The theory of Evolution! (simple)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

What Jeremy England is saying, is that since we know Life doesn't violate the physical laws of the universe, it must be these laws that propagate life. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it is one inevitable consequence of a set of conditions. The real mystery to me, is what advantage does consciousness have over a simple blob of organic material?

---

If life violated what we have constructed as the physical laws of the universe, then the existence of life would falsify those laws and we have to look for new laws. It is sometimes forgotten that these laws are models that we have created.

This is why I think neo-Darwinian theory is false, although the original Darwinian theory may still be OK. The current view seems to be to be falsified by evidence collected by paleontologists that show a punctuated equilibrium process rather than the assumed uniform process that neo-Darwinists claim occurred. Replacing neo-Darwinism with something that better fits the data would be good for science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

Well the development was hardly from a simple blob of organic material to a conscious human being, or even just any old mammal. The development of proteins in the primal soup was a rather extraordinary thing, but of course them developing into cells that can multiply was something else. And the differentiation of cells that led to the development of organs and much more complex creatures. Consciousness really started with organized hunting and the need to communicate information more specifically. This, and the ability to make tools use fire for e.g. cooking meat and making bread, then led to a society where affection and hatred could be shown without fighting or fondling, and agriculture and societies would eventually develop. In any and all of the aforementioned activities, consciousness is very useful indeed, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is the ultimate measure of success. We're still unable to inhabit all the places on Earth where bacteria can survive.

---

But you're falling into the same trap that those who believe in 'Intelligent Design' fall into.
That there is something extraordinary about Evolution tending towards complexity over time. Given the proper conditions, the combining of elements to form simple proteins is inevitable. How do we know this, because it happened. Same with consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

If life violated what we have constructed as the physical laws of the universe, then the existence of life would falsify those laws and we have to look for new laws. It is sometimes forgotten that these laws are models that we have created.

This is why I think neo-Darwinian theory is false, although the original Darwinian theory may still be OK. The current view seems to be to be falsified by evidence collected by paleontologists that show a punctuated equilibrium process rather than the assumed uniform process that neo-Darwinists claim occurred. Replacing neo-Darwinism with something that better fits the data would be good for science.

---

Why can't you have both?
Where the rubber meets the road, for Evolution at the molecular level, there are mechanisms we don't yet understand. In fact that branch of evolutionary exploration is just hitting stride. Paleontologists have had their time in the sun, it's time to step aside and let the Physicists take a stab at it.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

But you're falling into the same trap that those who believe in 'Intelligent Design' fall into.
That there is something extraordinary about Evolution tending towards complexity over time. Given the proper conditions, the combining of elements to form simple proteins is inevitable. How do we know this, because it happened. Same with consciousness.

---

Why is this necessarily true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Why is this necessarily true?

---

If something happens once, it's considered an anomaly... when it happens countless times, I'll go out on a limb and say it's true.:) And even the anomaly isn't really an anomaly... it too is inevitable.
The other inevitability about Evolution as applied to organic life... it's a dead end. More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. One day our time will come too. We live in an uncaring, harsh universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

Why can't you have both?

---

The punctuated equilibrium pattern and the neo-Darwinian continuous, random mutation pattern contradict each other. So, you can't be rational and have both. The data, however, supports punctuated equilibrium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

Where the rubber meets the road, for Evolution at the molecular level, there are mechanisms we don't yet understand. In fact that branch of evolutionary exploration is just hitting stride. Paleontologists have had their time in the sun, it's time to step aside and let the Physicists take a stab at it.:)

---

That's a view I have not heard before. I suspect the paleontologists would say that the molecular biologists are the ones who should step aside.

Although I think that neo-Darwinism has been falsified, that is not enough. We need a paradigm shift as well. The old neo-Darwinian paradigm is reductionist, that is, it attempts to reduce everything to the level of the genes within a single cell of an organism. That is too restrictive. The focus should be switched back to the group of organisms or the species level. Then more than sexual reproduction can be part of evolutionary theory.

Hmm. This shows it's not simple, exceedingly dogmatic, liable to be turned on its head anytime and the non-scientific folk of this site have discovered the missing link - it's a dead duck. Which is less satisfying than a flying f@&$.

I wonder if there are have been any new species at the dodo (dead duck) level of complexity since the dodo went extinct.

It recently occurred to me that maybe we are the new species. The other species are making adaptations or dying out because of the environment that we are more or less intentionally creating. This would require that cultural changes be part of species evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It recently occurred to me that maybe we are the new species. The other species are making adaptations or dying out because of the environment that we are more or less intentionally creating. This would require that cultural changes be part of species evolution.

---

I would agree with that.