Evolution - Reality and Misconceptions
Discussion
ash73 said:
Three legged robots are stable and quite energy efficient, maybe H G Wells was onto something. But almost all natural phyla have two-sided symmetry, wonder why that is.
Organisms have developed asymmetrically, the echinoderm lineage has a number of asymmetric members.
What's more of a mystery is why we haven't discovered an organism that uses radio waves for finding prey and communication. Evolution seems to have limited itself to quite a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum (UV through to IR basically)
RTB said:
What's more of a mystery is why we haven't discovered an organism that uses radio waves for finding prey and communication. Evolution seems to have limited itself to quite a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum (UV through to IR basically)
That's really down to the chemistry available to "life as we know it". Photons in the IR to UV range are of similar energy to chemical bonds* so can be detected by triggering chemical changes in a receptor cell.Also to use radio waves you'd need a transmitter/receiver of around half a wavelength which would be pretty cumbersome.
- edit - just to clarify, IR corresponds to vibrations of bonded atoms, and visible/UV to transitions in electron bands.
Edited by Nimby on Monday 3rd September 17:02
Nimby said:
That's really down to the chemistry available to "life as we know it". Photons in the IR to UV range are of similar energy to chemical bonds, so can be detected by triggering chemical changes in a receptor cell.
Also to use radio waves you'd need a transmitter/receiver of around half a wavelength which would be pretty cumbersome.
Depends on the frequency though. At 800MHz you would only need a transmitter receiver of around 40cm or so. Given that most organisms have biological structures that utilise huge surface areas I can imagine that it would be possible to evolve something that would, at least, be the correct size to receive radio waves without being cumbersome. Also to use radio waves you'd need a transmitter/receiver of around half a wavelength which would be pretty cumbersome.
I take your point about chemistry though. In order to build a transmitter/receiver you would have to incorporate a huge amount of inorganic chemistry. I guess the closest nature has got are organisms that can detect electrical fields.
Toltec said:
ash73 said:
Please no more God talk, science is more interesting.
It is science and linked to evolution, according to Dawkins at least-http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/05/09/d...
a later discussion here-
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/
Is belief in a god or gods etc. and religion a coping mechanism for intelligence, well modest intelligence anyway, it provides explanations, rules and guidlines to stop existance from being overwhelming for a conscious being?
Can evolution explain religion/spirituality?
I think it can, we do have the god gene hypothesis but I don't think it yet qualifies as well proven theory like evolution. I can readily accept that a gene can predispose some people to supernatural beliefs, as easily as I accept that some genes are markers of intelligence or colour blindness.
We do know that genes govern neurotransmitters and those have a direct impact people's state of mind. I think a good circumstantial case that epigenetics also plays a part. Repetitive actions such as dance can stimulate euphoric feelings, we know that music can move people, even flagellation. I have no difficulty accepting that strange and unexplainable situations might do the same in some people, survival rules like avoiding dark places can easily take on a spiritual context. We know that very low light can stimulate hallucinations in most people as the brain struggles to make sense of limited data. We also know that many natural stimulants have similar effects to neurotransmitters and the Shamanic tradition includes the use of mind altering substances like tobacco, cocoa and cactus, and 'magic mushrooms' used in ancient European Shamanic traditions.
It seems highly probable to me that a common belief systems would help with social bonding. That tribes survival could be enhanced by respecting elders or shamans with rare knowledge and more experiences. I can see certain religious rules could enhance survival, such as not eating pigs which is understand is more prone to spoiling than other meats.
Anthropologists tell us that ceremonial burial is a pretty old human behaviour, while we now know that decomposition and contamination leads to disease, an instinctive belief to burn or bury the dead is a self evident survival enhancing behaviour.
I've seen some pretty good cases set out that 'saints' such Joan of Arc were Schizophrenic, which is know to have a genetic predisposition. Schizophrenic provides a very plausible real world explanation for prophets, seeing angels, talking to god, etc.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 4th September 09:09
RTB said:
What are other people's experience of evolutionary education?
It was a long time ago but I definitely did some biology in Junior school, I can't really recall if it included evolution as such but it definitely includes some basic human biology on X/Y chromosomes. My mother used to breed pedigree cats so I got a big boost in basic genetics from an early age including an appreciation of regressive, dominant and dilute genes. I passed Biology at O level. I failed Human Anthropology in sixth form which included a lot of evolution & genetics which I did get, but really disliked all the judgement esoteric stuff like skull shapes, brow ridges and teeth types. I also had a s
t teacher for that. I still find the hard science parts of anthropology interesting, particularly stuff like the seven daughters of Eve and Chromosomal Adam.My BSc is Computer Science, but always maintained wider reading on biology, particularly evolution as well as physics/cosmology. One thing that does capture my imagination is patterns & systems that cross over science topics, like the cellular automata I mentioned earlier. There is another in Computer science called Hoar logic, it has a very similar logical structure to the process of evolution. I learnt the principles of taxonomies from Computer science and backfilled that into Biology and evolution.
4x4Tyke said:
Toltec said:
ash73 said:
Please no more God talk, science is more interesting.
It is science and linked to evolution, according to Dawkins at least-http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/05/09/d...
a later discussion here-
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/
Is belief in a god or gods etc. and religion a coping mechanism for intelligence, well modest intelligence anyway, it provides explanations, rules and guidlines to stop existance from being overwhelming for a conscious being?
Can evolution explain religion/spirituality?
I think it can, we do have the god gene hypothesis but I don't think it yet qualifies as well proven theory like evolution. I can readily accept that a gene can predispose some people to supernatural beliefs, as easily as I can accept that some genes are markers of intelligence or lead to colour blindness.
We do know that genes govern neurotransmitters and those have a direct impact people's state of mind. I think a good circumstantial case that epigenetics also plays a part. Repetitive actions such as dance can stimulate euphoric feelings, we know that music can move people, even flagellation. I have no difficulty accepting that strange and unexplainable situations might do the same in some people, survival rules like avoiding dark places can easily take on a spiritual context. We know that very low light can stimulate hallucinations in most people as the brain struggles to make sense of limited data. We also know that many natural stimulants have similar effects to neurotransmitters and the Shamanic tradition includes the use of mind altering substances like tobacco, cocoa and cactus.
It seems highly probable to me that a common belief systems would help with social bonding. That tribes survival could be enhanced by respecting elders or shamans with rare knowledge and more experiences. I can see certain religious rules could enhance survival, such as not eating pigs which is understand is more prone to spoiling than other meats.
Anthropologists tell us that ceremonial burial is a pretty old human behaviour, while we now know that decomposition and contamination leads to disease, an instinctive belief to burn or bury the dead is a self evident survival enhancing behaviour.
I've seen some pretty good cases set out that saints Joan of Arc was Schizophrenic, which is know to have a genetic predisposition. Schizophrenic provides a very plausible real world explanation for prophets, seeing angels, talking to god.
On the religion vs science nonsense... Its interesting to me that 3 of the biggest household names in British science through the ages, Issac Newton, Charles Darwin and Steven Hawkin are all entombed in Westminster Abbey... Just interesting innit.
ash73 said:
FredClogs said:
Errr... Think you're forgetting Jake the Peg (with the extra leg).
Three legged robots are stable and quite energy efficient, maybe H G Wells was onto something. But almost all natural phyla have two-sided symmetry, wonder why that is.
E34-3.2 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
No it isn't,
Elaborate? Creation of an organism is science no? Announcing "It just got created by 'something' , but we don't know what created the 'something'". Then sticking to your guns despite bookfulls of evidence showing that your 'something' is both undetectable and unnecessary is faith.
Especially when the refusal to rethink in the light of contrary evidence is regarded as a virtue.
Prof Prolapse said:
4x4Tyke said:
Can evolution explain religion/spirituality?
No, but poor education and fear will explain it entirely.The “garden is beautiful enough, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it”.
If you disagree, then I'd welcome an elaboration, because your response is unclear to me.
Halmyre said:
Tripedal entities, whether biological or mechanical, are a favourite trope of SF writers from Wells through Wyndham, Clarke and Banks, but no-one has ever come up with a convincing way of making them move.
Also Niven's puppeteers; he does briefly explain the rear leg anatomy. But I don't see it as a problem; many amputee dogs seem to run around just fine on three legs.Dr Jekyll said:
Working out how an organism is created from the evidence, then checking further to see if you're right, then changing your mind and looking for another explanation in the light of the new evidence is science.
Announcing "It just got created by 'something' , but we don't know what created the 'something'". Then sticking to your guns despite bookfulls of evidence showing that your 'something' is both undetectable and unnecessary is faith.
Especially when the refusal to rethink in the light of contrary evidence is regarded as a virtue.
But you believe in mother earth despite no conclusive proof of how it came to be earth (only a few theories) then on the top of that life started on it from nothing or gaz and dust if you prefer it that way. Have you ever seen life coming out a stone? So basically, earth was created from " something" but no one can what and how for the moment. Am I Right?Announcing "It just got created by 'something' , but we don't know what created the 'something'". Then sticking to your guns despite bookfulls of evidence showing that your 'something' is both undetectable and unnecessary is faith.
Especially when the refusal to rethink in the light of contrary evidence is regarded as a virtue.
Edit: Just in case you claim to know the answers, R.Dawkins doesn't know himself and he is pretty good as what he does: https://youtu.be/Pckg3Kud8_A
Edited by E34-3.2 on Tuesday 4th September 09:45
4x4Tyke said:
Uh? I'm pretty sure you're misreading that sentence/rhetorical question, I do mean explain.
If you disagree, then I'd welcome an elaboration, because your response is unclear to me.
I don't think I have. You're postulating some sort of genetic reason for a belief in the supernatural, or social value. If you disagree, then I'd welcome an elaboration, because your response is unclear to me.
I'm saying, no, I think that is self-evidently not true, in both instances and no one has proven otherwise. Any social values are hugely outweighed by the ignorance, suffering, and stupidity that propogates under any religious leadship. The only comfort it offers is fantasy.
I also don't believe anyone has ever put forward any meangingful evidence with regards to a "god gene". It seems absolute non-sense given that almost all atheists are converts from other beliefs. All children believe in Santa Claus because we indoctronate them as kids, then when they realise it's guff, they stop and never go back, there's no gene for that. As much as people might want to think there's something special about these beliefs there really is no evidence.
You're putting all this crap on a pedastal, giving it time it doesn't merit, in a forum that doesn't want it. Supernatural beliefs, god or otherwise, have almost no merit. There's no reason to believe it other than you're ignorant or frightened. That was my point, and so it remains.
E34-3.2 said:
Some great posts on here, do we have actual real scientists posting on here?
What do you mean by _real_ scientists?I've seen at least two of us outline our credentials as real scientists, or do you not believe BSc and PhD are real scientific credentials?
The majority of posters are following real scientific discourse, qualifying hypothesis vs well proven theories, outline supporting evidence and following a sceptical but open minded approach to unfamiliar evidence.
The vast bulk of Science is about proving things using the scientific method, it is not genius level research of Hawking and Einstein, et. al
4x4Tyke said:
What do you mean by _real_ scientists?
I've seen at least two of us outline our credentials as real scientists, or do you not believe BSc and PhD are real scientific credentials?
The majority of posters are following real scientific discourse, qualifying hypothesis vs well proven theories, outline supporting evidence and following a sceptical but open minded approach to unfamiliar evidence.
The vast bulk of Science is about proving things using the scientific method, it is not genius level research of Hawking and Einstein, et. al
You just answered. What is your field of research? I've seen at least two of us outline our credentials as real scientists, or do you not believe BSc and PhD are real scientific credentials?
The majority of posters are following real scientific discourse, qualifying hypothesis vs well proven theories, outline supporting evidence and following a sceptical but open minded approach to unfamiliar evidence.
The vast bulk of Science is about proving things using the scientific method, it is not genius level research of Hawking and Einstein, et. al
A BSc really wouldn't make you a scientist, it might make you scientifically literate, a relevant PhD is a pretty hefty qualification and deserves respect, but I think by most people's definitions a scientist is someone who applies the scientific method to their work.
In the commercial world, we're often quite dettached from the process. People that carry out that classic role of bench work, in white lab coats, test tubes etc. often are extremely removed from the scientific process due to the size of the projects, running endless assays, often just as technicians, but termed "scientists". In academia it's cut a bit clearer I think, people get far more of a chance to take on more of a classic role, like postgraduate scientists do, PhD students too. They are clearly scientists in the common understanding but in reality are the minority of people that work in the scientific industries.
The point however is a bit moot, arguments based on authority are not to be trusted. If I was to say, "you're wrong about that of evolution, because I've been a scientist for ten years and I know it's untrue", you may initially be taken aback, but the reality is I've offered no explanation as to why you're wrong, I may work in the science of textiles for all you know, and even if it is my field, I could simply be wrong, and offering no explanation means I have not been transparent and allowed you to criticise my thinking, so how could you know I'm correct?
In the commercial world, we're often quite dettached from the process. People that carry out that classic role of bench work, in white lab coats, test tubes etc. often are extremely removed from the scientific process due to the size of the projects, running endless assays, often just as technicians, but termed "scientists". In academia it's cut a bit clearer I think, people get far more of a chance to take on more of a classic role, like postgraduate scientists do, PhD students too. They are clearly scientists in the common understanding but in reality are the minority of people that work in the scientific industries.
The point however is a bit moot, arguments based on authority are not to be trusted. If I was to say, "you're wrong about that of evolution, because I've been a scientist for ten years and I know it's untrue", you may initially be taken aback, but the reality is I've offered no explanation as to why you're wrong, I may work in the science of textiles for all you know, and even if it is my field, I could simply be wrong, and offering no explanation means I have not been transparent and allowed you to criticise my thinking, so how could you know I'm correct?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff