Evolution is Fact

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Ditto. You definitely need to read up on natural selection. Besides, communication is not evidence of cognition.

Communication is basically a transfer of information. Any information.

Ants are stupid critters. Any particular ant is as dumb as a blade of grass. But ants DO communicate with pheromones. (Think of pheromones as just smelly chemicals.) When an ant is performing one of the dozen or so task that an ant is hard-wired to do, it excretes a pheromone indicative of that task. Some of these pheromones get trailed behind the ant as it walks, leaving a temporary record of its passing (and its task at the time).

Ants are stupid critters. Nests of ants are anything BUT stupid. A kind of hive intelligence emerges from the millions of communication events that occur every time an ant contacts another ant, or crosses the trail of another ant in passing. These communication events are NOT cognitive.

I will repeat that: These communication events are NOT cognitive.

An ant does not weigh its options. It does not debate the needs of the colony against its personal needs. It has NO options. The behavior of a single ant is hard-wired, and reacts to its recent history of pheromone detection in a rigid genetically coded manner. It's decision making ability is limited to: "If the number of foraging trails crossed in the last two minutes exceeds the number of nursery-duty trails, then stop nursery-duty and follow that last foraging trail. -- Commence foraging mode.."

At the colony level, the behavior of an ant colony can be impressive, even impressively intelligent. Obviously a LOT of individual communication events are necessary (at the ant level) to make possible the behavior we see (at the colony level).

But it is Not Cognitive Behavior. Communition may be NECESSARY for Cognition, but it is NOT SUFFICIENT.

[HydrogenBond]

By directed evolution I mean the affect is already basically defined by natural laws. For example, if we find life on Mars, we will find DNA or maybe RNA involved. That was already defined as the path of life. That milestone had to reached. If life is still thriving on Mars, we will expect to find cells. We will expect water to be a part, since no enzyme or even the DNA works without water,or with any other solvent. If life goes further we will expect to find multicellular, etc. There may variability in how each of these steps is finally achieved, but these milestones are defined by nature and occur step by step.

The burden of proof should be on evolution to show where random allowed any of these milestones to be skipped or come out differently. Based on the overwhelming evidence a random path at this preliminary level does not exist except in philosophy and in the imagination.

I like the analogy of bush whacking up a mountain. The goal is elevation but there is a lot of flexibility in the path. Some potential paths are dead ends and stop in time. These life forms would have to backtrack and de-evolve to find a better path. But the goal is up, so they can stuck behind a rock. Others find better paths and move toward the next milestone. Sometimes nature helps out with an earthquake, moving the rock so that push forward is able to continue on up the mountain.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

By directed evolution I mean the affect is already basically defined by natural laws. ...I like the analogy of bush whacking up a mountain. The goal is elevation but there is a lot of flexibility in the path....

The analogy of bush whacking up a mountain is a good one. I'm glad you inserted the bit where the shape of the geography can change (eg, by "earthquake") so that a once dead-end evolutionary path can regain the opportunity to evolve onward and upward.

But if this is what you mean by "directed evolution" then it is identical to "undirected evolution". (Or just plain, "evolution".)

Consider a chemical analogy. When hydrogen and oxygen combine, they (generally) form water. They never form salt, they never form iron ore, they never form a radioactive gas, or a metalic liquid, or coal. They form water. That's a given.

BUT we do NOT speak of "directed chemistry"!

We do NOT speak of "directed orbital mechanics"!

The word "directed" calls into question a "director" and this leads to... well... let's say, there's no cheese down that tunnel.

If Life always (generally) goes through RNA, DNA, cells, nuclei, comb-jellies, etc., then GREAT! That would be a fantastic piece of information and this would totally blow the Intelligent Design arguments out of the water. It would mean that NO intelligence whatsoever is required to spontaneously create Life -- any more than intelligence is required to produce water from hydrogen and oxygen.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Ditto. You definitely need to read up on natural selection. Besides, communication is not evidence of cognition.

Never said it was there is no way to know that, what I am saying is..Cooperation is manifested at every taxonomic level of the animal kingdom, from bacteria to social mammals. One requirement essential for the evolution in cooperative behavior is the ability to communicate.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Ants are stupid critters. Any particular ant is as dumb as a blade of grass. But ants DO communicate with pheromones. (Think of pheromones as just smelly chemicals.) When an ant is performing one of the dozen or so task that an ant is hard-wired to do, it excretes a pheromone indicative of that task. Some of these pheromones get trailed behind the ant as it walks, leaving a temporary record of its passing (and its task at the time).

Ants are stupid critters. Nests of ants are anything BUT stupid. A kind of hive intelligence emerges from the millions of communication events that occur every time an ant contacts another ant, or crosses the trail of another ant in passing. These communication events are NOT cognitive.

I will repeat that: These communication events are NOT cognitive.

For any interested party, I will supplement Pyro's post above with a recommendation to view the following program from NOVA:


NOVA | Lord of the Ants | Watch the Program | PBS



It's split into five chapters. Enjoy (if you're brave enough!).

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

there is no way to know that what I am saying is..Cooperation is manifested at every taxonomic level of the animal kingdom, from bacteria to social mammals.

Doesn't this kind of ignore competition?

Also, I'd challenge you to support this assertion with a reference. Please cite where it's been shown that "cooperation is manifested at every taxonomic level of the animal kingdom."

All one needs to do in order to prove such an assertion wrong is to show ONE place where there isn't cooperation.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Doesn't this kind of ignore competition?

Mating, communication, competition, natural selection.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Also, I'd challenge you to support this assertion with a reference. Please cite where it's been shown that "cooperation is manifested at every taxonomic level of the animal kingdom."

Its called sexual reproduction.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

All one needs to do in order to prove such an assertion wrong is to show ONE place where there isn't cooperation.

Sorry that's not even remotely logical.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Its called sexual reproduction.

So, sexual reproduction=cooperation? What about organisms that reproduce asexually?

[CraigD]

Following the conversation starting, roughly, with

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

I am saying what’s in life,... you know brains cells, my intent to evolve, your intent to evolve, a rabbits intent to evolve, inherent intelligentsia in all life... hello.

and seeming to me at an impasse with

Originally Posted by C1ay

Show us your proof that evolution is a cognitive process. There is no inherent intelligence in natural selection. Weak traits die, no intelligence required.

I’ve a hunch the disagreement is most due to miscommunication.

Thunderbird, I think you’re asserting that cognition influences natural selection, especially in humans. Long before the explosion of knowledge about the biochemistry of inheritance following the discovery of DNA ca. 1960, humans have had various ideas about the inheritance of traits, some correct, some not, and have practiced “self selective breeding” in an attempt to have descendents with various desired traits, typically describing these practices – which include selecting mates on the basis of health, beauty, and intelligence, and darker practices such as killing and sterilizing individuals with undesired traits – as “intended to improve the human species”. Although poor understanding of the true biochemistry of genetics and the actual heritability and value of various perceived traits greatly hampered these programs, it’s reasonable, I think, to conclude that they have had at least some, and possibly a dramatic “unnatural” selective effect. As many non-human species have elaborate, selective mating behaviors, it’s reasonable to assume a similar effect in them, as well – though whether many non-human are accurately described as “intending” such an effect is a controversial and philosophical one, to which I suspect, in most cases, the answer is “no”.

However, even if cognitively-driven behavior plays a significant role in biological evolution, I think it’s inaccurate to consider this role a necessary one. Evolution clearly occurred before the appearance of present day human-like thought, or even elaborate mating behavior. So I think it more accurate to call evolution a “cognitively influence-able process” than a “cognitive process”.

So, as I see it, cognition is an significant contributor to natural selection. How significant, I can only speculate, but guess “very”, although I suspect less significant, and especially less significant in humans than our enculturation and intuition may lead us to think. Guessing how significant it may become in the near or distant future requires a great speculative leap more in the realm of SF than science, but my personal - and very biased - guess is that human cognition and machine calculation will at some point subsume natural biology to become effectively the only driver of evolution in known ecosystems.

PS: I admit to being thrown for a momentary loop by TBird’s use of the term “intelligentsia” to mean “unconsciously creating”. The usual meaning of the term, and the only one I’ve previously every heard ascribed to it, is a social, professional, or self-proclaimed class of people who view their lives as applying primarily to thinking, rather than physical, activity, ie: “intellectuals”. Though it’s always fun to invent new terms, it’s best I think not to attempt reusing this one, as it already has a single widely used meaning.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

...Sorry that's not even remotely logical.

Big Eek, indeed!

Yes, I'm afraid it is logical. If one declares the general rule "communication is involved at every taxonomic level", then the general rule can be shown to be invalid if there is one taxonomic level where it does not occur.

Say, for example, at the level of prokaryotic bacteria. They just feed, excrete and undergo asexual reproduction. No communication.

ZAP!!!