Why did the amount of tinkering done by evolution decrease?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

RRL
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:25 pm

Why did the amount of tinkering done by evolution decrease?

Post #1

Post by RRL »

For those with a better understanding of evolution than me, why was there a ton of "tinkering" and experimenting before the Cambrian explosion, with strange, nightmarish ocean creatures with 6 eyes on top of their flat heads, but then today, you see relatively stable populations with very little tinkering and experimenting, from humans, to lions, to otters? The chance of a human with 5 arms growing out of their back is astronomically improbable, and yet, if evolution is a blind, tinkering process taking shots in the dark, I don't see any reason why the amount of tinkering it does would slow down. If it tinkered at one point in the past, what is the reason or reasons that the amount of tinkering decreased?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14895
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 956 times
Been thanked: 1751 times
Contact:

Post #11

Post by William »

Difflugia wrote:
William wrote:There is intelligence behind the process. That is undeniable once the opinions are placed to one side.
You haven't supported this and it's not self-evident. So far, it's only undeniable because I don't know from what part of the process you infer the intelligence.

William: I do not see the necessity of answering questions taken out of context. (straw) My whole post - in context - sufficiently answers your out of context concerns.

Perhaps you can revisit my post and find therein, the answer to your question?


User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3629 times
Been thanked: 2175 times

Post #12

Post by Difflugia »

William wrote:William: I do not see the necessity of answering questions taken out of context. (straw) My whole post - in context - sufficiently answers your out of context concerns.

Perhaps you can revisit my post and find therein, the answer to your question?
The part that I quoted was the part that I found intelligible enough to ask about. If the rest of the post was meant as context for the statement that I quoted, then I guess I just don't understand what you're trying to say. What are you trying to say?

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #13

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 8 by William]"There is intelligence behind the process. That is undeniable once the opinions are placed to one side."


Actually, it is deniable. What you have "placed to one side" are facts and reason. It is your opinion that you proclaim "undeniable".

:study:

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14895
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 956 times
Been thanked: 1751 times
Contact:

Post #14

Post by William »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 8 by William]"There is intelligence behind the process. That is undeniable once the opinions are placed to one side."


Actually, it is deniable. What you have "placed to one side" are facts and reason. It is your opinion that you proclaim "undeniable".

:study:

William: You quoted me out of context. Your opinion on that is irreverent.

PeterPan
Student
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:35 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #15

Post by PeterPan »

[Replying to post 8 by William]
Removing that distortion allows for us to understand that there is no 'more' or 'less' complex depending on the construct of the thing being examined. Those are simply additional and unnecessary comments/opinions.
Consider the following quantities:
  • The number of different types of cell that an animal has.
  • The size of an animal's brain.
  • The 'average physical complexity' of a species as defined in the linked paper, which is a measure of the amount of information an organism's genome contains about an environment to which it is adapted.
These quantities have a reasonably strong positive correlation, so you could do a multivariate regression of these quantities for various species, take the principal component of this analysis and call it the 'complexity quotient' of the species. Then, whether or not it is possible to say that some animals are more complex than others, it is certainly possible to say that some animals have a higher complexity quotient than others. I will admit that there are many different ways of defining and estimating complexity. This paper goes into more details about various ways of estimating complexity in different organisms.

What is complexity? Christoph Adami (2002) https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.10192

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14895
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 956 times
Been thanked: 1751 times
Contact:

Post #16

Post by William »

PeterPan wrote: [Replying to post 8 by William]
Removing that distortion allows for us to understand that there is no 'more' or 'less' complex depending on the construct of the thing being examined. Those are simply additional and unnecessary comments/opinions.
Consider the following quantities:
  • The number of different types of cell that an animal has.
  • The size of an animal's brain.
  • The 'average physical complexity' of a species as defined in the linked paper, which is a measure of the amount of information an organism's genome contains about an environment to which it is adapted.
These quantities have a reasonably strong positive correlation, so you could do a multivariate regression of these quantities for various species, take the principal component of this analysis and call it the 'complexity quotient' of the species. Then, whether or not it is possible to say that some animals are more complex than others, it is certainly possible to say that some animals have a higher complexity quotient than others. I will admit that there are many different ways of defining and estimating complexity. This paper goes into more details about various ways of estimating complexity in different organisms.

What is complexity? Christoph Adami (2002) https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.10192
William: It is important to understand that when we place constraints around understanding nature and natural process through use of language, we tend to distort the truth about it.

Not only did I write what you quoted;

"Removing that distortion allows for us to understand that there is no 'more' or 'less' complex depending on the construct of the thing being examined. Those are simply additional and unnecessary comments/opinions."

But I also explained that with what followed;

"Removing those opinions allows for the understanding to increase. There is intelligence behind the process. That is undeniable once the opinions are placed to one side."


"Estimating complexity" - while no doubt an interesting science, does not in itself mean that the complexity of the whole process is rendered 'without intelligence' - so to speak.

Sometimes the devil in the details overlooks the god in the whole.

How does one go about studying the idea that the Planet itself is an intelligent self aware creative entity?

How does one measure the size of the planets brain? How does one measure the intelligence of the planet? How does one conclude that the rock we exist upon is not conscious?

It appears one can overlook such ideas if one separates the whole into compartments which are then dealt with as if they were not part of an overall system.

Obviously the results are going to be off the mark, because the data is being fudged by the methods employed...

The 'average physical complexity' of a species as defined in the linked paper, which is a measure of the amount of information an organism's genome contains about an environment to which it is adapted.
William: "The environment to which it is adapted" is not a separate thing from the organism adapting to it.

Human beings have not understood this, to our own disadvantage. See how the planet has been able to lock us down and begin to rejuvenate? Stroke of genius.

One can plainly see then that Covid-19 appears more able to adapt to its environment
than human beings have so far ever been able to do. Is this because human beings are more 'complex', and so it takes longer?

Unlikely. More likely it is something else human beings are using. Denial. Pride. Greed. An inability to understand that we are not on the planet to rule it and subdue it to our policies and practices.

Once we understand we are here to co-create with the planet, then we can begin to behave as her Children.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14895
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 956 times
Been thanked: 1751 times
Contact:

Post #17

Post by William »

William: To extenuate re my previous post, watch this informative video - I am presently up to 4:29 of it's 22:40 but it is specific to what I am saying about how we best study the parts with the whole in mind...these particular parts are fractal in nature, and reflective of a particular function The Planet Earth also uses, which should in no way be a surprise.

"Like Mother - Like Daughter" as a slight twist on the saying goes...

[yt]LV8wWhjTKRU[/yt]

Sure, The devil is in the details - we are among those details - to learn of the experience...completely, rather than half-arsed-like.

That is my overall point. We are required to be at least as intelligent as that which we have found ourselves to be in the experience of...

Post Reply