Entropy contradict Evolution

consciousness is the force that pushes evolution forward, the ability to imagine what is required by analysis of experience.

Hmmm.
I wish I was there when the Staph council decided for the good of all bacteria they would develop resistance to methacillins

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To James Mac Nasor et al

I admire your patience boys. I really do.
Dee Cee

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That sounds important, what is the significance ? Excuse me if i'm missing an obvious point.

kula

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL indeed. My post was not a change in subject. It goes to evolution. Since you choose to ignore it I think perhaps you would rather not discuss evolution.

I have no obligation to "Prove" eyes can be formed gradually. You have been given evidence that they have. You choose to make verbal assaults on the concept claiming it impossible. Suppose you "Prove" it cannot or has not happened as science proposes.

You seem to think you are in the drivers seat. You aren't. You are the outsider. The proof requirement is on your shoulders. Evolution has proven (to an acceptable degree) that it is what has occured. Now lets see you PROVE otherwise and stop making unsupported verbal claims as though they were fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what is the significance ?

Perhaps I misunderstood you but you seem to be suggesting that consciousness is a prerequisite for evolution.
Bacteria evolve and to the best of my knowledge they ain't conscious.

Perhaps your comments were directed at those who construct and refine the theory but then again perhaps not.
Dee Cee

 

Sorry you mentioned that. Now I must point out that todays generation (your age) - Even some college grads cannot spell nor read affectively.

Thanks to our improved teaching methods of phonetic spelling and new math and not teaching the times tables or manual extraction of a square root, etc.

BTW: You stated you were in that age bracket. Without your calculator can you describe for us how to extract square roots. Step by step please.

 

Well lets see. (No pun intended).

An eye is sensative to light and transmits a signal to a brain which converts those signals into images.

A poorly functioning eye is sensative to light but generates in the brain a less accurate image, perhaps only a blur. A worse functioning eye may see only slight changes in light and dark and cannot make out any images at all. A blind person has an eye but for a variety of reason does not see at all.

Seeing is as much a function of the brain as it is of the eye. Collectively the eye and brain are the best. In school they had a blind man come to our class. He was amazing he told us many things. The size of the room. How many people were in the room. Where the windows were and which way was East or facing the sun. Yet he was totally blind, no dark or light impressions.

They are all eys.

Light sensative cells send signals to a brain and it senses light or dark, light spots may form some minimal image.

Seems you are off on a meaningless wild goose chase with this only because you are fully aware that eyes are all soft tissue and there are no fossil artifacts from which to give tangiable evidence.

If I pop out my eye and it dangles on my face. It is still an eye is it not? That means the presence of an eye socket in the skull has no bearing on having an eye or not. If I take tape and secure it to my face (as eye spots are to skin) then it still functions.

 

What i was trying to say (hope this is a better attempt) is that evolution is powered by the living organism using its 'sense' experiences to program or alter its own DNA (biofeedback ?). Is consciousness required for this....well.....er....dont know, but i'm kinda presuming that all life is conscious to some extent.

kula

 

Exactly. That is why I am explaining it to you. You are the one who knows nothing about science. Hobbes explained that the only two things that can set a person apart from his peers are, science and art. To be artistic is a gift that can be improved with practice but not newly acquired. Science in its many forms is much the same. It is not for everyone. You are standing in the middle of everyone.
The discussion we are having is like the apple. You take small bits of truth and distort the overall picture. For example, you could say that because the apple is red and round it must be a tomato. No amount of proof or reason can change your mind. If you WON'T accept the greater truth, when it is presented in a clear and logical manner, you are not fit for science.
I began this discussion, or my part therein, without malice or bias. You are convinced of the same nonsense I thought to be true. Until, I learned the greater truth. I assure you I am fit for science. So, it was not too difficult for me to accept reason at face value. I hoped I could explain in a way that could enlighten you, without alienating you with an attitude of superiority. Your stubborn, foolish responses have tired me. Like I said - It's not my job to teach you. The knowledge is out there for you.
Before you hand me another "lol" brush off, like I'm some little kid trying to explain where babies come from, I can promise you I have forgotten more about this than you could ever hope to imagine.

 

evolution is powered by the living organism using its 'sense' experiences to program or alter its own DNA (biofeedback ?).

If you can demonstrate that your on the way to your first Nobel prize.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dee Cee

 

You are quite some mathematician Huh? Hardly. I mis-interpreted nothing. I was trying to keep this simple for simple minds. But it appears even that effort has failed you.

I based the numbers on "ONLY ONE breeding pair. Clearly one adverse mutation could have stopped life entirely. But the fact is the theory holds that organic material formed and life formed from that by the millions in the oceans and waterways of the earth.

How many molecules are in a gallon of water? How many gallons of water on earth? How many potential living enities could one expect if they accept life as being merely chemistry formed as theorizeds?

Now start with that number and see how many mutations per breeding cycle you get. Give me any number other than zero for beneficial mutations and I'll give you numbers far greater than my example above for evolution to have thrived.

The problem here seems to be you really do not understand just how much you don't know.

 

I suppose you could look at the DNA of a baby and then re-examine it as it got older hmm...not so sure.

Possibly look at young eggs/sperm and re-examine them during maturity ?

If there were any differences, you could then compare environmental 'experiences' that would have effected the organism.

If this drew a blank, then that noble prize would slip a bit from my grasp and i may have to resort to some sort of 'natural field of consciousness' or other unmeasurable theory !

kula

 

What you missed I believe is that it was a pun.

That is the viruses holding a council and voting to change so as to become resistant to our drugs.

That fact that they have and do continue to change in response to our drugs is paramount proof of evolution. Frankly it don't make a damn if it is by collective vote of a ruling virus council, chance, enviornmental pressure or mutation.

While those details are important to learn, the actual cause of evolution (knowing it or not) does not alter the fact of evolution. We seem to lose sight of that.

 

Why do you think sperm is produced in immature specimens?

 

So that the organism has more time and information to program it with ongoing experiences and the sperm can become more effective?

kula

 

could it be that there is no sperm produced?

 

I dont know, i am presuming that immature sperm would be collected from immature animals, i dont have the info about what could be collected before any sperm was present or at what stage it appears / can be produced.

kula

 

I know of course. That is why I asked you.

Sperm is not produced until puberty. During early development the primordial germ cells arrive at the genital ridge and get incorporated in the sex cords. Spermatogenesis is not initiated until puberty.

 

You can still use the 1% I don't care, even though you did mis-interpret. But it doesn't matter. Whatever your number is i'll give you a number which will be 48.5% larger. You showed us the beneficial if you are kind enough please show us the harmful mutations, using the same method. You were bias when you showed us the beneficial but didn't show us the harmful. The problem seems to be tha you are being bias.

 

You are in good company. Darwin coined the term gemmules to describe the tiny physical units he believed carried inheritable traits. Each trait came from the part of the body it held the code for. He believed these gemmules would be altered both consciously, and otherwise, to be more suited for the environment. Once altered, these traits could be passed on to the next generation.
What this allowed for, was a system, that had been described in 1809, by Lamarck. He called it Philosophie Zoologique. It is now called inheritance of acquired characteristics, or, doctrine of use and disuse.
The typical example of Lamarckian inheritance are giraffes. His system suggested that giraffes needed long necks. So, they would stretch as far as they could stretch and their necks could reach just a little higher. The next generation would, as a result of their parents efforts, have slightly longer necks. Soon, giraffes had necks that worked for them so they didn't need to change anymore.
Both of these men were brilliant. But, in this instance, they were both very wrong. It is easy to disprove once you think about it. Imagine your dad was a body builder. If he got huge before he had children, would his children be any bigger? They would not. These were ideas to explain the concept of inheritance. This concept itself was new.
In 1866 Mendel (He was a monk. -for the creationists who are convinced evolution is at odds with creationism) published his work. If you want to have a serious discussion about evolution or inheritance, you must have a basic understanding of Mendelian genetics. You must be able to discuss Mendel's four postulates. If I list them here, you won't have to look them up. And, you will have the false idea that you know them. So, if you are serious about proving anything or disproving anything (786) look them up. Then, if nothing else, you can know what it is you agree or disagree with.

 

I think i also need to do a little research, but i'll be back soon, hopefully still flying the flag for conscious evolution ! Sperm and postulates for me tonight !

kula