Evolution as mental concept

[watcher]

Well you don't understand what I'm on about, this becomes obvious by your attacks upon me, like someone defending their religious views. I don't disagree with a lot of what others on this thread have said but the reverse cannot be said about my views. You're trying to analyse and I'm trying to synthesize and that is the difference. If you cannot see that this is the only difference, then this thread is dead, Fred (Mr Spock has left the building).

 

are you saying that biological evolution (at least to humans) is not alone a physical process but also influence by the mind? if so, i agree.

 

biological evolution is all about slight changes in dna. we called this mutations. we called this random because of the unpredictability of its occurrences and not because their happening is not without cause. it is ridiculous to think that something in nature would occur without a cause. relativity was already here to tell us that everything is interconnected.

 

there are indications that our feelings, thoughts and emotions make an imprints in our dna make up. if so, the mind may also be considered as a factor for those slight changes in dna and a factor for the future evolution of humans. the process of evolution itself may also "evolved" in a new way as we learn more to control our mind thus gaining "some" control to the make up of our dna. this is partly possible due to the ability of the human mind to self -reflect.

 

and yes this is radical stuff. not main stream science.

 

.

[freeztar]

there are indications that our feelings, thoughts and emotions make an imprints in our dna make up. if so, the mind may also be considered as a factor for those slight changes in dna and a factor for the future evolution of humans. the process of evolution itself may also "evolved" in a new way as we learn more to control our mind thus gaining "some" control to the make up of our dna. this is partly possible due to the ability of the human mind to self -reflect.

 

and yes this is radical stuff. not main stream science.

This is very Lamarckian.

 

What indications are you referring to? Please provide some sources.

[watcher]

This is very Lamarckian.

 

What indications are you referring to? Please provide some sources.

 

the pioneering russian research on dna such us wave genetics and phantom dna.

[freeztar]

the pioneering russian research on dna such us wave genetics and phantom dna.

 

Again, can you please provide some sources?

 

A quick search revealed many "new-age-ish" sources for the terms you supplied. I was able to track down a related wiki that sums it up fairly well, imho.

 

Holographic paradigm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It's certainly very interesting and I would welcome a more lengthy discussion of it in another, dedicated thread.

[Buffy]

the pioneering russian research on dna such us wave genetics and phantom dna.

 

Sounds interesting: Evolutionary Biology: Wave Genetics and the Wave Structure of Matter in Space. Genes, DNA, Genetic Modification, Life

 

I think it would make an interesting source for a game of buzzword bingo...leaving up to the reader to guess what the subject of those buzzwords might be...

 

Probable-Possible, my black hen,

Buffy

[freeztar]

I think it would make an interesting source for a game of buzzword bingo...

 

One can only hope that the keywords are relevant.

 

Who Dat!

[Pyrotex]

... it is ridiculous to think that something in nature would occur without a cause. relativity was already here to tell us that everything is interconnected...

Actually, Relativity (either Special or General) does not say anything about everything being "connected" or "interconnected". I'm sure Einstein might be flattered that you claim either of these Theories with extraordinary powers that he never intended, but alas, at the end of the day he would merely say that your statement is bogus.

 

Now, IS everything in nature interconnected?

Well, first of all, you have to define what the heck you mean by "interconnected".

Let's say I have two grains of sand. Each grain is in a perfectly clean, sealed testtube.

Now, what experiment do you propose to test for their interconnectedness?

How will this interconnectedness manifest itself?

What instruments do you need and what will you be measuring?

Ah, perhaps grains of sand are not convenient for this exercise.

So, why don't YOU choose any two things and then describe the test.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[HydrogenBond]

There are many interconnections between the earth and evolution. For example, all species that live in the arctic regions of the earth have genetics that allow them to deal with the cold conditions. I am not sure of the number of species, but it is doubtful all species randomly ended up with the correct genetics that allowed survival in the cold. That environment set the hard reality for survival, and genetics had to accommodate or the life form went extinct.

 

Environmentalists are often concerned with human progress intruding into natural eco-systems. The reason is, some genetics are optimized for the old environment. If we alter the environment, the genetics don't always add up the same way. In places where species are going extinct, humans may have to reverse engineer an environment to allow then to regain their genetic optimization. If we left the environment changed, another eco-system will form based on those conditions.

 

An interesting environmentally wise critter is the snow owl. It does not have the genetics to endure a cold arctic winter. So it uses it brain and migrates south in the winter to maintain an environment that is conducive to its genetic parameters. In the summer, its genetics can handle the milder arctic, so it migrates back. Whether this occurred randomly due to genetics, the environment set a goal for this optimization.

 

This mental construct for evolution adds the potentials of the earth as the basis for the direction of some genetic changes. with a narrow band of random genetics changes, more conducive to any given environment.

 

It is not coincidental that Darwin finalized his thesis after his visit to Galapagos. In England the environment changed too fast and could not be factored out, as easy. In Galapagos he had a more controlled environment, that may have remained that way for a longer period of time. This allowed isolation of one variable. I am adding the second variable back, since we have already work the one variable into a mental construct that does not fully address the integration to the second variable. This second variable is more predictable.

 

For example, if we go to the hot desert, I predict (which we can test), that all the species will have genetics for water retention, since the environment will set that constraint for survival. It doesn't matter the random genetic walk, this will be a common goal needed for environmental optimization/ survival.

[Pyrotex]

An interesting theory I once read about animals who migrate.

 

It has been proposed that in the abyssal geological past (that means "way back when")

these animals had numerous regions where they lay eggs, raised young, and searched for food.

 

For these particular animals, the presence of predators or hostile ecosystems caused them to "specialize" -- their survival was increased if they fed in region A and gave birth to their young ( or laid their eggs) in region B. The two regions were, say, on opposite sides of a deep valley.

 

And then -- the two regions, A and B, slowly separated and went in different directions, because they just happened to be on opposite sides of a rift that eventually divided two continental plates. As each plate went its separate way over tens of millions of years, the regions A and B got further apart, and the animals had to travel a half centimeter further each year, until today, when they migrate vast distances. (In the case of birds, this can be thousands of miles.)

[Pyrotex]

About "Evolution" as a mental concept:---

 

At the highest levels of abstraction, the word evolution simply means a gradual change, even an imperceptibly gradual change. It expresses the concept that "things ain't what they used to be". At this level, we can speak of the simple fact that the world and everything in it is in flux. When I started driving a car, gas was 25 cents a gallon; now it's $2.75 a gallon. When I was a kid, every summer evening revealed a million lightening bugs drifting across the yards in my neighborhood; now you have to travel to wilderness areas to see them. When I was a kid, I had a head full of dark brown hair and a smooth chin; now I have thinning white hair and a small beard that I keep trimmed.

 

Change. Slow change. Change so slow you can't see it from day to day.

 

Now go down the ladder of abstraction a few rungs until you come to a specific "evolution" -- Darwin's biological evolution (DBE). There is no doubt that the shape and size and contours and colors, etcetera, of life here on Earth has changed over the millions of years. The horse got bigger and went from 4 toes to one. One of the small dinosaur groups flourished into a bewildering bouquet of birds. The "proto-ape" family of tree-swingers split into two groups, one of which gave up swinging in trees and decided to see what was over the next horizon.

 

There is the temptation to think that all these forms of change are somehow "related" in some deep, profound way. The price of gas and the toes of the horse. The hair on my head and the feathers of birds. But there ain't any cheese down that tunnel. We may derive some philosophical pleasure in these exercises, but we do not generate anything of substance. This does not make us smarter.

 

In particular, we do not generate theories that explain the changes. How do the toes of horses explain the 10-fold increase in gas prices over my lifetime? Or vice-versa.

 

DBE is a specific, tightly constrained problem: how do lifeforms change over geologic time? For this problem, Darwin came up with an answer, an explanation of how and why those changes take place. And behold, it turns out that the changes are not merely random shifts, but are responses. Responses to other changes: changes in other animals, changes in the environment, changes in animal behavior, changes in the Earth's surface.

 

My hairline is not receding as a response to the decline in lightening bug populations. (I wish it were!) DBE has nothing to say about my hairline OR the declining populations. DBE has nothing to say about a LOT of things, such as: culture, technology, the price of gas, religion(s), politics, national boundaries... ALL of which CHANGE! And the reason is, those things don't change the way that species change.

 

Species change because each generation procreates a new generation. Each individual in each generation gets genes from both parents, and therefore represents a new genome, which will produce an ever-so-slightly different individual living in an ever-so-slightly different environment.

 

My hairline does NOT change because two parent hairlines had sex and produced the child hairline I am wearing today. The pollution in my hometown night skies does NOT change because two half polluted night skies had sex and produced a child night sky. The gas prices did NOT change because two parent tanks of gas had sex and produced a baby tank of gas.

 

(Of course, in the sequel to the animated movie, "Cars", maybe that's what will happen!) :eek:

 

Feel free to climb and descend the Ladder of Abstraction, with the very general at the top and the very specific and detailed at the bottom. But be extremely cautious and wary of any attempts to impose observations gleaned from the top of the Ladder to the Theory of DBE, which is found at the bottom of the Ladder. Or vice versa.

[watcher]

Actually, Relativity (either Special or General) does not say anything about everything being "connected" or "interconnected". I'm sure Einstein might be flattered that you claim either of these Theories with extraordinary powers that he never intended, but alas, at the end of the day he would merely say that your statement is bogus.

 

Mach's principles implies that everything in connected, and the proof is the explanation of inertia.

Mach, in the nineteenth century, was the only one who thought seriously of the elimination of the concept of space, in that he sought to replace it by the notion of the totality of the instantaneous distances between all material points. (He made this attempt in order to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of inertia.) (Einstein, 1954)

 

I'm sure Einstein might be flattered that you claim either of these Theories with extraordinary powers that he never intended, but alas, at the end of the day he would merely say that your statement is bogus.

 

well let's hear it from eintein himself ....

 

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

(Albert Einstein)

 

well of couse you have to make a common sense deduction that NO SEPARATE EXISENCE meant INTERCONNECTED so you can "connect" with einsten.

 

Now, IS everything in nature interconnected?

Well, first of all, you have to define what the heck you mean by "interconnected".

Let's say I have two grains of sand. Each grain is in a perfectly clean, sealed testtube.

Now, what experiment do you propose to test for their interconnectedness?

How will this interconnectedness manifest itself?

What instruments do you need and what will you be measuring?

Ah, perhaps grains of sand are not convenient for this exercise.

So, why don't YOU choose any two things and then describe the test.

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

for the former, epr paradox, bell's theorem, ans aspect experiment i think will do, for the latter, placebo effect is a strong indicaton that mind and matter are connected.

 

 

.

[watcher]

Again, can you please provide some sources?

 

A quick search revealed many "new-age-ish" sources for the terms you supplied. I was able to track down a related wiki that sums it up fairly well, imho.

 

Holographic paradigm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It's certainly very interesting and I would welcome a more lengthy discussion of it in another, dedicated thread. :eek:

 

new ager tends to do that, grab any scientific knowledge and cite them to scientize spirituality. they do that a lot to quantum mechanics.

 

it seemed that the actual paper of the experiment by russian scientist is not available in the internet, perhaps a search in russian language could have a more positive result. it's unfortunate that the experiment was done in russia, if done in western countries, it would have been more easily confirmed or dispel as bogus.

 

but as bufffy had said, there's a buzzword goin around. is the experiment just an imagination, exaggeration or truly happened? for non interested parties, the tendency is to dismiss it, but to those who see its plausibliity is to pursue the subject further.

 

.you can check this link http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-phantom.htm

 

 

Using the methods of DNA chemical modification, the binding of RecA monomers to oligonucleotides containing a molecule of fluorescent dye has been demonstrated to be phased (Volodin et al., 1997). This opens a new and very important possibility for further studying this system and allows one to look at structural bases of genetic recombination from a new point of view. http://old.img.ras.ru/2-8-e.htm

[watcher]

DBE is a specific, tightly constrained problem: how do lifeforms change over geologic time? For this problem, Darwin came up with an answer, an explanation of how and why those changes take place. And behold, it turns out that the changes are not merely random shifts, but are responses. Responses to other changes: changes in other animals, changes in the environment, changes in animal behavior, changes in the Earth's surface.

 

yes and we do want to philosophize the fundamental mechanisms of those responses.

 

for example, is a response/reaction a result of causality? is causality a result of interconnectedness? is interconnectedness a result of wholeness?

so a litttle thoughtfulness actually would be tempting to think that everything is related, like change, it happens even if it is IMPERCEPTIBE!! connectivity of things may be very subtle but could be there as well. ever heard the saying the fluff of the butterfly' swings affects the weather in china?

 

it's just a matter of perception, i mean the force field is the same thing that connects and separates two particles, isn't it?

 

so when you say that your hairline is not related to the rise of pollution, you are just being naive.

[Pyrotex]

Mach's principles implies that everything in connected, and the proof is the explanation of inertia. ...

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

(Albert Einstein)...

epr paradox, bell's theorem

...placebo effect is a strong indicaton that mind and matter are connected.

Okay, the reference to Mach is a good one. I give you 3 points. :eek_big:

The Einstein ref requires a big leap of interpretation, but still, gravitation IS a universal force. 2 points.

EPR, Bell... certainly a pair of electrons can become entangled, but ALL electrons ALL the time? IMHO, we don't know enough about quantum space time shenanigans to make a call on this, but I'll be generous and give you 1 point.

Placebo? Mind over Matter? [bZZZT!] [bZZZT!]

 

I'm sorry, but that's Buelah, the Buzzer. Zero points, but thanks for playing the game!

 

Total: 6 points out of 12! :eek: Excellent.

 

Though all matter is "interconnected" via gravitation (which we assume propagates at the speed of light), I was thinking more in terms of the Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo [with apologies to certain African tribal religions] that posit such connectedness as "karma", "remote healing", and various forms of prognostication.

[watcher]

EPR, Bell... certainly a pair of electrons can become entangled, but ALL electrons ALL the time? IMHO, we don't know enough about quantum space time shenanigans to make a call on this, but I'll be generous and give you 1 point.

 

this is a philosophy forum, we can always do speculative thinking and state philosophical notions like "everything is a flux".

 

so if you think machian was a good reference, lets us assume that change as the basis of all evolutionary process in its basic mechanism is for a single electron to shift from one energy state to another. does a single electron that moved to a higher state disturbed the rest of all the electrons in the universe or not? what do you think?

 

Though all matter is "interconnected" via gravitation (which we assume propagates at the speed of light), I was thinking more in terms of the Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo [with apologies to certain African tribal religions] that posit such connectedness as "karma", "remote healing", and various forms of prognostication.

 

you shouldn't really throw the baby with the bath water.

[Pyrotex]

It's an ugly baby.

 

Well, let's change your example to an electron that drops to a lower energy state around its atom. This will be accompanied by the emission of a single photon. That photon may travel halfway across the universe and finally be absorbed by some lonely helium ion in one of the galactic voids. So, philosophickickally, perhaps it makes no difference at all. :lol:

 

Or perhaps it enters a planetary atmosphere, bounces off 27 Nitrogen atoms and then is absorbed by a molecule of chlorophyll in a leaf of a redwood tree, thereby triggering the production of an oxygen molecule. Which feeds a raging forest fire that consumes the last living forest of redwoods, and exterminates a rare six-legged variety of arboreal bugeaters that would have eventually (a million years later) evolved into a self-aware sentient species destined to create the most magnificent galactic empire in the history of the universe.

 

Ehh!! Easy come, easy go.

[watcher]

Well, let's change your example to an electron that drops to a lower energy state around its atom. This will be accompanied by the emission of a single photon. That photon may travel halfway across the universe and finally be absorbed by some lonely helium ion in one of the galactic voids. So, philosophickickally, perhaps it makes no difference at all. :lol:.

 

if we're talking about the interconnection of all things, perhaps it does.

 

now what's left is to bridge the gap between mind and matter, that the two are also connected. even philosophically, to overcome the false belief that mind emerges from matter, which by the way has no proof. there is no known mechanism where an inorganic matter transform to an organic matter, neither how the mind (subjectivity) comes out of atomic elements.

 

.