Convergence; another example (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, March 05, 2014, 18:01 (3916 days ago)
Life keeps reinventing parts:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39332/title/Convergent-Fish-Fins/-This must be a built-in capacity that drives evolution (Simon Conway Morris toward humans.
Convergence; another example
DAVID: Life keeps reinventing parts:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39332/title/Convergent-Fish-Fins/-This must be a built-in capacity that drives evolution (Simon Conway Morris toward humans.-And of course towards all the other animals with limbs and all the later fish with fins. Unfortunately, however, it seems that even the researchers themselves aren't sure of anything: QUOTE: They have good evidence here that the adipose fin may be a good model for understanding the origins of limbs and fins," said Peter Wainwright, a biologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the research. "They're essentially charting a course for future research here." But Wainwright cautioned that it's too soon to tell whether this insight can be used to study how limbs and other types of fins developed. "It may just turn out that the origins of adipose fins are somehow unique and different from the origin of other fins," he said. "We don't know how good a model it will be. We'll just have to wait and see how that work pans out."-Well, let me know when they prove that your God planned the adipose fin as a mere stepping stone to human arms and legs...
Convergence; another example
by David Turell , Saturday, March 08, 2014, 00:32 (3914 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Well, let me know when they prove that your God planned the adipose fin as a mere stepping stone to human arms and legs...-Life is like a shotgun, spraying inventions in every direction. taht is why the bush and not a tree.
Convergence; another example
Dhw: Well, let me know when they prove that your God planned the adipose fin as a mere stepping stone to human arms and legs...-DAVID: Life is like a shotgun, spraying inventions in every direction. taht is why the bush and not a tree.-DAVID ( under "Cambrian Explosion") Today, as a result of Chinese paleontology, biologists must choose between classic Darwinism and "saltation," the idea of evolution in quick jumps, says biologist Holland. Chinese gossil discoveries have wrought havoc upon his once-tidy tree of life: "You just hardly know what order to put the material in now. I mean, you might as well just present the phyla alphabetically. It's come to that."-You could hardly have made it clearer that evolution is a higgledy-piggledy process of random developments, innovations, extinctions, with no underlying plan and no fixed purpose.
Convergence; another example
by David Turell , Friday, May 23, 2014, 19:25 (3837 days ago) @ dhw
Comb jellies have nerves, apparently developed separately from other evolved organisms.-http://www.genomeweb.com//blog/more-once-"The nervous system of comb jellies seems to have evolved separately from those of other animals, researchers led by the University of Florida's Andrea Kohn report in Nature this week. "Kohn and her colleagues sequenced the genome of the Pacific sea gooseberry (Pleurobrachia bachei) and generated its transcriptome and the transcriptome of 10 other comb jellies. From this, they found that comb jelly genomes differ from those of other animals in their neurogenic, immune, and developmental gene content, as in they lack many of those genes. The researchers also placed comb jellies as the earliest lineage in Metazoa. "The researchers also argue that, since the comb jelly is missing many of the usual pieces of the nervous system — the Pacific sea gooseberry uses one or two neurotransmitters rather than all 10 of the primary ones seen in other animals, Nature News notes — it may have evolved independently. "Everyone thinks this kind of complexity cannot be done twice," first author Leonid Moroz from UF tells Nature News. "But this organism suggests that it happens.'"
Convergence; another example
DAVID: Comb jellies have nerves, apparently developed separately from other evolved organisms.-http://www.genomeweb.com//blog/more-once-"The researchers also argue that, since the comb jelly is missing many of the usual pieces of the nervous system — the Pacific sea gooseberry uses one or two neurotransmitters rather than all 10 of the primary ones seen in other animals, Nature News notes — it may have evolved independently.-"Everyone thinks this kind of complexity cannot be done twice," first author Leonid Moroz from UF tells Nature News. "But this organism suggests that it happens.'"-As always, I'd like to thank you for the flow of information. You are providing us with an on-going education! So I hope you won't think I'm ungrateful if I use your material to pursue certain arguments.-I agree that this an example of convergence. It also seems to me to be an example of evolution "spraying inventions in every direction" (your own expression) in an evolutionary free-for-all, rather than of "antedating need" and "pre-planning" (again your own expressions). See under "Innovation and Speciation: pre-planning".
Convergence; another example
by David Turell , Saturday, May 24, 2014, 20:34 (3836 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As always, I'd like to thank you for the flow of information. You are providing us with an on-going education! So I hope you won't think I'm ungrateful if I use your material to pursue certain arguments.-Use it any way you wish. > >dhw: I agree that this an example of convergence. It also seems to me to be an example of evolution "spraying inventions in every direction" (your own expression) in an evolutionary free-for-all, rather than of "antedating need" and "pre-planning" (again your own expressions). See under "Innovation and Speciation: pre-planning".-The way evolution has proceded is by invention, trial and error. But still the amazing fact is we arrived, against all need for seomthing so complex to survive in the Earth's climate and challenges. Still smells of purpose to me.
Convergence; six types
by David Turell , Friday, June 27, 2014, 15:50 (3802 days ago) @ David Turell
Electric fish have developed in six different lineages, all separate, all from muscle modification, as an amazing example of convergence:-"These fish have converted a muscle to an electric organ," explains Sussman, a professor of biochemistry and director of the UW-Madison Biotechnology Center, who first undertook the exploration of the electric organ almost a decade ago. The study published in Science provides evidence to support the idea that the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ, needed for defense, predation, navigation and communication."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-truth-electric-fish.html#jCp
Convergence; bird color
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 01, 2014, 14:47 (3798 days ago) @ David Turell
Brightly colored birds, 13 times over 66 million years, for no good reason except our enjoyment:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40393/title/The-Rise-of-Color/
Convergence; bird color
DAVID: Brightly colored birds, 13 times over 66 million years, for no good reason except our enjoyment: -http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40393/title/The-Rise-of-Color/-Speak for yourself, David. I wasn't around 66 million years ago.
Convergence; bird color
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 02, 2014, 02:45 (3798 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Brightly colored birds, 13 times over 66 million years, for no good reason except our enjoyment: > > http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40393/title/The-Rise-of-Color/&a... > dhw; Speak for yourself, David. I wasn't around 66 million years ago.-Pre-planned just for our birding folks
Convergence; spiderwebs
by David Turell , Friday, July 18, 2014, 15:49 (3781 days ago) @ David Turell
Different spiders, same web design:- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140717142043.htm
Convergence; ear drums
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 15:29 (3503 days ago) @ David Turell
Another example of how an IM might work following built-in patterns. Ear drums in mammals developed from the lower jaw while in snakes and birds from the upper jaw:-"The evolution of the eardrum and the middle ear is what has allowed mammals, reptiles, and birds to hear through the air. Their eardrums all look similar, are formed when the ear canal reaches the first pharyngeal pouch, and function similarly. However the fossil record shows that the middle ears in these two lineages are fundamentally different, with two of the bones that make up the mammalian middle ear—the hammer and the anvil—being homologous with parts of diapsid jawbones—the articular and quadrate. In both lineages, these bones connect at what is called the primary jaw joint.-"Although scientists have suspected that the eardrum—and thus hearing—developed independently in mammals and diapsids, no hard evidence has been found in the fossil record because the eardrum is never fossilized. To overcome this difficulty, the research team and their collaborators turned to evolutionary developmental biology—or "evo-devo." They noted that in mammals, the eardrum attaches to the tympanic ring—a bone derived from the lower jaw, but that in diapsids it attaches to the quadrate—an upper jawbone. Hypothesizing that eardrum evolution was related to these different jawbones, they performed a series of experiments that manipulated lower jaw development in mice and chickens."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-mom-eardrums-evolution-fossil.html#jCp
Convergence; feather crests & patterns
by David Turell , Friday, July 03, 2015, 22:54 (3431 days ago) @ David Turell
In two very distant species feather neck crests are controlled by the same gene. this is evidence of convergence and also patterns in evolution:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623180305.htm-"Evolutionary biologist Michael Shapiro and his team from the University of Utah made international headlines in 2013 when they found that a prominent change in pigeon plumage, head crests, could be traced to a mutation in a single gene.-"Now, in the new advanced online edition of Molecular Biology and Evolution, the research team has found an almost exact repeat in the evolutionary playbook. A mutation in the same gene, EphB2, has led to a similar result in domesticated ringneck doves. The mutation causes the feathers on the back of the head and neck to grow up toward the head in a striking look.-"Domesticated rock pigeons have more than 300 varieties that have been bred and chosen for their prized looks and vibrant feather colors. The head crested birds had one version of the gene, a single mutation that made an aberrant protein (Arg758Cys) responsible for the feather difference between them and uncrested birds.-***-"'Crested birds from both species have mutations in the same gene, and even in the same functional part of the gene," said Shapiro. "This suggests that only a limited number of genes -- perhaps only genes in the EphB2 pathway -- can cause crest formation without causing other problems that affect survival of the embryo or adult. Studying other species will help us understand if this same genetic mechanism is used repeatedly throughout crested bird species, or if it's a mechanism that's limited to the pigeon and dove family."-"Given that the ringneck dove is a domesticated species that last shared a common ancestor with the rock pigeon 23-35 million years ago, the study shows that the same gene can be implicated as a prime driver of feather variation in completely different species, separated over a great evolutionary distance.-"'We know that many genes are involved in feather development, so it's rather remarkable that the same gene appears to control the same trait in two distantly related species," said Shapiro."-Comment: I am convinced more than ever that evolution had patterns set up in the beginning to make the process easier to develop.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris
by David Turell , Saturday, July 04, 2015, 18:25 (3430 days ago) @ David Turell
The master of convergence is back again with a new book stating that patterns of life will show us aliens that are about like us, if aliens really exist:-http://www.sciencealert.com/aliens-will-look-a-lot-like-us-says-an-expert-on-evolution?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-07-04-"You can forget about little green men and predatory Xenomorphs: aliens are likely to look a lot like human beings, according to an expert in evolution from the University of Cambridge. In a new book, Simon Conway Morris says that any extra-terrestrial lifeforms will have evolved very much like we have - because an Earth-like planet would be necessary to support life in the first place.-"The theory, called convergent evolution, is actually already well established: the idea is that different species evolve similar characteristics because they're living in a similar environment. One of the most commonly cited examples is the octopus camera eye, which works in much the same way as a human eye. Morris thinks that because alien species will be living on planets like our own, they'll evolve along similar lines.-"The academic discusses the theory in a new book published this week, The Runes Of Evolution. "The book is really trying to persuade the world that evolutionary convergence is completely ubiquitous," Morris told The Independent. "Wherever you look you see it. The theme is to try and drive the reader, gently of course, into the possibility that the things which we regard as most important - cognitive sophistication, large brains, intelligence, tool-making - are also convergent."-"'Therefore, in principle, other Earth-like planets should very much end up with the same sort of arrangement."-"And it doesn't stop at humans either. The Cambridge professor believes that plant and animal life will probably have followed the same evolutionary pattern too."-Comment: I think it is easier to evolve living organisms if pattern plans are set down in advance.
Convergence; plant response to stress
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 18:06 (3405 days ago) @ David Turell
Plants produce GABA in response to stress. Animals use the same molecule in neurotransmission:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150729085922.htm-"'By identifying how plants use GABA as a stress signal we have a new tool to help in the global effort to breed more stress resilient crops to fight food insecurity."-"Despite a similar function, the proteins that bind GABA and their mammalian counterparts only resemble each other in the region where they interact with the neurotransmitter -- the rest of the protein looks quite different.-"'This raises very interesting questions about how GABA has been recruited as a messenger in both plant and animal kingdoms," says co-lead author Dr Sunita Ramesh. "It seems likely that this has evolved in both kingdoms separately.'"-Comment: Again, a demonstration of patterns in evolution
Convergence; in vision
by David Turell , Saturday, November 21, 2015, 05:59 (3290 days ago) @ David Turell
Another version of vision is seen in Acanthopleura granulate, a mollusk, also using crystal lenses as seen in Trilobites:-http://www.livescience.com/52857-mollusk-has-eyes-made-of-armor.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-11-20-Acanthopleura granulata is a chiton, a pill bug of the sea. This animal has a shell made of overlapping plates, which allows it to roll up in defense if a predator manages to pry it from the tidal-zone rock it calls home. Researchers have long known that chitons have soft tissue embedded in their flexible suits of armor, and that some of this soft tissue is sensitive to light. Now, they've discovered that A. granulata has hundreds of actual eyes that can see an 8-inch-long (20 centimeters) fish from 6.5 feet (2 meters) away.-Even weirder, these eyes are made of the same calcium-carbonate mineral as the chiton shell. However, the animal does have to trade off some structural integrity in return for the sensory function.-***-The researchers examined the microscopic structure of these aragonite eyes, comparing them with the surrounding armor structure. They also ran experiments and simulations to reveal that the eyes are more than just light-sensitive spots; they actually resolve images. From more than 6 feet away, chitons can see a blur representing a small fish. This gives them time to clamp down hard on the rock below so the potential predator can't dislodge them, Li said.-Comment: for some reason the retina is not mentioned. Some type is needed. Convergence is a key finding in that needed functions are solved in many ways. Note the bush of life as a proof.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
by David Turell , Friday, June 10, 2016, 02:21 (3089 days ago) @ David Turell
A review of Conway Morris and his reliance on convergence to show a pattern of teleology in evolution:-http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2016/06/08/why-teleology-isnt-dead/#381719b073d4-"Yet, as a recent spate of books by scientists suggests, science itself may have room for a new form of teleology, a new way to quantify and grasp a goal-driven directionality in nature, one more robust than the Aristotelian version, but one unafraid to acknowledge a progressive movement in the evolution of life toward consciousness.-***-"Now, in one of the the most recent of such books, The Runes of Evolution, Simon Conway Morris takes a broad view of the tree of life and lays out chapter after chapter of nature's seemingly limitless means of devising the same solutions to life's challenges.-"Conway Morris, a paleontologist at Cambridge University, has long argued that life in the universe is probably very rare—but at the same time, where it does take root, must almost certainly lead to the evolution of consciousness.-"A committed Darwinian, Conway Morris nevertheless disagreed with his fellow paleontologist, the late Stephen Jay Gould, when the latter famously argued that if you could ‘rewind the tape' and start over, the history of life on earth would have been vastly different -and human evolution would never repeat itself. Chance, for Gould, could not be counted on to replay itself for our benefit.-***-"His book is at once a grand survey of critters, from bacteria to puffer fish to octopus, to bats, to macaques and dolphins, all revealing in their own ways different examples of evolutionary convergence: the tendency of evolution to reinvent adaptations independently over and over again.-***-"In the main body of the text, he lays out the various species in whom evolution has invented the same tools over and over. You'll probably need a glossary of zoology to keep up with the author, but Conway Morris' encyclopedic knowledge of species (and the field specialists who track them) is delightfully broad. The notes and bibliography alone take up a third of the entire volume.-"Conway Morris' work is also getting some support at the genetic level: Andreas Wagner, in his recent book Arrival of the Fittest, is researching how—at the most basic level of DNA-evolution is exploring what you might call an ideal Platonic library of genetic pathways just waiting to be realized in life.-"Fascinating to be sure, but in the end, skeptics may ask, what's it all about? Is consciousness really inevitable in the universe?-"Conway Morris has been criticized for subtitling his book ‘How the Universe Became Self Aware'. That much of his work in the discussion of science and religion has been funded by The John Templeton Foundation is also a sore spot for many skeptics. [Full disclosure: I was a Templeton-Cambridge fellow in 2010.] But to my mind, he is simply following in the steps of Carl Sagan, who in the first chapter of his book Cosmos made the same point when he said humans are made of star stuff. “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”-"Such a statement should hardly be controversial. But perhaps if Aristotle were alive today, he'd be enthralled."-Comment: He is committed to Darwin, but enthralled by convergence and I think convergence implies teleology as does the author of the article. A resemblance to Denton's patterns is also at play here. It certainly seems as though advances are patterned in advance within the genome.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
David's comment: He [Conway Morris] is committed to Darwin, but enthralled by convergence and I think convergence implies teleology as does the author of the article. A resemblance to Denton's patterns is also at play here. It certainly seems as though advances are patterned in advance within the genome.-Since there seems to be a consensus here on the truth of common descent, patterns are inevitable. If we also accept that organisms look for ways to survive and to improve (me) or complexify (you), we have teleology in the sense of individual purpose - as opposed to the sense of divine design. Convergence is then the result of different intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. If the inventive or complexification mechanism is autonomous, advances are not “patterned in advance” but occur as and when conditions force the mechanism to adapt or allow it to innovate.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
by David Turell , Friday, June 10, 2016, 19:01 (3088 days ago) @ dhw
David's comment: He [Conway Morris] is committed to Darwin, but enthralled by convergence and I think convergence implies teleology as does the author of the article. A resemblance to Denton's patterns is also at play here. It certainly seems as though advances are patterned in advance within the genome. > > dhw: Since there seems to be a consensus here on the truth of common descent, patterns are inevitable. If we also accept that organisms look for ways to survive and to improve (me) or complexify (you), we have teleology in the sense of individual purpose - as opposed to the sense of divine design.-Living creatures always try to survive. It seems built-in (epigenetics). To me that is the main purpose of life. We have not explained scientifically saltations of new species.-> dhw: Convergence is then the result of different intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. If the inventive or complexification mechanism is autonomous, advances are not “patterned in advance” but occur as and when conditions force the mechanism to adapt or allow it to innovate.-IF different 'intelligences' exist. So far it is a supposition based on external observations only.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
David's comment: He [Conway Morris] is committed to Darwin, but enthralled by convergence and I think convergence implies teleology as does the author of the article. A resemblance to Denton's patterns is also at play here. It certainly seems as though advances are patterned in advance within the genome.-dhw: Since there seems to be a consensus here on the truth of common descent, patterns are inevitable. If we also accept that organisms look for ways to survive and to improve (me) or complexify (you), we have teleology in the sense of individual purpose - as opposed to the sense of divine design.-DAVID: Living creatures always try to survive. It seems built-in (epigenetics). To me that is the main purpose of life. We have not explained scientifically saltations of new species.-Well, at least survival is an improvement over non-survival. As a purpose, it certainly makes more sense than complexification for the sake of complexification. As for saltations, it is because nobody has explained them that we keep coming up with different hypotheses, one of which is your 3.8-billion-year divine computer programme (yawn), another your divine dabbling (yawn), another random mutations (though Darwin rejects saltation) (yawn), and another the autonomous inventive/complexifying mechanism (yawn), which even you have agreed provides the best explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. Zzzzz….-dhw: Convergence is then the result of different intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. If the inventive or complexification mechanism is autonomous, advances are not “patterned in advance” but occur as and when conditions force the mechanism to adapt or allow it to innovate. DAVID: IF different 'intelligences' exist. So far it is a supposition based on external observations only.-Agreed. That is no reason for rejecting the hypothesis and insisting that convergence is the product of divine preplanning or dabbling. That is a supposition based on no observations at all.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
by David Turell , Saturday, June 11, 2016, 19:33 (3087 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Living creatures always try to survive. It seems built-in (epigenetics). To me that is the main purpose of life. We have not explained scientifically saltations of new species. > > dhw' Well, at least survival is an improvement over non-survival. As a purpose, it certainly makes more sense than complexification for the sake of complexification.-Not if it seems it would be an easy road to the h-p bush. Survivability and complexity fit the pattern of evolution.-> DAVID: IF different 'intelligences' exist. So far it is a supposition based on external observations only. > > dhw: Agreed. That is no reason for rejecting the hypothesis and insisting that convergence is the product of divine preplanning or dabbling. That is a supposition based on no observations at all.-The only observation is the enormous complexity which has been created by evolution and requires exquisite planning.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
DAVID: Living creatures always try to survive. It seems built-in (epigenetics). To me that is the main purpose of life. We have not explained scientifically saltations of new species. dhw: Well, at least survival is an improvement over non-survival. As a purpose, it certainly makes more sense than complexification for the sake of complexification. DAVID: Not if it seems it would be an easy road to the h-p bush. Survivability and complexity fit the pattern of evolution.-Of course they do. But the complexities have to work! I suggest that the “easy road to the h-p bush” is brought about by individual organisms complexifying for a purpose (survival or the chance to find a better way of surviving), not complexifying just to make themselves more complex. DAVID: IF different 'intelligences' exist. So far it is a supposition based on external observations only. dhw: Agreed. That is no reason for rejecting the hypothesis and insisting that convergence is the product of divine preplanning or dabbling. That is a supposition based on no observations at all. DAVID: The only observation is the enormous complexity which has been created by evolution and requires exquisite planning.-Every innovation requires “exquisite planning”, and all our hypotheses are an attempt to explain how the planning takes place. We have observed cells and cell communities adapting to changing conditions, communicating, cooperating, solving problems (“external observations”), but nobody has observed a computer programme of on-board instructions for all innovations, or a God personally intervening to deliver new instructions.
Convergence; Simon Conway Morris Teleology
by David Turell , Sunday, June 12, 2016, 22:50 (3086 days ago) @ dhw
[/i] > DAVID: Not if it seems it would be an easy road to the h-p bush. Survivability and complexity fit the pattern of evolution. > > dhw: Of course they do. But the complexities have to work! I suggest that the “easy road to the h-p bush” is brought about by individual organisms complexifying for a purpose (survival or the chance to find a better way of surviving), not complexifying just to make themselves more complex. - IF the cells have the intelligence to do that, a huge if. - > DAVID: The only observation is the enormous complexity which has been created by evolution and requires exquisite planning. > > dhw: Every innovation requires “exquisite planning”, and all our hypotheses are an attempt to explain how the planning takes place. We have observed cells and cell communities adapting to changing conditions, communicating, cooperating, solving problems (“external observations”), but nobody has observed a computer programme of on-board instructions for all innovations, or a God personally intervening to deliver new instructions. - Another big IF. Exquisite planning requires an exquisite mind. God supplies the necessary mind.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, January 14, 2017, 22:38 (2870 days ago) @ David Turell
He doesn't think they are very bright and wonders about bright aliens:
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/are-humans-freaks-nature-180961785/
"At a symposium on Expanding Views on the Emergence of the Biosphere, held in Tokyo this week, British paleontologist Simon Conway Morris gave a talk on the connection between animals’ mental abilities and possible intelligent extraterrestrial life. Based on the abstract of his talk, I wish I’d been there, because he raises some provocative points.
"Conway Morris is famous for, among other things, his 2003 book, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, which argued that evolution on other planets would come up with similar solutions to those we see on Earth, and that humanoids, or creatures functionally similar to them, are inevitable. He called this concept “convergent evolution.” His recent talk, however, makes a very different point, and seems to run counter to at least some of the suggestions in his earlier book.
"The main point in the new talk is that animals are, to put it bluntly, rather dumb, and would never understand human reasoning or reach human mental abilities. Sure, certain animals, like crows and chimpanzees, can use tools to some degree, but there are limits to what they can do. Conway Morris maintains that they will never match human mental ability in terms of introspection and abstraction, nor will they understand jokes, irony, or complex numbers—all of which makes them unlikely to become intelligent space-faring aliens.
"The argument that animals on Earth currently have very little understanding of human behavior makes sense (although my dog proves that wrong, at least sometimes). And it is clear that there is a significant intelligence gap between humans and all other animals on our planet. So animals indeed may not be the greatest analog for technologically advanced extraterrestrial life forms. (This may only hold true in terms of smartness, however—the diversity of living things on our planet suggests many possibilities for other aspects of alien life, including anatomy, communication, and social behavior.)
"There is a deeper underlying question here. Since we doubtlessly did originate from animal ancestors, the gap between us and them must have been bridged at some point in time. Perhaps it was not a jump, but a continuous evolution. Were the mental abilities of the cavewoman or caveman really as advanced as today’s humans? How much ability for abstraction and appreciation of complex numbers did they have?
"Since modern humans are the evidence that bridging the gap is possible, we might ask why it wasn’t bridged earlier, perhaps by an intelligent octopus, a smart dinosaur, a dolphin, or another ape? They’ve had millions more years to evolve than we have, but in their case the gap was not overcome. Are we really so special? If so, what it is it, exactly, that makes us special? Being a natural-born cyborg, as Andy Clark argues?
"This lies at the core of the Fermi Paradox (or better called the Great Silence)—the puzzle of why we haven’t seen any spacefaring aliens. How often is the intelligence gap bridged on other planets? I agree with Conway Morris that we likely live in a Cosmic Zoo. And if he still believes in his earlier principle of convergent evolution, would that not also extend to the rise of intelligent and technologically advanced aliens?"
Comment: The brain became bigger and more complex. That is true. How about recognizing that God did it on this planet and nowhere else?
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
QUOTE: “Since we doubtlessly did originate from animal ancestors, the gap between us and them must have been bridged at some point in time. Perhaps it was not a jump, but a continuous evolution. Were the mental abilities of the cavewoman or caveman really as advanced as today’s humans? How much ability for abstraction and appreciation of complex numbers did they have?”
This seems to me to miss the obvious point that each generation builds on the experience of its predecessors, and so it is not an alternative between jump and continuous evolution, but a combination of the two. At some point, humans developed an enhanced degree of consciousness (the jump). We can only speculate on what might have triggered it, but once the first questions had been asked, the process would have become unstoppable: a continuous evolution of questions and answers, discoveries and applications of discoveries, extending to all areas of life.
QUOTE: "Since modern humans are the evidence that bridging the gap is possible, we might ask why it wasn’t bridged earlier, perhaps by an intelligent octopus, a smart dinosaur, a dolphin, or another ape? They’ve had millions more years to evolve than we have, but in their case the gap was not overcome. Are we really so special? If so, what it is it, exactly, that makes us special?”
What makes us so special is an enhanced awareness which other organisms do not have. In my view, all our differences spring from that one source.
QUOTE: "This lies at the core of the Fermi Paradox (or better called the Great Silence)—the puzzle of why we haven’t seen any spacefaring aliens. How often is the intelligence gap bridged on other planets? I agree with Conway Morris that we likely live in a Cosmic Zoo. And if he still believes in his earlier principle of convergent evolution, would that not also extend to the rise of intelligent and technologically advanced aliens?"
Pure and pointless speculation. There is no puzzle – simply a collection of open questions. Is there life on other planets? If so, might it have evolved or remained at, say, bacterial level? If it has evolved, into what forms might it have evolved? The current answer to all three questions is that we do not know. Anything is possible, including nothing.
David’s comment: The brain became bigger and more complex. That is true. How about recognizing that God did it on this planet and nowhere else?
I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.
Whether God exists or not, there is no reason why ours should be the only planet with life, but until we find another one, we can only speculate.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, January 15, 2017, 18:54 (2869 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “Were the mental abilities of the cavewoman or caveman really as advanced as today’s humans? How much ability for abstraction and appreciation of complex numbers did they have?”
dhw: At some point, humans developed an enhanced degree of consciousness (the jump). We can only speculate on what might have triggered it, but once the first questions had been asked, the process would have become unstoppable: a continuous evolution of questions and answers, discoveries and applications of discoveries, extending to all areas of life.
No question once a useful consciousness, in comparison to being basically conscious. developed, the brain's plasticity allowed a vast platform of experience to develop, concepts to appear with reasoning.
QUOTE: " Are we really so special? If so, what it is it, exactly, that makes us special?”dhw: What makes us so special is an enhanced awareness which other organisms do not have. In my view, all our differences spring from that one source.
It is not just awareness, but the ability to think about observations and use reason to develop solutions to life's problems.
QUOTE: "This lies at the core of the Fermi Paradox (or better called the Great Silence)—the puzzle of why we haven’t seen any spacefaring aliens. How often is the intelligence gap bridged on other planets?dhw: Pure and pointless speculation. There is no puzzle – simply a collection of open questions. Is there life on other planets? If so, might it have evolved or remained at, say, bacterial level? If it has evolved, into what forms might it have evolved? The current answer to all three questions is that we do not know. Anything is possible, including nothing.
I view it as a time problem and a distance problem. The nearest star is just 4 light years away but most stars are so much further away. When did they start signaling, if at all? We started radio broadcasts about 100 years ago. Time enough for aliens to pick up our signals? Only with close stars.
David’s comment: The brain became bigger and more complex. That is true. How about recognizing that God did it on this planet and nowhere else?dhw: I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.
Whether God exists or not, there is no reason why ours should be the only planet with life, but until we find another one, we can only speculate.
Not a chicken and egg problem. To me we are given a big brain and learn to use it. In our ancestor fossils, brains jump from one size to another with no itty-bitty steps.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
QUOTE: "Are we really so special? If so, what it is it, exactly, that makes us special?”
dhw: What makes us so special is an enhanced awareness which other organisms do not have. In my view, all our differences spring from that one source.
DAVID: It is not just awareness, but the ability to think about observations and use reason to develop solutions to life's problems.
You may perhaps disagree, but I have no doubt that our fellow animals observe, think about their observations, and use reason to solve the problems they encounter in life. However, that appears to be the limit of their mental powers. So far as we know, they do not ask why or how they got here, etc. – you don’t need me to expand on the vast range of our thought. I would argue that the extent of an organism’s mental powers (and I would add language), depends on and grows from what it is aware of. Our own enhanced awareness and self-awareness even extends to the unknown and the possibilities that arise from it.
QUOTE: "This lies at the core of the Fermi Paradox (or better called the Great Silence)—the puzzle of why we haven’t seen any spacefaring aliens. How often is the intelligence gap bridged on other planets?
dhw: Pure and pointless speculation. There is no puzzle – simply a collection of open questions. Is there life on other planets? If so, might it have evolved or remained at, say, bacterial level? If it has evolved, into what forms might it have evolved? The current answer to all three questions is that we do not know. Anything is possible, including nothing.
DAVID: I view it as a time problem and a distance problem. The nearest star is just 4 light years away but most stars are so much further away. When did they start signaling, if at all? We started radio broadcasts about 100 years ago. Time enough for aliens to pick up our signals? Only with close stars.
But why assume that there is/isn’t life elsewhere, that if there is, it has/hasn’t evolved beyond the primitive, let alone that it has/hasn’t evolved into self-aware beings, let alone that it has/hasn’t evolved into beings even more advanced than ourselves? Until we find “alien” life, this is all pure and pointless speculation.
David’s comment: The brain became bigger and more complex. That is true. How about recognizing that God did it on this planet and nowhere else?
dhw: I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.
David: Not a chicken and egg problem. To me we are given a big brain and learn to use it. In our ancestor fossils, brains jump from one size to another with no itty-bitty steps.
What part of “we” decides and learns to use it?
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, January 16, 2017, 16:16 (2868 days ago) @ dhw
David’s comment: The brain became bigger and more complex. That is true. How about recognizing that God did it on this planet and nowhere else?
dhw: I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.
David: Not a chicken and egg problem. To me we are given a big brain and learn to use it. In our ancestor fossils, brains jump from one size to another with no itty-bitty steps.dhw: What part of “we” decides and learns to use it?
My brain is part of me and I feel I am inside my body. H. habilis probably had the same feelings and used his newly developed brain to develop new thoughts and concepts.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
dhw: I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.
David: Not a chicken and egg problem. To me we are given a big brain and learn to use it.
dhw: What part of “we” decides and learns to use it?
DAVID: My brain is part of me and I feel I am inside my body. H. habilis probably had the same feelings and used his newly developed brain to develop new thoughts and concepts.
We have re-entered the mysterious realm of identity. Yes of course your brain is part of you, but that does not explain which part of you takes decisions to use your brain in a certain way. The question is raised again in the article you have posted on “Instinct coded in the brain”.
DAVID: Mice can be made predatory by stimulating the Amygdala:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48000/title/Scientists-Activate-P...
We all know that by messing with the brain, we can change a person’s identity (think drugs and disease). So are the materialists right, and “we” are our brain? If so, “we learn to use our brain” means our brain decides and learns to use our brain. If the dualists are right, then the brain is not the maker but the receiver of decisions, in which case the decider, the learner, the “I”, is not the brain. Then the dualist cannot argue that the brain is the source of consciousness.
(In my post under “Human consciousness”, 8 November 2016 at 12.16, I made a serious attempt to reconcile the two approaches, but this inevitably left wide open the question of whether there is such a thing as a “soul”.)
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 17, 2017, 18:29 (2867 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What part of “we” decides and learns to use it?[/i]
DAVID: My brain is part of me and I feel I am inside my body. H. habilis probably had the same feelings and used his newly developed brain to develop new thoughts and concepts.
dhw: We have re-entered the mysterious realm of identity. Yes of course your brain is part of you, but that does not explain which part of you takes decisions to use your brain in a certain way. The question is raised again in the article you have posted on “Instinct coded in the brain”.
DAVID: Mice can be made predatory by stimulating the Amygdala:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48000/title/Scientists-Activate-P...We all know that by messing with the brain, we can change a person’s identity (think drugs and disease). So are the materialists right, and “we” are our brain? If so, “we learn to use our brain” means our brain decides and learns to use our brain. If the dualists are right, then the brain is not the maker but the receiver of decisions, in which case the decider, the learner, the “I”, is not the brain. Then the dualist cannot argue that the brain is the source of consciousness.
I don't get tangled up in all of your suppositions. My brain develops as I do in infancy. I control my brain, which it allows. In other words I use a part of my brain with my consciousness to make brain decisions. My consciousness is received by my brain for my use. All based on NDE research.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
Dhw: I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.
DAVID: Not a chicken and egg problem. To me we are given a big brain and learn to use it.
dhw: What part of “we” decides and learns to use it?
DAVID: My brain is part of me and I feel I am inside my body. H. habilis probably had the same feelings and used his newly developed brain to develop new thoughts and concepts.
dhw: We have re-entered the mysterious realm of identity. [......]
DAVID: I don't get tangled up in all of your suppositions. My brain develops as I do in infancy. I control my brain, which it allows. In other words I use a part of my brain with my consciousness to make brain decisions. My consciousness is received by my brain for my use. All based on NDE research.
This is a head-in-the-sand approach. Firstly, we do not know the source of consciousness or what triggered the enhanced consciousness of humans. Secondly, you refuse to acknowledge that this has major bearings on the question of our identity – the “I” you keep talking about. You claim that humans “use” the enlarged brain to “develop new thoughts and concepts”. How can you have new concepts and thoughts without consciousness? NDEs imply that human consciousness exists independently of the brain, and the brain is only a receiver. Which comes first, then: the message or the receiver? If you really think the brain is the receiver, then it is consciousness and not the brain which develops new thoughts and concepts. That is dualism. It is materialists who argue that the consciousness which provides the new thoughts and concepts comes from the enlarged brain. It certainly is a tangle, simply because we don’t know the source of consciousness. However, it is a different tangle from your belief that consciousness comes from the brain and does not come from the brain.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 18, 2017, 18:06 (2866 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't get tangled up in all of your suppositions. My brain develops as I do in infancy. I control my brain, which it allows. In other words I use a part of my brain with my consciousness to make brain decisions. My consciousness is received by my brain for my use. All based on NDE research.
dhw: This is a head-in-the-sand approach. Firstly, we do not know the source of consciousness or what triggered the enhanced consciousness of humans. Secondly, you refuse to acknowledge that this has major bearings on the question of our identity – the “I” you keep talking about. You claim that humans “use” the enlarged brain to “develop new thoughts and concepts”. How can you have new concepts and thoughts without consciousness? NDEs imply that human consciousness exists independently of the brain, and the brain is only a receiver. Which comes first, then: the message or the receiver? If you really think the brain is the receiver, then it is consciousness and not the brain which develops new thoughts and concepts. That is dualism. It is materialists who argue that the consciousness which provides the new thoughts and concepts comes from the enlarged brain. It certainly is a tangle, simply because we don’t know the source of consciousness. However, it is a different tangle from your belief that consciousness comes from the brain and does not come from the brain.
Look at the biology of the brain as it develops in the newborn baby as it explains my view. The baby is born and knows how to breathe. It knows how to suckle. It feels the urge to pee and poop and does. Its organs work automatically and are run by lower centers in the hypothalamus controlling pulse rate, respirator rate, etc. The higher centers in the frontal and pre-frontal cortex slowly develop as the infant experiences the world and gradually becomes the receiver for consciousness. It learns to use its consciousness which becomes molded to its personality by the plasticity of the brain manipulating the consciousness. It is an active back and forth activity to develop personality and to learn thought processes. Your thinking in the above paragraph is totally confused as you compartmentalize the brain and consciousness as totally separate. They are in one sense but they are not. The brain and its received consciousness work as smoothly together as a well-oiled machine would. I control my consciousness completely, because I am allowed to under this arrangement. Yes, I am a dualist, but the brain and consciousness work as one!
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
Dhw: If you really think the brain is the receiver, then it is consciousness and not the brain which develops new thoughts and concepts. That is dualism. It is materialists who argue that the consciousness which provides the new thoughts and concepts comes from the enlarged brain. It certainly is a tangle, simply because we don’t know the source of consciousness. However, it is a different tangle from your belief that consciousness comes from the brain and does not come from the brain.
DAVID: Look at the biology of the brain as it develops in the newborn baby as it explains my view. The baby is born and knows how to breathe. It knows how to suckle. It feels the urge to pee and poop and does. Its organs work automatically and are run by lower centers in the hypothalamus controlling pulse rate, respirator rate, etc. The higher centers in the frontal and pre-frontal cortex slowly develop as the infant experiences the world and gradually becomes the receiver for consciousness.
Up until this last sentence, everything is fine. A great factual account of all the automatic physical processes. But suddenly we depart from science, and consciousness magically appears and is “received” by the brain.
DAVID: It learns to use its consciousness which becomes molded to its personality by the plasticity of the brain manipulating the consciousness.
This sounds impressive, but what does it mean? How does the plastic (= mouldable) brain shape the plastic (= mouldable) consciousness into a personality? Does the physical brain tell the dualist’s immaterial, conscious mind to be mean and rough and to instruct it to punch Daddy on the nose? Materialists will probably tell you it does.
DAVID: It is an active back and forth activity to develop personality and to learn thought processes. Your thinking in the above paragraph is totally confused as you compartmentalize the brain and consciousness as totally separate. They are in one sense but they are not.
My paragraph explains the two different approaches (dualist and materialist). Your attempt to make brain and consciousness separate but not separate is what causes the confusion. (See below.) According to NDEs, which you claim to be the scientific evidence for your dualism, the conscious identity does exist separately from the brain. Materialists tell us that this is impossible. But I have not taken sides, because I do not claim to know the source of consciousness.
DAVID: The brain and its received consciousness work as smoothly together as a well-oiled machine would. I control my consciousness completely, because I am allowed to under this arrangement. Yes, I am a dualist, but the brain and consciousness work as one!
“Working smoothly together” does not make the dualist’s brain the “developer of new thoughts and concepts”. If dualism is correct, then the brain is a tool of the conscious, immaterial mind. In other words, although it provides information (e.g. through the senses), the brain responds to the requirements of the mind, is not the source of the mind, does not “mold” the mind, and does not come up with thoughts and concepts. They work smoothly together, because so long as we have a physical body, the mind needs the brain. But according to NDEs the conscious, immaterial mind remains itself, independently of the brain, even after death.
However, if materialism is correct, the brain IS the mind, and all our thoughts are the result of teamwork within the cells of the brain. The “I” is the product of the brain and whatever has influenced the brain, and it will die with the brain. In both cases, the brain and consciousness work as one, but for the dualist they are separate and for the materialist they ARE one.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, January 19, 2017, 15:29 (2865 days ago) @ dhw
David:The higher centers in the frontal and pre-frontal cortex slowly develop as the infant experiences the world and gradually becomes the receiver for consciousness. [/i]
dhw: Up until this last sentence, everything is fine. A great factual account of all the automatic physical processes. But suddenly we depart from science, and consciousness magically appears and is “received” by the brain.
Either our brain is complex enough to create an immaterial consciousness or it receives it as an immaterial construct to use. I don't know for sure, but receives is likely
DAVID: It learns to use its consciousness which becomes molded to its personality by the plasticity of the brain manipulating the consciousness.dhw:This sounds impressive, but what does it mean? How does the plastic (= mouldable) brain shape the plastic (= mouldable) consciousness into a personality? Does the physical brain tell the dualist’s immaterial, conscious mind to be mean and rough and to instruct it to punch Daddy on the nose? Materialists will probably tell you it does.
Why can't the brain and its consciousness work together seamlessly, just the way I feel it does? And yes, I tell my brain to arrange to punch Daddy in the face. My decision to punch is under my control since I control my brain. My brain never acts on its own to tell me what to do.
DAVID: It is an active back and forth activity to develop personality and to learn thought processes. Your thinking in the above paragraph is totally confused as you compartmentalize the brain and consciousness as totally separate. They are in one sense but they are not.dhw: My paragraph explains the two different approaches (dualist and materialist). Your attempt to make brain and consciousness separate but not separate is what causes the confusion. (See below.) According to NDEs, which you claim to be the scientific evidence for your dualism, the conscious identity does exist separately from the brain. Materialists tell us that this is impossible. But I have not taken sides, because I do not claim to know the source of consciousness.
How do you know materialists are possibly correct? I think they are totally wrong.
DAVID: The brain and its received consciousness work as smoothly together as a well-oiled machine would. I control my consciousness completely, because I am allowed to under this arrangement. Yes, I am a dualist, but the brain and consciousness work as one!dhw: “Working smoothly together” does not make the dualist’s brain the “developer of new thoughts and concepts”. If dualism is correct, then the brain is a tool of the conscious, immaterial mind. In other words, although it provides information (e.g. through the senses), the brain responds to the requirements of the mind, is not the source of the mind, does not “mold” the mind, and does not come up with thoughts and concepts. They work smoothly together, because so long as we have a physical body, the mind needs the brain. But according to NDEs the conscious, immaterial mind remains itself, independently of the brain, even after death.
Your interpretation of dualism is not mine. Consciousness joins the material brain to become an operative mechanism under the brain's control.
dhw: However, if materialism is correct, the brain IS the mind, and all our thoughts are the result of teamwork within the cells of the brain. The “I” is the product of the brain and whatever has influenced the brain, and it will die with the brain. In both cases, the brain and consciousness work as one, but for the dualist they are separate and for the materialist they ARE one.
True description of materialism and the brain.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
As this discussion is becoming a little diffuse, I’ll try to summarize it, and then David can correct the summary and we can focus on the salient points.
I believe the main differences between ourselves and our fellow animals have arisen from our enhanced consciousness, but “I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.” David’s response is that God gave us a large brain first, which “we used to develop new thoughts and concepts.” However, David believes NDEs show that our consciousness survives the death of the brain.
Materialists argue that consciousness cannot survive without the brain, which is its source. As a dualist, David argues that the brain is the receiver of consciousness, not the source.
Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?
2) The use of “I” and “we” masks the question of what it is that uses the brain. I would suggest that it is the conscious mind and all its attributes (regardless of the influences that have shaped it). Materialists must ultimately argue that the brain uses the brain. NDEs suggest that the patient’s conscious mind/identity survives the death of the brain, and must therefore be independent of it (a clear form of dualism). But if “thoughts and concepts” could not have arisen without it (David’s idea of brain preceding thought), how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?
3) The argument that enhanced consciousness gave rise to the complexified brain (just as exercise expands muscles) is dualistic, but the dualist David rejects it in favour of the materialist argument that the more complex brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, January 20, 2017, 21:30 (2864 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I believe the main differences between ourselves and our fellow animals have arisen from our enhanced consciousness, but “I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.” David’s response is that God gave us a large brain first, which “we used to develop new thoughts and concepts.” However, David believes NDEs show that our consciousness survives the death of the brain.
Materialists argue that consciousness cannot survive without the brain, which is its source. As a dualist, David argues that the brain is the receiver of consciousness, not the source.
Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?
Because the brain can manipulate itself to use more and more consciousness, by its plasticity
dhw: 2) The use of “I” and “we” masks the question of what it is that uses the brain. I would suggest that it is the conscious mind and all its attributes (regardless of the influences that have shaped it). Materialists must ultimately argue that the brain uses the brain. NDEs suggest that the patient’s conscious mind/identity survives the death of the brain, and must therefore be independent of it (a clear form of dualism). But if “thoughts and concepts” could not have arisen without it (David’s idea of brain preceding thought), how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?
Because the consciousness is used by the brain but separates at death to join the universal consciousness retaining its current body of information.
dhw: 3) The argument that enhanced consciousness gave rise to the complexified brain (just as exercise expands muscles) is dualistic, but the dualist David rejects it in favour of the materialist argument that the more complex brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness.
Our more complex brain is built to handle automatically a more enhanced consciousness. Our brain, and its plasticity can work hand in hand with the consciousness instrument it is given.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
dhw: I believe the main differences between ourselves and our fellow animals have arisen from our enhanced consciousness, but “I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.” David’s response is that God gave us a large brain first, which “we used to develop new thoughts and concepts.” However, David believes NDEs show that our consciousness survives the death of the brain.
Materialists argue that consciousness cannot survive without the brain, which is its source. As a dualist, David argues that the brain is the receiver of consciousness, not the source.
Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?
DAVID: Because the brain can manipulate itself to use more and more consciousness, by its plasticity.
You keep telling us that “you” tell your brain what to do. If your “you” is not your conscious mind, what is it? You have now done a complete U-turn, and instead of consciousness using the brain, you have the brain using consciousness!
dhw: 2) The use of “I” and “we” masks the question of what it is that uses the brain. I would suggest that it is the conscious mind and all its attributes (regardless of the influences that have shaped it). Materialists must ultimately argue that the brain uses the brain. NDEs suggest that the patient’s conscious mind/identity survives the death of the brain, and must therefore be independent of it (a clear form of dualism). But if “thoughts and concepts” could not have arisen without it (David’s idea of brain preceding thought), how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?
DAVID: Because the consciousness is used by the brain but separates at death to join the universal consciousness retaining its current body of information.
As above. Your after-death consciousness won't be able to think if it was just the tool of the brain!
dhw: 3) The argument that enhanced consciousness gave rise to the complexified brain (just as exercise expands muscles) is dualistic, but the dualist David rejects it in favour of the materialist argument that the more complex brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness.
DAVID: Our more complex brain is built to handle automatically a more enhanced consciousness. Our brain, and its plasticity can work hand in hand with the consciousness instrument it is given.
“Handle” is ambiguous – I would say “respond automatically to”. Otherwise your first sentence is fine, and your second is also fine, except that crucially according to your dualism it is the brain that is the instrument. Its plasticity enables it to respond to the demands of consciousness. To clarify this once more in terms of the identity which you believe survives the death of the brain: if identity is the conscious mind, it is the user (consciousness) that survives, and not the instrument (the brain).
Materialists, however, will argue that the conscious mind is the brain and so it cannot survive death. Meanwhile, I myself still “don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it” , and I remain surprised that you as a dualist appear to favour the first option.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, January 21, 2017, 15:47 (2863 days ago) @ dhw
Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?[/i]DAVID: Because the brain can manipulate itself to use more and more consciousness, by its plasticity.
dhw: You keep telling us that “you” tell your brain what to do. If your “you” is not your conscious mind, what is it? You have now done a complete U-turn, and instead of consciousness using the brain, you have the brain using consciousness!
Perhaps I've not been clear in the past. A plastic brain molds to use. We use our consciousness as we develop into our particular personality, by which term I imply our mental totality. I view consciousness as a mechanism the brain uses. Different parts of the brain do different things or use different parts of consciousness for different purposes. As I explained before this is how babies develop into conscious being, the interaction between brain and consciousness takes time and brain growth.
dhw:how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?
DAVID: Because the consciousness is used by the brain but separates at death to join the universal consciousness retaining its current body of information.
As above. Your after-death consciousness won't be able to think if it was just the tool of the brain!
Example: you die but your car still exists and can be driven. Still my strange form of dualism.
DAVID: Our more complex brain is built to handle automatically a more enhanced consciousness. Our brain, and its plasticity can work hand in hand with the consciousness instrument it is given.
dhw: “Handle” is ambiguous – I would say “respond automatically to”. Otherwise your first sentence is fine, and your second is also fine, except that crucially according to your dualism it is the brain that is the instrument. Its plasticity enables it to respond to the demands of consciousness. To clarify this once more in terms of the identity which you believe survives the death of the brain: if identity is the conscious mind, it is the user (consciousness) that survives, and not the instrument (the brain).
Materialists, however, will argue that the conscious mind is the brain and so it cannot survive death. Meanwhile, I myself still “don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it” , and I remain surprised that you as a dualist appear to favour the first option.
The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
dhw: You keep telling us that “you” tell your brain what to do. If your “you” is not your conscious mind, what is it? You have now done a complete U-turn, and instead of consciousness using the brain, you have the brain using consciousness!
DAVID: Perhaps I've not been clear in the past. A plastic brain molds to use.
I presume you mean that the brain takes its shape according to the use consciousness makes of it. OK, that fits in with your dualism.
DAVID: We use our consciousness as we develop into our particular personality, by which term I imply our mental totality.
Our mental totality is what I have called our conscious mind. According to you, our conscious mind uses our material brain, not the other way round, and our conscious mind is the “we” that survives the death of the brain.
DAVID: I view consciousness as a mechanism the brain uses.
But you keep telling us that immaterial consciousness uses the material mechanism of the brain!
DAVID: Different parts of the brain do different things or use different parts of consciousness for different purposes. As I explained before this is how babies develop into conscious being, the interaction between brain and consciousness takes time and brain growth.
Yes, different parts of the brain do different things, but the whole point of dualism is that it is consciousness that uses those different parts, not the parts that use consciousness! The interaction, according to you, is that the brain does what the conscious mind tells it to do.
Dhw: Your after-death consciousness won't be able to think if it was just the tool of the brain!
DAVID: Example: you die but your car still exists and can be driven. Still my strange form of dualism.
But the car cannot be driven by the dead you! According to your dualistic beliefs, “you” survive, and “you” (= your conscious mind) leave your wretched car (your body, which obeyed the instructions of your conscious mind) behind. Your new form of dualism is not just strange, it is impossible.
Dhw: To clarify this once more in terms of the identity which you believe survives the death of the brain: if identity is the conscious mind, it is the user (consciousness) that survives, and not the instrument (the brain).
Materialists, however, will argue that the conscious mind is the brain and so it cannot survive death. Meanwhile, I myself still “don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it” , and I remain surprised that you as a dualist appear to favour the first option.
DAVID: The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.
Yes of course they work together. And according to your dualism, it is consciousness that controls the brain, so there is absolutely no logic to your argument that the brain gives rise to consciousness or enhanced consciousness. That is materialism. I flounder because I do not know which theory is true. You flounder because your “strange form of dualism” is totally illogical.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, January 22, 2017, 15:25 (2862 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.
dhw: Yes of course they work together. And according to your dualism, it is consciousness that controls the brain, so there is absolutely no logic to your argument that the brain gives rise to consciousness or enhanced consciousness. That is materialism. I flounder because I do not know which theory is true. You flounder because your “strange form of dualism” is totally illogical.
As a baby I am a blank slate. My brain has to develop for 20 years or so to have a complete material form. My dualism does not have consciousness controlling the brain. As I develop I assume control of the consciousness mechanism through experience in thought and the brain's plasticity to respond to how I use it. I look at the process as having three parts: the brain, consciousness, and me. You keep skipping the part where I become 'me' and I use my consciousness to develop my thoughts and concepts.
My personally shaped consciousness, me, is the entity that survives me the body envelop.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
DAVID: The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.
dhw: Yes of course they work together. And according to your dualism, it is consciousness that controls the brain, so there is absolutely no logic to your argument that the brain gives rise to consciousness or enhanced consciousness. That is materialism. I flounder because I do not know which theory is true. You flounder because your “strange form of dualism” is totally illogical.
DAVID: As a baby I am a blank slate.
Not quite. Even newborn babies arrive with different characteristics, as the newborn twins demonstrate every day (and night) to their doting parents!
DAVID: My brain has to develop for 20 years or so to have a complete material form.
Of course the baby’s brain develops along with the rest of the body, and the personality/conscious mind develops too as it processes experience – but nobody knows if the development and the manner of processing are dictated by the materialist’s all-embracing brain or by the dualist’s separate conscious mind.
DAVID: My dualism does not have consciousness controlling the brain. As I develop I assume control of the consciousness mechanism through experience in thought and the brain's plasticity to respond to how I use it. I look at the process as having three parts: the brain, consciousness, and me. You keep skipping the part where I become 'me' and I use my consciousness to develop my thoughts and concepts.
I don’t skip it. I keep asking what you mean by “me”, bearing in mind that you think “you” survive the death of your brain. In your previous post you responded by calling it your “mental totality”, and that is what I call the “conscious mind”. But your term is probably better because my “conscious mind” has to incorporate all its influences, which of course would include those that are unconscious. However, now you are saying there is no duality in dualism. It is a trinity: brain, consciousness, me. Except that when we die...
DAVID: My personally shaped consciousness, me, is the entity that survives me the body envelop.
If “me” is your personally shaped consciousness, or "mental totality", that is what controls the brain and survives the death of the brain. And yet you say “consciousness does not control the brain” but is “a mechanism the brain uses”, and – the starting point of our discussion – enhanced consciousness, which I regard as the springboard for all the differences between our fellow animals and ourselves, is to be attributed to your God providing our mental totality (us) with an enlarged brain. And so our mental totality (= we) controls the brain, but the brain uses and has given rise to our enhanced consciousness. This would only make sense if you separated your (enhanced) consciousness from your “mental totality”, and that simply doesn’t make sense!
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, January 23, 2017, 21:00 (2861 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If “me” is your personally shaped consciousness, or "mental totality", that is what controls the brain and survives the death of the brain. And yet you say “consciousness does not control the brain” but is “a mechanism the brain uses”, and – the starting point of our discussion – enhanced consciousness, which I regard as the springboard for all the differences between our fellow animals and ourselves, is to be attributed to your God providing our mental totality (us) with an enlarged brain. And so our mental totality (= we) controls the brain, but the brain uses and has given rise to our enhanced consciousness. This would only make sense if you separated your (enhanced) consciousness from your “mental totality”, and that simply doesn’t make sense!
I cannot separate 'me' from my consciousness. My consciousness is me from what I experience. I control what my consciousness does, and my brain responds to what I make my consciousness do, by altering its connections ,adding new neurons. Remember I view consciousness as being received by the brain, the more complex the brain, the more advanced the attributes of consciousness to be used, from Arthropithicus to human forms.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
Dhw: If “me” is your personally shaped consciousness, or "mental totality", that is what controls the brain and survives the death of the brain. And yet you say “consciousness does not control the brain” but is “a mechanism the brain uses”, and – the starting point of our discussion – enhanced consciousness, which I regard as the springboard for all the differences between our fellow animals and ourselves, is to be attributed to your God providing our mental totality (us) with an enlarged brain. And so our mental totality (= we) controls the brain, but the brain uses and has given rise to our enhanced consciousness. This would only make sense if you separated your (enhanced) consciousness from your “mental totality”, and that simply doesn’t make sense!
DAVID: I cannot separate 'me' from my consciousness. My consciousness is me from what I experience. I control what my consciousness does….
You don’t need this attempted distinction! If you cannot separate yourself from your consciousness, and if your consciousness is you, and if you control your consciousness, that means you control you, or your consciousness controls your consciousness. Keep them together as what you call your “mental totality” and then you can move on to the real issue:
DAVID: ...and my brain responds to what I make my consciousness do, by altering its connections, adding new neurons.
Thank you. It is your “total mentality” that controls your brain, and consciousness is not “a mechanism the brain uses”, but the brain is a mechanism used by consciousness. Enhanced consciousness is not the product of an enlarged brain, but mental totality uses the brain, which grows to meet the requirements of an enhanced consciousness. Now at last you have your dualism.
Whether it’s true or not is another question.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 24, 2017, 15:22 (2860 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: ...and my brain responds to what I make my consciousness do, by altering its connections, adding new neurons.
dhw: Thank you. It is your “total mentality” that controls your brain, and consciousness is not “a mechanism the brain uses”, but the brain is a mechanism used by consciousness. Enhanced consciousness is not the product of an enlarged brain, but mental totality uses the brain, which grows to meet the requirements of an enhanced consciousness. Now at last you have your dualism.
Whether it’s true or not is another question.
You've stated what I think differently than I do, since I view consciousness as a received mechanism. I don't think the native brain can do it on its own, based on NDE research.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
dhw: Thank you. It is your “total mentality” that controls your brain, and consciousness is not “a mechanism the brain uses”, but the brain is a mechanism used by consciousness. Enhanced consciousness is not the product of an enlarged brain, but mental totality uses the brain, which grows to meet the requirements of an enhanced consciousness. Now at last you have your dualism.
Whether it’s true or not is another question.
DAVID: You've stated what I think differently than I do, since I view consciousness as a received mechanism. I don't think the native brain can do it on its own, based on NDE research.
You are simply repeating that the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness, which is another way of saying consciousness uses the brain (as opposed to the brain using consciousness). The brain “doing it on its own” is materialism. There is no disagreement between us now on what constitutes your dualism, as summarized above. However, materialism might (very cautious word) receive a boost from the following:
DAVID; (under “big brain from viruses”) Retroviruses incorporated themselves into human and ape DNA's but no other species about 35-45 million years ago. they do affect neurons:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112110840.htm
QUOTE: "Much of what we know about the overall development of the brain comes from the fruit fly, zebrafish and mouse. However, if endogenous retroviruses affect brain function, and we have our own set of these ERV, the mechanisms they affect may have contributed to the development of the human brain," says Johan Jakobsson."
DAVID’s comment: There has to be some reason why the human brain grew so big compared to the apes. This may be a clue as to the mechanism.
If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, January 26, 2017, 01:57 (2859 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You've stated what I think differently than I do, since I view consciousness as a received mechanism. I don't think the native brain can do it on its own, based on NDE research.dhw: You are simply repeating that the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness, which is another way of saying consciousness uses the brain (as opposed to the brain using consciousness). The brain “doing it on its own” is materialism. There is no disagreement between us now on what constitutes your dualism, as summarized above. However, materialism might (very cautious word) receive a boost from the following:
DAVID; (under “big brain from viruses”) Retroviruses incorporated themselves into human and ape DNA's but no other species about 35-45 million years ago. they do affect neurons:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112110840.htmQUOTE: "Much of what we know about the overall development of the brain comes from the fruit fly, zebrafish and mouse. However, if endogenous retroviruses affect brain function, and we have our own set of these ERV, the mechanisms they affect may have contributed to the development of the human brain," says Johan Jakobsson."
DAVID’s comment: There has to be some reason why the human brain grew so big compared to the apes. This may be a clue as to the mechanism.
dhw: If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.
I'll go back to the radio receiver concept, from the NDE researchers: A material brain without the consciousness mechanism does not produce any conscious thoughts for the owner of the brain. The bigger/more complex brain is the more extensive/advanced use of the consciousness mechanism. It is an intimate relationship. The material brain is a receiver of stimuli, no consciousness needed. Interpretation and action, consciousness needed. If consciousness can exist in NDE's with no functional brain present, they can be separated and therefore can be viewed separately, and understood as two operative agencies.
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
dhw: If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.
DAVID: I'll go back to the radio receiver concept, from the NDE researchers: A material brain without the consciousness mechanism does not produce any conscious thoughts for the owner of the brain. The bigger/more complex brain is the more extensive/advanced use of the consciousness mechanism. It is an intimate relationship. The material brain is a receiver of stimuli, no consciousness needed. Interpretation and action, consciousness needed. If consciousness can exist in NDE's with no functional brain present, they can be separated and therefore can be viewed separately, and understood as two operative agencies.
There is no disagreement here. This is an excellent summary of your dualistic beliefs, removing all the previous anomalies we’ve spent so much time discussing. Having agreed on this concept of dualism, we have now moved on. The retrovirus theory suggests that it was viruses, not enhanced consciousness, that caused the complexification of the brain, which in turn suggests that it is the complexified brain that caused enhanced consciousness. If true, that would help the materialist cause. I am not defending or attacking materialism – merely pointing out the implications. But here is an interesting thought: even if it’s true, it need not exclude God: he could have organized the viruses!
Simon Conway Morris on animal intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, January 27, 2017, 00:46 (2858 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.
DAVID: I'll go back to the radio receiver concept, from the NDE researchers: A material brain without the consciousness mechanism does not produce any conscious thoughts for the owner of the brain. The bigger/more complex brain is the more extensive/advanced use of the consciousness mechanism. It is an intimate relationship. The material brain is a receiver of stimuli, no consciousness needed. Interpretation and action, consciousness needed. If consciousness can exist in NDE's with no functional brain present, they can be separated and therefore can be viewed separately, and understood as two operative agencies.
dhw: There is no disagreement here. This is an excellent summary of your dualistic beliefs, removing all the previous anomalies we’ve spent so much time discussing. Having agreed on this concept of dualism, we have now moved on. The retrovirus theory suggests that it was viruses, not enhanced consciousness, that caused the complexification of the brain, which in turn suggests that it is the complexified brain that caused enhanced consciousness. If true, that would help the materialist cause. I am not defending or attacking materialism – merely pointing out the implications. But here is an interesting thought: even if it’s true, it need not exclude God: he could have organized the viruses!
Yes God could have invented viruses for His purposes. The radio receiver analogy is really simple. Your radio receives programs. But only you can turn the dial and pick other programs on other stations. You listen, you act, all decisions are yours, as you stay in full control. Somewhat simplistic but to the point.
Convergence:
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 15:54 (2838 days ago) @ dhw
Evolution shows complex mechanisms in every direction resulting in a bush of life, not a tree. In this case some reptiles make eggs, some are viviparous:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/ancient-reptile-ancestor-of-birds-and-crocs-ga...
'A 245-million-year-old pregnant reptile has overturned long-held theories about why birds lay eggs.
"A fossil discovered in China, of a long-necked marine species known as Dinocephalosaurus, clearly contains an embryo, which, equally clearly, was destined for live birth.
"This is highly significant because Dinocephalosaurus was an archosauromorph – a large clade that includes dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds. Until now, all species within this group were thought to be egg layers.
"Among lizards and snakes in other lineage groups, live birth has evolved independently at least 115 times. The fact that it has never been seen among archosauromorphs led evolutionary biologists to assume it was constrained by an unknown mechanism.
"But Dinocephalosaurus, described in Nature Communications by a team led by Jun Liu at Hefei University of Technology in China, upends that theory.
“'Our discovery pushes back evidence of reproductive biology in the clade by roughly 50 million years, and shows that there is no fundamental reason that archosauromorphs could not achieve live birth,” the researchers report."
Comment: I can tell you that live birth is much more of a strain on females than egg laying. Just look at chicken production of eggs. The duck-billed platypus may have struck on a better way, but the big-brained human required sticking to live birth. Nothing coming from an egg has a large brain. But the big brained human newborn required tremendous pelvic canal changes compared to apes. Which raises the old issue: chance evolution cannot provide simultaneous enlarging infant head size an pelvic accommodations. Only saltation can by a designer, God.
Convergence: an animal outside standard descent
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 01, 2017, 19:03 (2671 days ago) @ David Turell
A strange animal appearing early in evolution, thought to be related to sponges, is not. The Ctenophore has much DNA that is part of the general pattern, but has a totally different nervous system, totally unrelated to all others and ours:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-ctenophore-says-about-the-evolution-of-intelligence?utm...
"This type of animal, called a ctenophore (pronounced ‘ten-o-for’ or ‘teen-o-for’), was long considered just another kind of jellyfish. But that summer at Friday Harbor, Moroz made a startling discovery: beneath this animal’s humdrum exterior was a monumental case of mistaken identity. From his very first experiments, he could see that these animals were unrelated to jellyfish. In fact, they were profoundly different from any other animal on Earth.
"Moroz reached this conclusion by testing the nerve cells of ctenophores for the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine and nitric oxide, chemical messengers considered the universal neural language of all animals. But try as he might, he could not find these molecules. The implications were profound.
"The ctenophore was already known for having a relatively advanced nervous system; but these first experiments by Moroz showed that its nerves were constructed from a different set of molecular building blocks – different from any other animal – using ‘a different chemical language’, says Moroz: these animals are ‘aliens of the sea’.
"If Moroz is right, then the ctenophore represents an evolutionary experiment of stunning proportions, one that has been running for more than half a billion years. This separate pathway of evolution – a sort of Evolution 2.0 – has invented neurons, muscles and other specialised tissues, independently from the rest of the animal kingdom, using different starting materials.
***
"Once you repeat the experiments, says Moroz: ‘You start to realise it’s a really different animal.’ He surmised that the ctenophore was not just different from its supposed sister group, the jellyfish. It was also vastly different from any other nervous system on Earth.
***
"We all use neurotransmitters,’ he says. ‘From jellyfish to worms, to molluscs, to humans, to sea urchins, you will see a very consistent set of signalling molecules.’ But, somehow, the ctenophore had evolved a nervous system in which these roles were filled by a different, as-yet unknown set of molecules.
***
" It was a classic case of convergence: the lineage of ctenophores had evolved a nervous system using whatever genetic starting materials were available. In a sense, it was an alien nervous system – evolved separately from the rest of the animal kingdom.
***
"All of this pointed to a stunning conclusion: despite being more complex than sponges and placozoans – which lacked nerve cells and muscles and virtually every other specialised cell type – ctenophores were actually the earliest, oldest branch on the animal tree of life. Somehow over the subsequent 550 to 750 million years, the ctenophore had managed to evolve a nervous system and muscles similar in complexity to those of jellyfish, anemones, sea stars and many types of worms and shellfish, cobbled together from an alternative set of genes.
***
"Moroz now counts nine to 12 independent evolutionary origins of the nervous system – including at least one in cnidaria (the group that includes jellyfish and anemones), three in echinoderms (the group that includes sea stars, sea lilies, urchins and sand dollars), one in arthropods (the group that includes insects, spiders and crustaceans), one in molluscs (the group that includes clams, snails, squid and octopuses), one in vertebrates – and now, at least one in ctenophores.
***
"Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, has stressed the importance of evolutionary convergence: that evolution tends to arrive at the same solutions over and over again, even in distant branches of the animal tree, and even when the proteins or genes used to build a similar structure are not themselves related.
***
"The phylum of ctenophores isn’t quite that exotic. It is based on the same basic chemistry that we share, but it still represents a shadow biology for animals. Ctenophores are a long-lost cousin that we didn’t even know we had.
"Because the ctenophore invented brains and muscles using a set of proteins and genes so different from any other animal that has ever been studied, it provides a unique opportunity to explore some enormous questions: how divergent can nervous systems be? Do we truly understand how life senses its surroundings and behaves?"
Comment: Convergence is a strong indicator there is a design mechanism in the evolutionary process. There may have been one or more initial starts to life but the concept of common descent needs to recognize, the chain of relationship is not so common.
Convergence: an animal outside standard descent
QUOTES: "Moroz now counts nine to 12 independent evolutionary origins of the nervous system […]
And your God no doubt needed to design all of them in order to fulfil his one purpose of producing the human brain.
QUOTE: "Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, has stressed the importance of evolutionary convergence: that evolution tends to arrive at the same solutions over and over again, even in distant branches of the animal tree, and even when the proteins or genes used to build a similar structure are not themselves related.”
All so that your God could produce the human brain?
QUOTE: "Because the ctenophore invented brains and muscles using a set of proteins and genes so different from any other animal that has ever been studied, it provides a unique opportunity to explore some enormous questions: how divergent can nervous systems be? Do we truly understand how life senses its surroundings and behaves?"
I would suggest we don’t. But it seems likely to me that all these life forms work out their own means of coping with the environment, and there is no reason at all why intelligent beings should not come up with similar solutions to similar problems.
DAVID’s comment: Convergence is a strong indicator there is a design mechanism in the evolutionary process. There may have been one or more initial starts to life but the concept of common descent needs to recognize, the chain of relationship is not so common.
I agree that there is a design mechanism, and I suggest that the design mechanism is what has enabled life to diversify into all its many forms, as all the different organisms use their (perhaps God-given) intelligence in order to cope with or exploit their environments rather than to serve the single purpose of producing the human brain. And yes, maybe life did start more than once. Darwin, in theist mode, says so himself: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” (My bold)
Convergence: an animal outside standard descent
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 02, 2017, 19:45 (2670 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: Convergence is a strong indicator there is a design mechanism in the evolutionary process. There may have been one or more initial starts to life but the concept of common descent needs to recognize, the chain of relationship is not so common.dhw: I agree that there is a design mechanism, and I suggest that the design mechanism is what has enabled life to diversify into all its many forms, as all the different organisms use their (perhaps God-given) intelligence in order to cope with or exploit their environments rather than to serve the single purpose of producing the human brain. And yes, maybe life did start more than once. Darwin, in theist mode, says so himself: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” (My bold)
Simon Conway Morris has championed convergence as a key issue in understanding evolution, and has written a book called Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, which underlies my point about our big brain as the final point.
Convergence; Fish bioluminescence
by David Turell , Friday, June 10, 2016, 14:37 (3088 days ago) @ David Turell
Fish developed a glow with and without helpful bacteria 27 times:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46280/title/Evolution-of-Fish-Bioluminescence/-"From the bizarre-looking anglerfish to sharks, bioluminescence is surprisingly common among ocean dwellers. Now, researchers from St. Cloud State University in Minnesota have shown that fish evolved the ability to make their own light on at least 27 separate occasions, according to a study published yesterday (June 8) in PLOS ONE. The fishes use their glowing abilities for everything from finding prey, to luring in mates, to communicating with one another.-***-"Matthew Davis of St. Cloud State and colleagues analyzed 10 nuclear genes and one mitochondrial gene from 301 taxonomic groups of ray-finned fishes, which comprise the vast majority of fish species, using data obtained from genomic databases. Using statistical methods, the researchers derived an evolutionary tree of light-producing lineages.-"Fish evolved intrinsic bioluminescence—the ability to produce light without the aid of bacteria—eight times, representing more than half of all species of bioluminescent fish. Bacterially mediated bioluminescence evolved 17 times, Davis and colleagues found. Fish evolved their light-emitting abilities during the Early Cretaceous (150 million years ago) through the Cenozoic.-“'If one species of bacteria evolves the ability to glow, then is eaten and proliferates in the guts of four different fishes, you could argue that bioluminescence evolved once in the bacterium,” Steven Haddock of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute told National Geographic's Not Exactly Rocket Science. “To me, this is much less interesting than fishes that have their own chemical and genetic machinery.'”-Comment: Fireflies use bacteria. I don't know how often larger more complex organisms learn to glow, but just another example for Conway Morris to make his point. Persistent patterns of evolutionary complexity.
Convergence; butterflies with dinosaurs
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 05, 2016, 23:57 (3063 days ago) @ David Turell
A butterfly-like insect existed at the time of dinosaurs, fed on trees and disappeared. Later our current butterflies appeared. Another example of Simon Conwat Morris convergence: - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/butterflies-in-the-time-of-dinosaurs-... - "Biologists Steven Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris famously butted heads over a simple thought experiment: if we were to “rewind the tape” of life and allow it to play out again, would we get the same result? - *** - "Conway Morris argued yes: without any sort of goal, the unchanging laws of physics and demands of Earth's environments dictate that more or less the same creatures would and have evolved repeatedly on Earth. Such a process, he argued, inevitably results in the emergence of beings with high intelligence. In other words, the environment induces the evolution of more or less the same solutions (though small details may obviously be different) when unrelated groups of organisms move into the same environments. - *** - "Apparently, way back when Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth, a group of insects called lacewings produced butterflies. Not the butterflies we see flitting around today from the Order Lepidoptera, but floating, flapping, nectar-sucking flibbertigibbits nonetheless, with wings adorned with eyespots, veins, and scales. - "Mesozoic butterflies seem to have appeared so similar to today's incarnation that at a few paces you'd probably not notice a difference. They evolved 165 million years ago, disappearing just 45 million years later, a full 45 million years before the first modern caterpillar decided to grow up and become a beee-youuuu-tee-ful butterfly. Again. - "Oh, and these first butterflies did not frequent flowers, because flowers were still a gleam in Mother Nature's eye. Tthe first definite floral fossil dates from 125 million years ago - about the time these ancient butterflies were going extinct - but the first flower must have evolved at least a little before that. The flowers that did exist were small, inconspicuous, and aquatic with short, butterfly-unfriendly floral tubes. - "Instead, these Jurassic butterflies seem to have alighted on seed-bearing, cone-making trees. Though they did not make flowers, these plants did craft cones studded with long tubes ending in nectar and pollen. And nectar + flying insect, evidently, are the prerequisites for evolution to cook up a butterfly. - "Cretaceous butterflies are more formally known as kalligrammatid lacewings. Lacewings still fill the Earth today. Their members include little-known groups like antlions (also charmingly called doodlebugs because of the tracks the larvae make in sand); owlflies; and silky winged-, spoon-winged, and thread-winged lacewings. - *** - "Kalligrammatids seem to have lived almost exclusively on land that is today Europe and Asia during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. They were large, with wingspans in excess of six inches, and would have been some of the largest and most conspicuous insects of their day. It would be accurate to imagine them flitting past a herd of grazing dinosaurs. - "Modern butterflies are defined by suite of traits that includes daytime activity, long, straw-like sucking mouthparts, wing eyespot patterns and wing scales (Lepidoptera literally means "scale wing"). All of these traits that can be determined from fossils are present in kalligrammatids - *** - "Kalligrammatids also had one or more pumps inside their heads for generating suction, just like modern butterflies. Both groups also seem to have wielded proboscises with a variety of thicknesses and lengths for harvesting the nectar of different plants. - *** - "To Conway Morris, to me, and to many others, it is striking how often evolution has produced the same solutions to the same problems in the same habitats with presumably the same selective pressures, starting with very different raw material. As with most arguments of this nature, the truth probably lies in between the two extremes. In my opinion, Earth on replay would doubtless have many similar - perhaps startlingly so -- organisms to what we see today." - Comment: Convergence shows pattern development as the environment allows. Much longer article than could be presented. Many interesting observations especially about complex feeding parts
Convergence; venomous fish
by David Turell , Monday, July 11, 2016, 15:18 (3057 days ago) @ David Turell
A study of the many examples of venomous fish both salt and fresh water:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160705160206.htm-"A new article catalogs instances of venomous aquatic life, for the first time showing that venom has evolved 18 separate times in fresh and saltwater fishes. -***-"•In contrast to squamates like lizards and snakes, very few fishes have evolved venomous fangs or teeth •The predominant function for venom in fishes is defense rather than offense •Venom in freshwater is dominated by catfishes, as opposed to marine environments where it is widespread across many groups •It is surprising how comparatively common venom is in deep-sea sharks (30 percent of venomous sharks) compared to deep-sea bony fishes (5 percent of venomous bony fishes)-***-"'Fish venoms are often super complicated, big molecules that have big impact," he said. "Venom can have impacts on blood pressure, cause local necrosis, breakdown of tissue and blood, and hemolytic activity -- it prevents clotting to spread venom around prey. Venom is a neurotoxin. The average response is incredible pain and swelling."-"According to Smith, because fishes have to live with their own venom, "there might be helper molecules that protect the fishes themselves and help them survive." He said these also could have therapeutic value to people. (my bold)-"Smith said that up to 95 percent of venomous fish use their toxins defensively, usually gathering venom within their dorsal spines, where it can be deployed in case the fish is crushed or another fish attempts to swallow it.-"Some, however, use venom offensively to debilitate their prey and can sometimes injure people."-Comment: How is a venom developed stepwise without harm to the organism that develops it? Note the bold statement. It must develop simultaneously with self-protective mechanisms. Saltation.
Convergence; pandas show pre-planning evidence
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 17, 2017, 14:11 (2867 days ago) @ David Turell
There are two species of panda which came from a common ancestor 43 million years ago. Both developed extra thumbs:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/how-the-panda-s-false-thumb-and-appetite-for-bamboo-...
"Apart from their shared moniker and adorable appearance, the red panda and giant panda don’t appear to have a whole lot in common.
"This isn’t surprising, given the two species aren’t closely related – their family tree diverged 43 million years ago. But a new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has identified genetic information that could contribute to the development of “false thumbs” in both animals, as well as their predilection towards bamboo.
"The development of similar traits across distinct species is known as convergent evolution. A team led by Yibo Hu, Qi Wu, Shuai Ma and Tianxiao Ma at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing wanted to find the genetic story behind this phenomenon as it occurs across the two “panda” species.
"Despite evolving quite separately, both species have ended up with under-developed thumbs which facilitate their shared bamboo diet – another unusual development, considering both species are classified as carnivores.
"This makes “them ideal models for studying convergent evolution”, the researchers write.
"By comparing the updated genome of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) with that of the red panda (Ailurus fulgens), the team saw convergence in genes involved in digestion, and in using vitamins, amino acids and fatty acids, all of which are found in bamboo.
"The team also found changes to sets of genes linked to the development of arms, legs and fingers, which could contribute to the question of the false thumbs.
“'Limb development genes DYNC2H1 and PCNT have undergone adaptive convergence and may be important candidate genes for pseudothumb development,” the researchers write.
The team also found 10 genes that had been downgraded to pseudogenes in both species. This included the gene that encodes receptors for umami taste – the savoury taste associated with meat.
“'To survive in a novel environment, animals can drastically change their diet [with] profound impacts on species ecology, behaviour, physiology and even morphology and genetics,” the researchers explain."
Comment: It might be that future developments which looks like convergence actually have developmental directions existing in the earlier DNA of ancestors. This finding suggests that.