or scientific research that supports such a conclusion.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Might? How is it that a slight mutation could produce anything other than a reduction of fitness (in the short term)? And, fully-functional brains do not just come about all at once (in a single mutation), do they?
In my view, this is one of the single biggest problems with evolutionary theory (and I'm actually quite surprised that you brought it up here).
So this guy get's modded down for being right? Man, some moderators just aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.
> If you think the Bible is just poetry (which it is, at best) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
You're vastly oversimplifying the belief. Of course Christians don't believe that, for example, Jesus is mythological (there's a group that thinks that, but they're not well accepted either by historians or Christians).
But the Bible is made of 66 books written over centuries. To suppose that they all have to be thought of the same way shows a profound ignorance of their history and content. The books that we have were collected when the Church (there was only one at the time) brought all its groups together and asked them which books they had always believed authoritative. Those that everyone believed authoritative were then codified into what you know as the Bible. They only accepted those that everyone had agreed was accurate.
Now, I suppose you're going to accuse me of picking & choosing which parts to believe. The problem is that we've always had a standard rule: what is necessary for salvation is taken literally, what is not may be allegorical. I've yet to hear any ideas on salvation that require one to believe that Genesis 1 or 2 (there are two creation stories, you know) are "necessary for salvation" and so the particular details of how God created the universe are best examined by the scientific method. And this thought isn't new. Quite the opposite, Christians have long believed that Genesis was something like a parable. They believed it back in ancient times.
The only reason for the non-acceptance of evolution is that it was a modern reaction to people telling them that evolution somehow disproved the Bible. Thus came the sorts of fundamentalist and inerrantist beliefs with which you are now familiar that had, before that, been unknown.
So the whole affair is merely a matter of both sides digging in their heels during an argument and taking ever more extreme positions due to it.
My views are not "soft" because I recognize that parts of the Bible are true but non-literal. They are correct because they reflect what Christians have always believed, discounting those who rise up in every age to preach some new thing as if we should forget what Christians have believed back to the founding of our church in favor of some new idea.
Well, most mutations have no effect on fitness whatsoever. Others are completely catastrophic and that individual dies. No biggie.
I don't understand "How is it that a slight mutation could produce anything other than a reduction of fitness". A slight change in the shape of a fin could make the difference between being first or second to that scarce piece of food. The evolutionary pressure in this case is the scarcity of food. If food is plentiful, that particular advantage is immaterial. It's all about place and time.
Of course fully functional brains don't come about all at once. They evolved from the clusters of nerves that tell creatures how to move and react to their surroundings. Do you have a problem seeing how an organism with three cells to run its 'reacting to stimulus' algorithm could be fitter than one with two? (assuming there's no scarcity fuel for that cell). Many brain / nerve cluster mutations will merely be a slight change in the firing rate of a single neuron.
I'm a bit alarmed at your suggestion that proponents of evolution would suppress concepts for fear their argument would be weakened. That's ID territory. Scientists *want* to explore every angle.
So, what, really, is the evolutionary drive to intelligence? Trees don't need it. Neither do fungi or cockroaches or amoeba. I know we like to see intelligence as a response to evolutionary pressure, but seriously, once you get to a certain level, what pressure causes greater and greater intelligence?
Frankly, intelligence seems like a waster of energy, in terms of efficiency in the environment. We do after all have many many examples of successful unintelligence. Take for instance, cable tv.
I'd say that we are not really able to evaluate how complex the evolution of intelligence is since it obviously (realisation based on Slashdot comments) hasn't developed very far yet.
I should have been more specific. I was referring to slight mutations in the progression towards a fully functional complex sub system. The problem with this 'theory' is that the subsystem must remain functional at every stage and slight mutations must offer substantial benefit in order for the individual to dominate the species. This domination seems quite unlikely to me to result from slight modifications (mods which are far more likely to be detrimental as your OP pointed out).
As for ID-- it seems to me that the science has become more dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, and hypocritical than the Catholic church ever dreamt of. They have become greater than their successor in they very ways that they so stood against.
I'm not a creationist, but I'll try to put their position as charitably as I can, and answer your question, since I do believe it is flawed.
Creationists tend to make a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," precisely in response to what you're pointing out. In effect, any sort of natural selection that can be demonstrated in the present-day, over short term timescales, they label "microevolution" and do not contest. Basically, modern creationism involves accepting that natural selection can turn gray moths into black moths or produce antibiotic tolerance in bacteria, but can't turn fish into people (either not at all, or over the time range claimed by evolutionists).
Put very succintly, the most advanced kinds of creationism don't attack the principle of natural selection; they attack the theory of common descent of all living things, and the theory of abiogenesis. So, the creationist doesn't need to posit anything that stops natural selection from happening, nor to deny self-organization that can be observed in the lab. They just need to attack the idea that natural selection or other forms of self-organization can explain the range of variation that we observe in the natural world in terms of common descent.
Or even simpler: your argument assumes that, given some forms of self-organization that you point out, that these necessarily and inexorably lead toward forms of life as we observe them today, unless something external to the system steps in to stop this from happening. This assumption is just wrong; you have shown us nothing that guarantees that the specific forms of self-organization that you mention can lead to the observed outcome in the timeframe in question. (And in fact, I'd claim that that undertakement would be hopeless.)
It's really best to tackle creationists on politics, not on science. Evolutionary theory (and natural science in general) isn't a completed edifice, so there will always be weaknesses that an informed person will be able to exploit to cast doubt on it. Creationists will always be able to point at genuine weaknesses in evolutionary theory; the problem is that they're singling out evolutionary theory for political and religious reasons, and it's far more important to address those reasons.
Are you adequate?
A slight genetic change may not result a slight change in results, and vice versa. And any mututation is extremely unlikely to result in anything other than a reduction in fitness; most mutations are either without outward effect or fatal. With a sufficiently large population and a sufficiently large time, the chance of eventually getting a beneficial mutation increases to the point of being reasonable.
Uh, no. But once you have creatures with simple brains -- which have some utility -- incremental increases in particular capacities could come as small mutations.
What "problem" are you referring to?
When Emacs reaches sentience in a few years, it will offer yet another kind of specimen to test.
Table-ized A.I.
Don't worry guy, seems slashdot isn't the realm for intellectuals it used to be.
I keep trying to tell my boss the same thing: I don't want money so much, but maybe a cubicle next to the prettiest babe in the office, or maybe a quad-core.
Table-ized A.I.
A slight genetic change may not result a slight change in results, and vice versa. And any mututation is extremely unlikely to result in anything other than a reduction in fitness; most mutations are either without outward effect or fatal. With a sufficiently large population and a sufficiently large time, the chance of eventually getting a beneficial mutation increases to the point of being reasonable.
Two problems with that-- 1) 100 million years (the average time between catastrophic asteroid collisions with earth) is not nearly enough time to produce the current scenario. 2) Even a beneficial mutation must be so beneficial that it entirely dominates a given species. What if the species is already quite populous? It seems that such beneficial mutations would be few and far between and would simply die out before dominating a given species.
And, fully-functional brains do not just come about all at once (in a single mutation), do they?
Uh, no. But once you have creatures with simple brains -- which have some utility -- incremental increases in particular capacities could come as small mutations.
A problem with that too (in addition to the second problem above)-- Just where do you get these simple brains which have some utility? Until these clumps of cells become a functional brain, they are a detriment instead of a benefit and thus not advantageous to pass on to successive generations. Natural selection can only 'select' from a number of changes to an *existing* functional system--it cannot be the force which creates the system to begin with.
In my view, this is one of the single biggest problems with evolutionary theory (and I'm actually quite surprised that you brought it up here).
What "problem" are you referring to?
The 'chicken and egg' problem so to speak.
Note that many organisms survive very nicely with no brain at all. Where's their "pre-determined path to a completed human state"?
Yes, these are the pointy-haired managers we all work for.
Four Phases of Direct Light
Reality was created through the phases of light outlined above. Many of you that would say there is no linear evolution, but would also have us believe there is linear time. The link above explains in great detail how reality came to exist. Hint, it's not how we think.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
I agree. I read this entire thread and I'm still not sure what the original article is about:)
Guess I should just skip the slashdot thread and read the original article from now on.
There are three types of people in the world which signifies three alternative paths to intelligence.
One type learns from reading. Another learns from observation. And the other just has to pee on the fence.
Applied causal interdependence.
These were first discovered/developed in the 60s during the ghetto wars. This a chain linking two Markov cocktails.
What I've learned, through experimentation with open ended evolution by computer simulation, is that evolution will take a random path towards no particular goal as long as reproduction remains successful. If, however, there is an added parameter to maintaining survival, a particular evolutionary response (linear on average) will result. In extraordinarily simple self replicating machines, the process is nearly immediate, since it is necessary, but in more advanced systems, there is a great deal of redundancy and seemingly dormant code can "reactivate" to allow the organism to persevere. Also, interestingly, it is very common for complementary pairs of "genetic" code to form which each disallows the other from mutating. It is only when both of these is coincidentally mutated in the correct way that either of them can be changed successfully. This is a very natural, very common process, which acts as an error correcting mechanism very similar to that of a checksum. http://novaconceptions.blogspot.com/
Go tell that to him [wikipedia.org], but he won't be happy.
Yes, he's from Cotulla.
I should have been more specific. I was referring to slight mutations in the progression towards a fully functional complex sub system. The problem with this 'theory' is that the subsystem must remain functional at every stage and slight mutations must offer substantial benefit in order for the individual to dominate the species. This domination seems quite unlikely to me to result from slight modifications (mods which are far more likely to be detrimental as your OP pointed out).
I disagree that about the need for "substantial" benefit. Very small advantages become significant across large populations and long time periods. If an individual has 0.0001% better survival prospects than its brothers, and has 1000 offspring with the same advantage, then that strain stands an excellent chance of surviving, and quite possibly (though not necessarily) dominating the species.
You seem to be giving the 'half an eye is no use' argument an airing, except with brains, or some other feature - and you treat it as a dirty little secret the 'evolutionists' brush under the carpet. *That's* intellectual dishonesty. The question has been answered over and over again, until we're bored of it. Please read The Blind Watchmaker before you suggest again that it's "one of the single biggest problems with evolutionary theory".
As for ID-- it seems to me that the science has become more dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, and hypocritical than the Catholic church ever dreamt of. They have become greater than their successor in they very ways that they so stood against
Hmm, I *think* I've managed to extract what you meant to write from what you did write. But you're going to have to cite some examples of this dogmatism, hypicrisy and intellectual dishonesty to convince me. Making sure the culprit is representative of "science", though, and not some arbitrary zealot.
Contradicting me with a statement of the bloody obvious in the form of a load of waffle about "proto this" and "intermediate that" only makes sense if they thought I did say that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm not sure (a) where you get that average from, or (b) why you think it is relevant. Even if catastrophic asteroid collisions each (or at least, the most recent one, which is the only one that matters) reset life on Earth to the beginning, or at least eliminated everything with even the most primitive brain, you would use the most recent catastrophic collision, not the average. In fact, fairly complex creatures -- with, on the grand scale, fairly well-developed brains -- survived the most recent asteroid collision, so its completely irrelevant.
The reason evolution is characterized as "survival of the fittest" is that if a mutation has a benefit in fitness, it will come to predominate. A "benefit in fitness" is, after all, defined by increasing the number of offspring that survive to reproduce.
What if it is? Heritable traits with a fitness advantage will still spread if they arise.
"Beneficial mutations" are those with produce a fitness benefit. Fitness is defined by offspring surviving to reproduce. The definition of which mutations are "beneficial" is not consistent with them simply dying out the way you describe.
They start out as single signaling systems that aren't at all brain like, just useful in simple stimulus and response. They develop into decentralized nervous systems still without processing nodes like those in certain invertebrates today (e.g., jellyfish). You eventually, in animals where this is beneficial, get simple processing nodes -- ganglia. Over many, many generations, one of these ganglia gets more developed and you've got something worth calling a brain.
Wrong. The ability to respond to stimulus is (or at least, can be in the right circumstances) a fitness advantage. Even incrementally refined ability also can be. You don't need to go from no nervous system to advanced brain to get an advantage.
What 'chicken and egg' problem? You've articulated no actual problem that meets that description that actually applies here.
Thanks for reminding me to renew my membership.
Thank you for explaining the current political process to me.
I believe that you are right, we should start voting the thieves out of office, but we need to STOP replacing them with other thieves. Then maybe the politicians would start breeding smarter ... Alternatively instead of voting them out of office we must start hunting them.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
You seem to be giving the 'half an eye is no use' argument an airing, except with brains, or some other feature - and you treat it as a dirty little secret the 'evolutionists' brush under the carpet. *That's* intellectual dishonesty. The question has been answered over and over again, until we're bored of it. Please read The Blind Watchmaker before you suggest again that it's "one of the single biggest problems with evolutionary theory".
Yes, that's exactly the argument. And, though I've not read the entire book, I'm familiar with its arguments. Although it offers imaginative theories for what might have happened, there's two problems with them. One-- there's **WAY** less detail than should be required by true scientific scrutiny. Two-- they're just imaginations about what *might* have happened. I'm sorry, but that is not hard science.
Hmm, I *think* I've managed to extract what you meant to write from what you did write. But you're going to have to cite some examples of this dogmatism, hypicrisy and intellectual dishonesty to convince me. Making sure the culprit is representative of "science", though, and not some arbitrary zealot.
Well, my response to the blind watchmaker is the perfect example. Evolutionists are far too quick to pat themselves on the back when they really have not offered sufficiently detailed explanations. And, the popular scientists which you see indoctrinating children on such TV stations as Discovery fail to admit (and in fact most often suppress or gloss over) what they do not know and all too often present their 'theories' (and imaginations) as absolute fact. That's dishonest enough for me (especially when you see the effects it has on society).
At this point, you may say that 'scientists' are not responsible for what happens in the popular media. But, there's a problem with that-- the same well-respected (and highly qualified) scientists appear in the popular media making outrageous claims and yet, the scientific community does not reprimand or denounce their activities. Silent approval is approval nonetheless.
Two problems with that-- 1) 100 million years (the average time between catastrophic asteroid collisions with earth) is not nearly enough time to produce the current scenario. I'm not sure (a) where you get that average from, or (b) why you think it is relevant. Even if catastrophic asteroid collisions each (or at least, the most recent one, which is the only one that matters) reset life on Earth to the beginning, or at least eliminated everything with even the most primitive brain, you would use the most recent catastrophic collision, not the average. In fact, fairly complex creatures -- with, on the grand scale, fairly well-developed brains -- survived the most recent asteroid collision, so its completely irrelevant.
Ok, so now you can tell me exactly when the last life-resetting asteroid collision occurred? The reverse prophetic powers of you evolutionists never ceases to amaze me! I used the average because it is the only number we have. Even if you adjust the number by 3 standard deviations (to cover 99.7% of the possibilities), it will be quite a small number in cosmological terms.
"Beneficial mutations" are those with produce a fitness benefit. Fitness is defined by offspring surviving to reproduce. The definition of which mutations are "beneficial" is not consistent with them simply dying out the way you describe.
So, it's only 'by definition' that you can explain this? What about actual empirical evidence? You can define things all day long to be whatever you want, but if your definitions do not actually explain (or represent) what happens in nature, they're worthless (at least for this pursuit).
What 'chicken and egg' problem? You've articulated no actual problem that meets that description that actually applies here.
The 'chicken and egg' problem is this-- natural selection cannot be the raison d'Ãtre for the original self-replicating cell (and if you can accept it larger subsystems such as brains). You must have self-replication before you can have genetic transference and 'change over time'. Admittedly, this is easier to see when looking at a single cell and not larger sub-systems.
Do you realize how complex self-replication is? John von Neumann built what he believed was the simplest self-replicating cellular automaton in the completely artificial [i.e., 'pure'] environment of mathematics and yet, it contained hundreds of moving parts. If you were to do such within the laws of chemistry and physics, needless to say, there'd be orders of magnitude more moving parts!
Never. Major asteroid collisions or other environmental catastrophes may lead to mass extinctions, they don't (that is, none that have occurred have) reset life on Earth to square one.
Uh, wrong. Any average we have is probably the result of taking a series of actual intervals between particular events and averaging them. The most recent mass extinction event, the K-T event, was approximately 65.5 million years ago. (And "reverse prophetic powers" -- the power to "predict" the past -- aren't all that amazing.)
It is important to understand the definitions of words to communicate. A "beneficial" mutation is one that has a very particular kind of impact -- that is, it increases biological fitness.
What about it? There is considerable empirical evidence that changes within species result from the spread of particular traits which impact the mean number of offspring an organism will have that survive to reproduce.
This isn't a "chicken and egg" problem. Evolution doesn't claim to be an explanation of the origins of the first life, its an explanation of the development of the diversity of life from its origins. There are, of course, theories which cover the origin of life, and they are consistent with evolution and invoke some of the same lower-level mechanism that are involved in understanding evolution, but they have a different subject matter.
(The 'half an eye' argument)
Yes, that's exactly the argument.
[...]
there's **WAY** less detail than should be required by true scientific scrutiny
[...]
Evolutionists are far too quick to pat themselves on the back when they really have not offered sufficiently detailed explanations.
The 'sufficiently detailed explanations' you seek are not typically in popular science books or magazines. They are too technical and detailed for that audience. Here is a fascinating piece about the development of eyes which is more in-depth than usual for a pop-sci article. If that's not enough detail for you, you can pursue the papers it references.
The hard science is there. You're just not looking for it. Or you're choosing to ignore it.
Now, I haven't found an equivalent article on brains for you - but TFA demonstrates that researchers, far from 'patting themselves on the back' are looking at it in depth. You'll find papers if you look. You might need to study some undergraduate genetics textbooks first in order to understand them, mind you! And if you didn't manage to read the whole of The Blind Watchmaker... (I fail to see how you could be 'familiar with its arguments' without reading it. It doesn't waste words.)
If there really were any features that could not have arisen through natural selection, it would be big news. Exciting news. The science press would be all over it.
Think of all the cool organisms that might exist if we weren't constrained by this need for features to develop gradually. For example, why are there no animals with wheels?
If ever there was a post that needed to be modded informative, it's this one.
I really loved slashdot. I really did. But we have gone beyond the point where we can discuss science in any meaningful way. Any time something interesting like this comes along, we are dragged into discussing superstitious skywizard nonsense. I don't give a crap about anyone's religious beliefs, at least no more than I care for the beliefs of indigenous tribes, or those of ancient peoples. Believe what you want, but don't bother people with it and drag the whole discussion down when we want to discuss science.
Posted anonymously for obvious reasons. Commence modding down...
O.K. so they are saying that my great great great... grandfather was a fish? It would probably sound more realistic if the obstacles or other elements that caused the fish to give birth to a closer to human fish were discussed. This always confuses me.
if you're not precise with your words, the ID crowd get funny ideas.
Yeah, right. As if they don't get funny ideas when we *are* precise :)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Microsoft hires programmers straight out of university/college. I've seen our local university running ads boasting about graduates that have 'gone to Seattle'. They weren't the geeky sorts. They were your generic college type that would do a bachelors of real estate if you told them there was money in it. Definitely not the sort I would have ever written a bootstrap loader that fits into 128 bytes of RAM. Yet these are the clueless noobs that Microsoft turned loose on Vista.