Yes
The example you show does not evolve it is stuck in a holding pattern
Evolution.
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
BWE wrote:pfrankinstein wrote:BWE wrote:Paul, do you think there is a problem with our understanding of the process of biological evolution that could be improved upon by a different understanding?
As new data presents itself it should be tested, if the new data better fits the observed evidence, then the mainframe should mutate.
Science itself evolves by the mechanism.
Good test for the forum.
Paul.
.
So, do you believe that there is new data to test? On the same topic, do you think there is data that doesn't fit the theory of biological evolution?
pfrankinstein wrote:
Did our solar system evolve thrower, by means of a type of selection?
BWE wrote:
I included the link just in case you didn't know what it is. The point is that you can see adaptation working in it and also see replication occurring. Replication is just one of many emergent behaviors adaptive systems can develop. The far more generalizable bit is the ability for information to take particular forms that influence other bounded systems in repeating processes. You do not need a huge leap to go to a physical world where autocatalytic sets actually do exist. Life is a particular kind of structure with some quite specific kinds of signal/boundary relationships but the qualifiers that define those kinds are matters of degree rather than of kind. Incidentally, Conway's gol is Turing complete.
BWE wrote:pfrankinstein wrote:thrower to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.snip
A scientist useing the word "evolve" "evolved" "evolution" without any inclination to mechanism or types of selection is also an example of gross simplification.
Asleep. Without insight.
Paul.
Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.
romansh wrote:BWE wrote:
I included the link just in case you didn't know what it is. The point is that you can see adaptation working in it and also see replication occurring. Replication is just one of many emergent behaviors adaptive systems can develop. The far more generalizable bit is the ability for information to take particular forms that influence other bounded systems in repeating processes. You do not need a huge leap to go to a physical world where autocatalytic sets actually do exist. Life is a particular kind of structure with some quite specific kinds of signal/boundary relationships but the qualifiers that define those kinds are matters of degree rather than of kind. Incidentally, Conway's gol is Turing complete.
If I remember correctly in Conway's GoL the rules for growth don't change. Am I right?
So, by definition there cannot be any evolution. There is no replication per se .... just unchanging rules for growth
Don't get me wrong it is a great demo for life, but not Darwinian evolution.
romansh wrote:pfrankinstein wrote:
Did our solar system evolve thrower, by means of a type of selection?
If you mean the solar system is shaped by the environment it finds itself in ... Yes!
If you mean Darwinian evolution .... No!
Similarly, for the moon, it is shaped by its environment.
Now what is the moon a replicate of? How did its forbear shape the moon?
Oh, whilst we are at it
Do snowflakes replicate?
BWE wrote:Paul, you could try making sense. I mean, the alternative hasn't worked. You've got nothing to lose.
pfrankinstein wrote: Your not looking for evolution you are looking for biological evolution.
BWE wrote:I should probably give a better response than that. Sure biological evolution is different, although a fitness landscape does shape a solar system and a planet.
BWE wrote:But the point of saying that it is all part of the same kind of process is that wherever the right kind of complexity emerges, there is a sweet spot in an energy gradient where complexity begins to produce adaptive behavior.
BWE wrote:If simple life is the beginning of autopoeisis, it certainly isn't the end point. At the point where biological evolution begins, ever more complex self regulating entities emerge at higher levels. So cells become organisms, organisms become communities, societies, markets, biospheres, and so on. Each level is definable by the information it processes, as well as the information it externalizes. That process of signals and boundaries works at levels below as well. Drawing the line at autopoeisis is like drawing a line at a certain number of sand grains defining a heap.
BWE wrote:The analogy would be when a pile becomes unstable and begins to have avalanches. It kind of makes sense in that there could be reasons to draw such a line, but it also makes a different analysis seem "other" when the whole system may be better understood for some purposes as the elements which produce criticality or as the interactions from which it emerges.
pfrankinstein wrote:thrower Common ancestor in biology has a meaning Paul. Physical forces are not 'common ancestors'. snip
pfrankinstein wrote:I use the word "ancestor" as a metaphor.
pfrankinstein wrote:Charles Darwin proposed "the common ancestor" of species for biology.
pfrankinstein wrote:Charles Darwin proposed a "tree of life." Note the single trunk and the branching form.
It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.
pfrankinstein wrote:So yes, I propose the big bang. A single beginning denotes a single process.
pfrankinstein wrote:I propose the BB as the first "common ancestor." Note the trunk and the branching form..
In The Tangled Tree, celebrated science writer David Quammen tells perhaps the grandest tale in biology: how scientists used gene sequencing to elucidate the evolutionary relationships between living beings. Charles Darwin called it the ‘great Tree of Life’. But as Quammen reveals, at the molecular level, life’s history is more accurately depicted as a network, a tangled web through which organisms have been exchanging genes for more than 3 billion years.
pfrankinstein wrote:very much don't agree with this. Biological evolution is not like the others - it doesn't fit neatly into a category consisting of stellar and galactic evolution. It only works semantically because the term 'evolution' means change over time and in that way is applicable to all. But there is no fitness landscape for solar systems, galaxies etc., just as their intrinsic constitutional differentiation doesn't get inherited selectively into future iterations.
Evolution = change over time. By what mechanism your change over time?
Absolutely no evidence of a "mechanism" when the protoplanetary disc produced our solar system?
Nothing descended down through time, nothing became modified, the nature of the modification was not stored in the material itself, ....and so on.
Did our solar system evolve thrower, by means of a type of selection?
I see the portolantary disc as an island understanding.
Paul.
No inheretence, no species to recognise. n
No distinct types of planets no inheretence takes place.... crazy.
Paul.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest