Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: dkv on 02/10/2007 15:40:04
-
Some defintions:
Pleasure : As defined earlier in the discussions.
Life entity: Anything which is understood as Life by biology.(exhibiting life cycle)
Pleasure is said to be sustainable if similar conditions prevail.
In other words greater similarity results in greater the sustainbility of pleasure.
Fundamental rules:
1.The laws are self-referential.
2.All life entities move towards sustainable pleasure.
3.Changes occur due to the environment which are fairly random.
4.Pleasure is said to be sustainable if similar environment prevails.
5.Given a change similar things attract to sustain pleasure.
6.If cooperation between two dissimalar things results in greater pleasure then cooperation manifests.
7.If competition between two dissimalr things results in greater
pleasure then competition manifests.
Algortihm(note this algorithm is far far complicated):
1.Create an Object Environment.This object simulates the real environment found on the Earth.
2.Define Life Object.This Object has physical attributes and behaviours with respect to the environment.
3.Define Associated Pleasure Behaviour(APB) Object. This defines what leads to pleasure and what leads to pain.
3.Assign Pleasure Object to each life Object.Allow random searches for greater pleasure.
(we exlcude the strategy part to keep it simple.. it is equivalent to creating intelligence)
4.As similar life Objects come together and are found in sufficient number create another life Object and associate all the similar life objects.
(Similar things produce greater pleasure)
5.Give the new Life Object an ID set its properties such that it behaves like usual Life Object...
Note :Now we have Life Object contianing another life object.It is recursive.. Normal computers will crash.
Each life object still holds on to the basic life principle.
5.Induce random but gradual changes in the environment with largely speparated sudden changes.
The result will close to what we find as life.
To improve accuracy introduce an Abstract Object.
The purpose of this Abstract Object is to create Startegies for sustainable pleasure.
Observe the following :
1.How the distance between Life Objects vary?
2.How the environment affect the behaviour?
-
I am not sure if you are simply trying to extent Jeremy Bentham's 'felicific calculus', but Bentham was only trying to argue from a moral perspective rather than to create laws that apply throughout nature (whether his utopic moral arguments hold weight is itself another matter).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_happiness_principle
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. Thus, the felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the "'Utility calculus", the "Hedonistic calculus" and the "Hedonic calculus."
Variables, or vectors of the pleasures and pains included in this calculation—which Bentham called "elements" or "dimensions"—were:[clarify]
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability it will be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
Bentham's Instructions
- Begin with any one person of those whose interests seem most immediately to be affected by it: and take an account,
- Of the value of each distinguishable pleasure which appears to be produced by it in the first instance.
- Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it in the first instance.
- Of the value of each pleasure which appears to be produced by it after the first. This constitutes the fecundity of the first pleasure and the impurity of the first pain.
- Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it after the first. This constitutes the fecundity of the first pain, and the impurity of the first pleasure.
- Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side, and those of all the pains on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the good tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interests of that individual person; if on the side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole.
- Take an account of the number of persons whose interests appear to be concerned; and repeat the above process with respect to each. Sum up the numbers expressive of the degrees of good tendency, which the act has, with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole. Do this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is bad upon the whole. Take the balance which if on the side of pleasure, will give the general good tendency of the act, with respect to the total number or community of individuals concerned; if on the side of pain, the general evil tendency, with respect to the same community.
To make his proposal easier to remember, Bentham devised what he called a "mnemonic doggerel" (also referred to as "memoriter verses"), which synthesized "the whole fabric of morals and legislation":
Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure—
Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure.
Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it be public, wide let them extend
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:
If pains must come, let them extend to few.
-
quite close to what I am discussing but I am talking about the entire life.From cells to species of different kinds.
And we can expect morals as consequnce to TSP.
I am not sure how much this algorithm will be of use.
But glad to know that there is someone who believes in the possibility of Pleasure as the root cause.
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability it will be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
These variables doesnt make sense when considered for whole life... there are many other variables. There are possibilities of sterile workforce as well.
Strategy is part of TSP evolution but I dont think there is any attempt by individual to judge action on the basis of above mentioned variables.
It turns out that the dynamics of system will allow only those strategies which lead to greater pleasure.There is very little or no intention involved.
You can understand it this way :
There is only one law : Towards Greater Sustainable Pleasure
(All other laws as defined for the algorithm can be derived..I use information theory to prove similar things attract)
What consitutes greater pleasure is defined by the dynamics of the game...
For example:
Sometimes how we compute the pleasure of individual depends on the Group leadership.
And sometimes it quite possible that one discovers the alogorithm for greater pleasure. (which was the purpose calculus I suppose )
-
Pleasure can be derived from asexual sources as well.
You know about matrubation.
There are condoms and homosexuality.
Buddism infact claims a state of continuos happiness and we dont know how.
BUT because we dont how doesnt mean that only sexual manifestation of pleasure is possible.
As I said pleasure is also chemical state and in due course of time some one who is evolved enough can discover it as well.
Therefore the alogrithm doesnt apply.
THERE ARE INHERENT LIMITATIONS IN SIMULATING LIFE.
==================================
At the end of algorithm I mention the Abstract Object which is nothing but the Observer... Someone who observes and discovers startegies ...
How and which computer can simulate that I dont know.
For example:
Let there be n possible states of which only one leads to happiness then the chances of finding that strategy randomly is 1/n! .... which is close to zero therefore
we say that the idea of pleasure incremental.
As the blocks produce pleasure we combine them and as they reduce pleasure we disassocite them.
Simple to understand.And the most important thing is that it converges to sustainable life forms ...which are resilient to changes.
-
One strategy will be interesting :
We know pleasure is chemcial state.
If a species discovers a process to sustainable pleasure without going through Sex then it will
give up Sex.
Mastrubation and Condom clearly communicates the message.
====================
I think the Sex carrier can enjoy greater pleasure.
But is there is any other process other than sex which can create greater pleasure ?
Understanding Buddism:
They remain unmarried and live a life of monks.
I wonder whether they have discovered a process to pleasure independent of sex?
There are plants and animals which live and reproduce asexually.
===================================
Do you know that there is nothing called as favourable gene?
The sterile bee workers are not receding.They are making the favourable gene dependent on "unfavourable" ones. Leading to indispensibility of sterile workforce.In other words the sterile behaviour (or latent behaviour of genotype gene)is equally important.
The entire calculation is misleading and contradictory.
-
Explaining Jealousy:
There are times when a Group or individual becomes more happy than others .The Group behaviour is such that it tries to reach to that level of Happiness
The expereince is expressed as Jealousy.
Thus averaging out the chemical state stability
Explaining Pain:
When a group or individual expereinces pain in excess then the Group act to average out the experience ...
Excess of pain or pleasure within a Group is averaged to move towards greater sustainibility of pleasure.
That explains Human Rights Commision and Altruism and
Inteventionism.
-
More strategies :
Any inter-species cooperation should result in greater pleasure for both.
1.That explains finding the chicken Pox virus at the sensory locations.
2.It also explains cooperation and interpedence between insects and plants.
Plants give insects something to be happy about and insects give something to the plants to be happy about.
3.The light and other sources might produce pleasure .. therefore it predicts possible migration from Sexual to asexual if the process is known.
4.The night flies attract towards light because it triggers a chemical of happiness.
5.Sterile Bees derive Happiness from other sources (may be source is behavioural..Buddism source is also behavioural)
6.those who choose subjects or work which induces greater happiness have greater chances of survival.
7.The physiology manifests is to maximize Happiness for a Group in a given environment.
8.The behaviour manifest the maximize the Happiness in a Group given an environment.
9.The gentials are highly senistive and guraded to maximize pleasure.
10.Domestic dogs are an exmaple of cooperation towards greater happiness.
11.Animals in cage will be expected to have lower life expectancy.
12.Any sudden deviation from natural habitat of species will lead to unstability within Group.
Reducing the overall happiness.
13.Organism tend to adjust to environment and survive at the levels of Happiness defined by change in environment.
14.Some do species do not adjust and die quickly.
15.Most of species in wild are happy ... inspite of all the dangers.
Whereas Humans who live under constant threat suffer from depression.
Exmaple :Deer and Zebra are happy even if the Lion and other predators are constantly lurking behind.
This is because they do not have adapted to that life style but Humans tend to behave like thoughtful species who can avoid such dangers by creating strategies. This creates stree if they fail.
17.Bilogical Diseases spread for mutual benefit of greater happiness.
18.Birds have greatest degree of freedom and thats why they are expected to fickle partners. And therefore very frequently the offspring do not belong to same male.
19.Fishes also have greater degree of freedom therefore I predict that they are also fickle and therefore do not make lasting couple.
20.In USA there is 65% divorce rate this is because they have greater degree of freedom
My prediction is this greater the freedom more unstable the relationship will be.
Did you learn anything ?
-
The theory of replication is incorrect on follwoing accounts:
1.It defines no purpose at any level and such system if left on their own may or may not converge to cooperative or competetive algorithms.
2.Because the gene carries no purpose and origins are fairly random we should have expected greater diversity... More variety in every species...there are no less than infinite number of possibilities.
3.Because there is no purpose one should expect asexual and sexual species in equal numbers.
4.The gene pools have been known to commit suicides.
5.The natural selection defines a prupose of survival of the fittest but this is not true..
There are suicides as well.Sometimes the secually fittest commits suicide.
6.If no one is making any decision towards anything then why are we discussing this natural selection??!!
7.Natural selection is assigned a life upto which it must survive in order to become favourable.But this strategy doesnt explain anything... different genes can become favourable over a period of time...
Example Birds :
Gene1 is Favourable Now.
Because the Birds have greater freedom
Gene2 becomes favourable
Again becuase birds have greater freedom
Gene 3 becomes favourable...
Therefore Birds can not converge towards any cooperation... But this is not the case.
Birds cooperate.
Share your criticism and we can create history.
-
So the facts are wrong simply because you can not accept that evolution is undirected and purposeless?
-
No, you have taught me nothing about the subject being discussed.
-
4.The gene pools have been known to commit suicides.
forgot to gave the examples:
Mass suicide of whales and fishes.They were found on sea shore for no reason!?
Do you think such behaviour demontrate any selection taking place in favour of genes?
whales could have migrated if there was were environmental issues.
-
One more evidence:
In psychological circles it is well known that
even mothers breastfeeding have resulted into sexual thrill.
Breastfeeding for what ?
Pleasure.
-
More evidence :
1.There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.
1,365,730 abortions in 1998 alone.
For what ?
2.Female circumcision - For what ?
A strategy towards sustainable pleasure.
-
Another evidence :
Why is there a difference between wild fish and hathcery fish? Both live in water.
Is this an attempted suicide?
==================================
Fish Hatcheries Cause Stunning Loss Of Reproductive Fitness
Trout raised in hatcheries suffer a dramatic and unexpectedly fast drop in their ability to reproduce in the wild, a study from Oregon State University (OSU) has found. The researchers say that important questions now need to be asked about the wisdom of historic hatchery practices.
Published in Science, the study demonstrates for the first time that the reproductive success of steelhead trout, an important salmonid species, can drop by close to 40 percent per captive-reared generation. "For fish to so quickly lose their ability to reproduce is stunning, it's just remarkable," said OSU's Michael Blouin. "We were not surprised at the type of effect but at the speed. We thought it would be more gradual. If it weren't our own data I would have difficulty believing the results."
The fish reared in a hatchery for two generations had around half the reproductive fitness of fish reared for a single generation. The effects appear to be genetic, Blouin said, and probably result from evolutionary pressures that quickly select for characteristics that are favored in the safe, placid world of the hatchery, but not in the comparatively hostile natural environment.
"Among other things, this study proves with no doubt that wild fish and hatchery fish are not the same, despite their appearances," said Blouin. "Some have suggested that hatchery and wild fish are equivalent, but these data really put the final nail in the coffin of that argument." Even a few generations of domestication may have significant negative effects, and repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations "should be carefully reconsidered," the study noted.
"The problem is in the second and subsequent generations," Blouin said. "There is now no question that using fish of hatchery ancestry to produce more hatchery fish quickly results in stocks that perform poorly in nature."
Blouin noted that evolution can rapidly select for fish of certain types. About 10,000 eggs can eventually turn into fewer than 100 adults and these are genetically selected for whatever characteristics favored their survival. Offspring that inherit traits favored in hatchery fish can be at a serious disadvantage in the wild where they face risks such as an uncertain food supply and many predators eager to eat them.
Blouin cautioned that these data should not be used as an indictment of all hatchery programs. "Hatcheries can have a place in fisheries management," he said. "The key issue is how to minimize their impacts on wild populations."
============================
I had predicted this long ago. If the animals are removed from natural habitat they will not be sustain their pelasure .
The rate of reproduction will decrease.
Pleasure is a unstable unstable state.
-
More evidence :
1.There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.
1,365,730 abortions in 1998 alone.
For what ?
2.Female circumcision - For what ?
A strategy towards sustainable pleasure.
Hold your horses there cowboy, are you saying that women have abortions and are circumsised for their pleasure? If this is the case then i reserve the right to respond with ridicule...oh and facts.
-
No for men's pleasure belonging to the Group.
When we find dissimilar Groups competition or cooperation manifests for greater pleasure.
One might loose and other might win
Or both might win.
Or both may kill each other.
Read atleast few first lines of algorithm.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm)
The url desribes an ancient isolated tribe found in amazon jungle.
The validates the fact Group do not like to change
even by error.
Pleasure prevails if similar situation prevails.(read algorithm)
-
for man's pleasure! can you produce one man who asked or even forced his wife / girlfriend to have an abortion or circumsision for his pleasure?
What pleasure did this or thesee men get out of it?
-
for man's pleasure! can you produce one man who asked or even forced his wife / girlfriend to have an abortion or circumsision for his pleasure?
What pleasure did this or thesee men get out of it?
The pleasure is defined with respect to a Group..
The assumption that all men as equivalent is incorrect.
They have affiliations to different Groups.
The modern society by and large doesnt believe in old strategies towards pleasure.
But nevertheless the tradition lives and is part of TSP process.
Do you intend to change the tradition?
If so why?
What pleasure will you get out of it? (you can use joy or happy instead of pleasure)
-
Another missing evidence which would have supported gene replication theory:
From gene replication point of view :During the natural selection, the rate of gene replication has been the part of opportunistic strategy towards fittest.
(The rate of gene replication can be controlled but only for opportunisitc goals.How this happens is a matter of debate.)
Let us ask why we dont see the diversity in terms of gene replication goals.i.e given a species why we dont the difference s in terms reproductive age????
If the rate of gene replication is a variable then we should have expected the diversity in this reproductive behaviour as well.
But we dont see. There is no evidence to support it.
Therefore the rate of gene replication doesnt change.
If the rate of gene replication is constant then how do we explain the variable rate of evolution.Some species evolved fast some slow.
==========================
From TSP point of view : Every species needs its offspring to developed a neural network to define and identify self-referral pleasure before it can be into launched Group.
This procduces the necessary latency to grow and identify behaviours and sources which are relevant to the neural network
which the life entity is carrying.
Only after the network devlops to expereince learned pleasure the adulthood is reached.
If is was all about replication then as I explained even lilliputians would have existed.:-))
===============================
-
I bet most of you dont know anything about the kind of stupidity which is being taught in the evolution through gene replication. The idea that robotic gene led to invention of emotion is fallacious. No machine can invent emotions.
And a mechanical process is just a mechanical process.
It can run into a death trap and this often happens in case of so called intelligent machines.
It is the nature of human consciousness to seek happiness ... simply by rationalizing Human consciousness using a machine wont prove anything.
If there is anything worth the question it is in me, who dwells in all .... and understands what is called as expereince. Who knows what is meant by Happiness?
Machines pretend.
Will a donkey ever understand the idea of luxury?
For a donkey both will be the same.
-
Evolution Transforms "Junk" DNA into Genetic Machinery
HealthNewsDigest.com) - Evolution has mastered the art of turning trash to treasure - though, for scientists, witnessing the transformation can require a bit of patience. In new genetic research, scientists have traced the 170 million-year evolution of a piece of ?junk? DNA to its modern incarnation as an important regulator of energy balance in mammals.
If the "junk" to "modern incarnation" is random or selected by a process which is opportunistic then is it not possible that "modern incarnation " becomes "junk" tomorrow..Where is the proof that DNA carries "junk"?
The discovery, they said, suggests that regions of the genome formerly presumed to be a genetic junkyard may actually be a hardware superstore, providing components that can be used to evolve new genes or new species.
Who is providing to whom?
?We thought we had found the tip of the iceberg of an evolutionary process that started around 200 million years ago, and we got really fascinated by the idea of pulling up the entire iceberg from the depths.?
Marcelo Rubinstein
The discoveries were reported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute international research scholar Marcelo Rubinstein and his colleagues October 5, 2007, in the online PLoS Genetics. Rubinstein is at the Institute for Research on Genetic Engineering and Molecular Biology of the National Council for Science and Technology in Argentina, and the University of Buenos Aires.
Researchers have long known that all genomes are prodigiously sprinkled with DNA fragments derived from mobile elements that have jumped to apparently random points in the genome. For example, the Human Genome Project revealed that about 45 percent of our genome consists of mobile element-derived sequences.
Is it a random process or there is some natural selection?
Confusing both . GENOMES are randomly sprinkled with DNA fragments???
?The classical view has considered genomic sequences derived from mobile elements as ?junk? DNA?a large accumulation of useless sequences,? said Rubinstein. ?However, more recent work, including the findings in this paper, is producing convincing evidence that these sequences provided raw material for the evolution of novel gene functions.?
How? And Who provided ?
Rubinstein and his colleagues had been studying one such piece of DNA, called nPE2, which enhances the activity of a gene called POMC (proopiomelanocortin). The POMC gene is expressed in cells in the brain and produces peptides that regulate a variety of behaviors, including food intake and stress-induced analgesia.
?Our studies showed that nPE2 is highly conserved in mammals but absent in other vertebrates, so we became interested in studying its evolutionary origins,? said Rubinstein. ?We then found nPE2 to be highly similar to sequences present in the genomes of the marsupials opossum and wallaby. So we thought we had found the tip of the iceberg of an evolutionary process that started around 200 million years ago, and we got really fascinated by the idea of pulling up the entire iceberg from the depths.? In fact, Rubinstein and his colleagues realized that all similar sequences originated from a superfamily of mobile elements called CORE-short interspersed elements (CORE-SINES). CORE-SINES are retroposons, meaning the genetic sequence has been copied before being inserted into new sites in the genome.
To reveal more of nPE2's evolutionary history, the researchers compared nPE2 sequences from 16 mammalian species, including human, dog, mouse, and rabbit. They found the nPE2 enhancer sequence to be highly conserved. By creating altered versions of the nPE2 sequence and testing their ability to enhance gene expression in transgenic mice, they showed that the regions that were critical to nPE2's function were most rigorously conserved over evolution. The findings, Rubinstein said, indicated that nPE2's function ?contributed to the fitness of all mammals,
A collection of gene contributes to the fitness and not a single gene or behaviour.
probably by better tuning the central regulation of energy balance.?
?This paper shows, for the first time, that a retroposon of this superfamily got inserted near the POMC gene sometime before 170 million years ago; and after suffering a limited number of random mutations, it acquired a novel and useful function and became fixed in the genome of an ancestor to all mammals,? said Rubinstein.
here it is clearly written that the mutations are random.For a random cause anything can happen tomorrow a gentic disease can appear for random cause?!
The findings provide clear evidence that genes use a collection of functional sequences incorporated at different times during a very long-lasting evolutionary process, said Rubinstein. ?Novel sequences that improved fitness got fixed into the genomes and continued to travel to the future together with more ancient functional sequences,? he said.
How long does it take to fix the definition of fitness? Life is not a computer program!!
The researchers found a large number of other CORE-SINE superfamily members that had changed very little over evolutionary time, suggesting that nPE2's evolution from junk to regulatory DNA was not a unique event.
contradicting random nature of mutations...how is it possible that some memebers underwent random mutations some did not...we are talking about a timescale == eternity.
In fact, Rubinstein suspects that thousands of currently functional elements are derived from ancient retroposon insertions?but their evolutionary history still needs to be untangled. ?We are starting to understand how insertional elements, instead of being useless or harmful for the genomes, may be beneficial.?
Simply try to underline the sentences which give a sense of Doer or player in the game of evolution. those are the points of contradictions.As it implies purpose.Therefore scientifically
incorrect statements.
(my comments are in red... try this excersice with any genetic research paper and find how many unscientific statements are made)
-
An exmaple of inter-species cooperation.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/columns/story?columnist=swan_james&page=g_col_swan_raptors_cooperation
(http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/columns/story?columnist=swan_james&page=g_col_swan_raptors_cooperation)
It turns out that the a hawk or piegeon or parrot or dog can cooperate with Man.
And generally they are not eaten.
Whereas the chicken gets eaten and has lived with Human population for centuries.
What benefit this behaviour brings to the genepool of Chicken relative to other birds?
Does chicken know that it tastes good and therfore its population will remain entact?
Why didnt the chicken gene mutated like moth to avoid the
hunter?
The number of chickens have gone down drastically in the wild.
Clearly this example shows that Natural selection fails.
Why ?
The example already shows what it takes to cooperate with humans without getting eaten.
Clearly there were no random or intentional mutation in favour of the fittest gene even after living for centuries with its predator!!
Chicken have become so much dependent on its predator that it may never be able to outcompete its predator.
-
Another Inter-Species cooperation in two forest monkeys:
Putty-nosed monkeys, Cercopithecus nictitans stampflii, occur at various sites in West Africa, particularly in the transition zone between rainforest and savannah. The species is sometimes seen in primary rainforest, although at a curiously low density compared with that of other monkey species. We conducted a 24-month field study in the tropical rainforest of Taï National Park, Ivory Coast, and found that putty-nosed monkeys require an ecological niche almost identical to that of the Diana monkeys, Cercopithecus diana diana. Moreover, the niche breadth of putty-nosed monkeys was significantly decreased in the presence of Diana monkeys, suggesting that feeding competition with Diana monkeys kept putty-nosed monkeys from successfully colonizing a rainforest habitat. However, contrary to the interspecies competition hypothesis, groups of both species almost completely overlapped in home ranges and formed near-permanent mixed-species associations, rather than avoiding each other. We hypothesized that Diana monkeys tolerated immigrating putty-nosed monkeys and formed mixed-species groups with them, despite high levels of competition, because of their merit in predation defense. Direct observations and a series of field experiments confirmed that male putty-nosed monkeys play a vital role in defense against crowned eagles, suggesting that putty-nosed monkeys obtain access to feeding trees by offering antipredation benefits to Diana monkeys. We discuss these findings in light of biological market theory.
Which is the favourable gene carrier (the putty nosed monkey or the dianna)?
And why arent they competing?
========================
There was no more competition than those related to pleasure. In the case above both cooperate because the strategy works towards pleasure.
-
The quote you have put in there explains that cooperating is of genetic benefit to both species - one gets access to food while the other gets extra protection from predators.
So neither/both are the 'favourable gene carrier'. They aren't competing because they both gain from not doing so.
This strategy has nothing to do with pleasure, it's a result of natural selection.
Edit - Oh, and with chickens, we have selectively bred traits that make chickens easy to farm and good to eat. Genes do not mutate in favour of the 'fittest gene', mutation is random and the beneficial ones thrive if they offer an advantage to the individual in terms of survival/breeding. Any mutation that made a chicken more able to escape would have led to that chicken not being bred with the other, captive, animals, and so the mutation would not have been passed to the next generation.
Natural selection is irrelevant when the selection pressure is humans selectively breeding the animals.
Please research genetics, evolution, natural & artificial selection better before posting any more examples, as you clearly don't understand it well enough to comment on this branch of science.
-
Can we please state clearly what is meant by Natural selection? A moth is able to change its color to hide from predators and the insect falls from trees like bird excreta !! And the chickens even after living for ages with humans fail to find a gene which would have resulted into Human diseases so that Chicken could have survive in the wild? Why ?
We are assuming that Human breeding has some kind of control of Nautural Mutations.
How do you explain evolution of Dogs? and other pets ?
Didnt they mutate to sustain themselves in the Human environment?
In my opinion as all chickens get eaten up there should have been greater selection pressure on the
chickens to fight against the mass slaughter.
Hence the explanation is absurd and contradictory.
=============================================
The quote you have put in there explains that cooperating is of genetic benefit to both species - one gets access to food while the other gets extra protection from predators.
So neither/both are the 'favourable gene carrier'. They aren't competing because they both gain from not doing so.
It is a norm to discuss in terms of benefits of cooperation towards survival but we cant ask why?
There are several cases in which cooperation could have led to greater security. But we dont find such extar ordinary cases frequently.
From logical point of view :If why gets excluded then what can we discuss about?
Can I say that cooperation leads towards favourable gene ? No . Hence such a argument is merely an observation based on opportunistic survival of species and it is not an explanation grounded in the mechanics of evolution using genetic replication.
======================
This strategy has nothing to do with pleasure, it's a result of natural selection.
It is strategy towards sustainable pleasure.. as you said one provides extra protection and other food.
I would still consider it a weak argument.
There can be many more aspects to it.
I comment to educate the people about logic.So many mathematicians went mad doing logic and it should not be taken lightly.
-
Wikipedia gives you a perfectly good definition of natural selection:
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
With regards Moths, are you referring to the peppered moth? If so, you are wrong, an individual moth doesn't change colour, but the population tends towards the best colour for survival. This is because the most visible moths are more likely to be eaten by predators, and so less likely to pass on their genes. The ones which are better camouflaged are more likely to survive to breed, and so these genes become more prevalent in the population.
With regards chickens, they have been selectively bred by humans, so the genes which make them best for us survive at the expense of other genes. There's no 'desire' for chicken genes to escape into the wild, and they are bred (by us) in huge numbers for our sake, so there's no pressure to evolve to better cope in the wild.
Dogs are also the result of hundreds of years of artificial selection. We chose the animals with the best traits for us, and bred them together. Over many generations this has resulted in the dogs we see as pets today.
Artificial selection does not exercise control over random mutations, it selects which ones of these mutations will die out, and which will thrive. The mutations happen anyway, and if they make a better dog/cat/hamster/chicken we are more likely to try to keep these mutations in the gene pool.
Hence the explanation is absurd and contradictory.
No it's not. As I asked before, please do some more research before making comments like this. It's not nice to accuse someone of being absurd, especially when you don't understand what you're commenting on.
It is a norm to discuss in terms of benefits of cooperation towards survival but we cant ask why?
Of course you can ask why. But is your question "why does cooperation benefit these species?", because I've already answered that one.
Can I say that cooperation leads towards favourable gene ? No . Hence such a argument is merely an observation based on opportunistic survival of species and it is not an explanation grounded in the mechanics of evolution using genetic replication.
Yes, you can say that cooperation could lead to the selection of a favourable gene. Where a cooperative situation is mutually beneficial, the genes which encourage this cooperation will be selected for. Genes controlling hormones can affect how aggressive a species is, and if being less aggressive to another species will benefit the organism, then genes that reduce aggression will be more likely to be passed on to the next generation. That is "an explanation grounded in the mechanics of evolution using genetic replication."
It is strategy towards sustainable pleasure.. as you said one provides extra protection and other food.
Nonsense. Pleasure has nothing to do with it. It's a strategy selected for by the selection pressure of the environment because it is mutually beneficial to the organisms in that environment. You can consider it a weak argument if you like, but that is a result of your lack of understanding about evolution and natural selection.
I comment to educate the people about logic.So many mathematicians went mad doing logic and it should not be taken lightly.
You're right, logic shouldn't be taken lightly. But you do not educate people about logic, you do quite the opposite by ignoring evidence and logical thought in favour of your sustainable pleasure humbug.
-
Chicken Moth argument is insane.
Moth doesnt evolve for the predators... Whereas Chicken evolves for us....
Do I need to say more?
The definition of Natural selection is incomplete.
===========================================
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.
How these changes take place ? How the favourable gene manifests? Let me add something more to this.
Those which reproduce more become favourable.
Those which reproduce less become less favourable.
====================================
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
Emergence of new species is a highly differentiated reality .. we cant explain the discontinuity unless we state that unfavourable triats vanishes (example most mammals have four limbs and those with phenotype genes which would have led none,one ,two or three or five limbs failed to reproduce.).
But there is an another glitch... Only those favourable genes which survive for sufficient time define the future of the species.
How and who defines the sufficient time ?
No one.
It is random phenomenon which provides no inherent explanation but only benefits.
And if randomness is fundamental to the evolution then where are the mammals with 0,1,2,3,5, limbs ?
And where are the Lilliputians?
And I know what answers you will give !
You use will excuses ... like emotion is an invention , there is an inherent meaning to the behaviours of species with respect to evolution .... You will provide why and make it look like a process which carries any inherent meaning.
Such statements misleads science and people in general.
Atleast you can avoid using the species or individual centric
statements in your scientific papers....
There is no purpose at any level from evolutionary point of view.
The explanation of animal behaviour is opporunistic and provides only obeservation ...
It does not provide reason. Because it can not.
Where as TSP makes whole life congruent to itself.
I fail what is so difficult to understand ... even the genetic manifestations can explained as strategy to sustain pleasure.
-
DNA's self-repair .
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171027.htm
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171027.htm)
If a gene jumps out of DNA then the previous DNA repairs itself.
This is predicted by Self-Consistent Algorithm of Pleasure.
Given a change the life entities tries to change itself in a way such that similar conditions prevails.
From gene replication point of view this research futher complicates the asexual to sexual imgration of behaviour and species. A change is not favoured by DNA. This is the first bio-molecular evidence in support of TSP.
-
To be honest, I dont really understand what you're getting at.
Chicken Moth argument is insane.
Who mentioned chicken moths?
Moth doesnt evolve for the predators... Whereas Chicken evolves for us....
Do I need to say more?
Yes, you do. You need to explain why you dont understand the very simple premise that the selection pressures operating on the moth are completely different to those operating on the chicken. I will try to explain again, but it seems that you aren't paying any attention, or are just refusing to understand.
Well camouflaged moths are more likely to survive to breeding age than poorly camouflaged moths, so more of the next generation will have 'well camouflaged' genes. The selection pressure therefore means that the proportion of the 'dark' gene in the population will increase.
In chickens, the selection pressure is artificial. Chicken breeders choose which traits they want to continue into the next generation. the selection pressure is towards fat chickens & high egg production, not towards the traits that would assist a chicken to live in the wild. Given these artificially selective pressures, the proportion of the 'good farming' genes will increase.
You are wrong, and seem unwilling to admit it. I do not appreciate the fact that I took my time to explain to you the mechanics of artificial selection and natural selection, only for you to call it insane.
Such statements misleads science and people in general.
I do hope you're not referring to anything I have said here, as that would practically be slander.
I hope you will behave like a reasonable human being, do some research with an open mind prior to commenting on anything I have said. Evolution by natural selection of heritable traits is the best theory we have to fit the data we have collected, and can make accurate predictions. The TSP idea of yours is ridiculous, and is of no scientific merit.
This forum will open it's arms to you and you can enjoy discussing science with the great many people here, but you need to open your mind to ideas other than your own, and maybe eventually people will start listening to what you have to say.
-
To be honest, I dont really understand what you're getting at.
I am getting at the fact on Evolution. Evolution claims that there is no inherent purpose or goal of life in all its forms.Whereas I claim all behaviours and changes taking taking place in the Life Universe if towards sustainable pleasure.
Chicken Moth argument is insane.
Who mentioned chicken moths?
Chicken Moth argument which we were having made distiction between Human Environment and Natural Environment. Laws of Nature is equally applicable everywhere.And any distinction is superficial.
Moth doesnt evolve for the predators... Whereas Chicken evolves for us....
Do I need to say more?
Yes, you do. You need to explain why you dont understand the very simple premise that the selection pressures operating on the moth are completely different to those operating on the chicken. I will try to explain again, but it seems that you aren't paying any attention, or are just refusing to understand.
Well camouflaged moths are more likely to survive to breeding age than poorly camouflaged moths, so more of the next generation will have 'well camouflaged' genes. The selection pressure therefore means that the proportion of the 'dark' gene in the population will increase.
In chickens, the selection pressure is artificial. Chicken breeders choose which traits they want to continue into the next generation. the selection pressure is towards fat chickens & high egg production, not towards the traits that would assist a chicken to live in the wild. Given these artificially selective pressures, the proportion of the 'good farming' genes will increase.
The claim that Selection Pressure can be artificial is artificial. There is not a single evidence in towards a scientific validity.If Human environment is artificial then the reason is also artifical. Reasons are natural and the propagator of reason in also natural. What explains animals explains humans.
I very well understand when you say "dark" gene propagates because it leads to survival. Those who were not carrying dark colors fell prey to the predators.
For chickens apparently there is no choice. Since ages we have been eating them and chicken gene pool didnt realize this fact ... Lets say a generation of chicken finds the same impulse as those found in Moths towards the predator . A valid assumption I guess. Lets call this natural impulse Predator impulse.
Now chicken gene pool under the influence of Predator impulse doesnt produce any statistically noticeable movement towards a desire to survive.
If humans get involved neither the environment become superficial nor the inherent dynamics of gene.
A variety of chickens known as broilers is generally used to cook. In some countries , before the broiler came into practice , native species were cooked.
The point is we do not look into chromosome or DNA to select the gene . We are simply eating a favorite species. If quality standards are high then fat and healthy chicken gets cooked otherwise the market decides.Anyways they get eaten.
Such trait selection do not inhibit the gene play under the Predator impulse.
What is so difficult to understand about the comparison between Moth's growth and Chickens Growth? Infact the comaprison exposes the absurdity.
===================================
You are wrong, and seem unwilling to admit it. I do not appreciate the fact that I took my time to explain to you the mechanics of artificial selection and natural selection, only for you to call it insane.
A tiger chooses its prey.A weak prey.Isnt this a selection?Is it artificail or natural? Tiger eats the weak ones and breeds the healthy naturally.
We are eating the healthy ones and breeding none.
The breeding of crops was unintentional and it was artificial. Again the crops did not react to the predator impulse. Moth evolution was also unintentional but managed to become smart.
My point is the seperation between artificial selection and natural selection is superficial... because even a tiger or the giraffe or the elephants selects what breed to eat and what not to eat.
This kind of selection pressure is alawys present whether in the natural environment or the so called artificial environment.
Such statements misleads science and people in general.
I do hope you're not referring to anything I have said here, as that would practically be slander.
I hope you will behave like a reasonable human being, do some research with an open mind prior to commenting on anything I have said. Evolution by natural selection of heritable traits is the best theory we have to fit the data we have collected, and can make accurate predictions. The TSP idea of yours is ridiculous, and is of no scientific merit.
This forum will open it's arms to you and you can enjoy discussing science with the great many people here, but you need to open your mind to ideas other than your own, and maybe eventually people will start listening to what you have to say.
My mind is open :-))
But the unified reasoning behind the natural selection and replication driven evoltuion is as good as no reason at all or multiple reasons without incorporating a concept called Pleasure or TSP. If TSP gets included then everything gets explained including the gene fitness and gene replciation but with a different algorithm.
-
Oh, I see, you think that to call a selection pressure put in place by people 'artificial' is to anthropomorphise. Fair enough. But it remains that the selective pressures on chickens have shaped their evolution to become what we think of today as farm chickens.
We are eating the healthy ones and breeding none.
Nonsense. We chose the best ones to breed, so that we will have the best next generation of chickens for us to farm. This again points out that you do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about.
For chickens apparently there is no choice.
There is no choice for moths. They are born a certain colour, and will either survive to breed or won't. There is no 'predator impulse' - in a predated population, the genes which offer an advantage are more likely to survive to breed. That's it.
Evolution by natural selection does not have an ultimate aim, thats no aim at all. It's a reactive mechanism. to suggest it has an aim towards anything is simply wrong. To argue vehemently that evolution is aiming toward pleasure is to show that you do not understand the topic.
-
Oh, I see, you think that to call a selection pressure put in place by people 'artificial' is to anthropomorphise. Fair enough. But it remains that the selective pressures on chickens have shaped their evolution to become what we think of today as farm chickens.
Interesting .:-))
We are eating the healthy ones and breeding none.
Nonsense. We chose the best ones to breed, so that we will have the best next generation of chickens for us to farm. This again points out that you do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about.
For chickens apparently there is no choice.
There is no choice for moths. They are born a certain colour, and will either survive to breed or won't. There is no 'predator impulse' - in a predated population, the genes which offer an advantage are more likely to survive to breed. That's it.
"Natural habitat" of primitive Moths were also littered with possibilities of predators. Genes were replicating and mutating. Luckily a gene by chance mutated towards a skin color which matched with the environment.Since skin color offered an advantage to survive there genes were passed from one generation to next with greater likelihood.Therefore there was no choice but a random chance.
Whereas in the case of chickens :
You are saying that generations of chicken couldnt find a certain death trap questionable because there was no impulse or intention involved.
The genes of chicken were mutating and by chance it happened that no gene could find a way to greater survivalbility.The phenotype changes couldnt produce cancerious cells or bacteria or virus or some other typical of arsenal to defend the mass slaugter.
What is the difference between Chicken evolution and the Moth evolution ? Chance.
If this is the case then no meaning can be attached to Natural selection. It is a purely random process. There is no selection involved.
So we explain our own eating habits by saying that those birds or animals which happened to develop diseases in Human happen to live in the wild and were not confined.
Is this what you are saying?
If yes then it is merely an observation. Because Natural selection doesnt involve any intention or actors(genetic or otherwise).
And the process is purely random with no explanatory power.It is like painting with closed eyes. Expecting to find some rationality or understandibility in the processes of life.
Given a logic there is a chance of finding it but given a logic there is also a chance of finding its opposite. If we dont invlove the actors or intention in natural selection then the discovery of logic(to "explain") is a matter of chance.
And the associated logic is locally valid or opportunistic.
===================================
-
"Life is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators" -Richard Dawkins.
I don't see how you can refuse to understand this.
You simply have no idea about what you are talking about.
Your issue with Darwinian evolution is that there is no purpose and no guarantee of survival. This is such a childish, petty objection. It is not necessary for anything at all to have purpose. As it happens, some things do have a purpose, while the majority of other things in the universe have no purpose. Evolution has no purpose, no goal. You need to be incredibly stupid, ignorant or conniving to reject the arguments and information put forth to you by myself and others. My suggestion to you once again is that you go and read heavily about Darwinian evolution, and the multitude of theories and evidences that fall under its umbrella, and don't come back until you have understood it fully and have realized that TSP is glaringly, obviously, wrong.
Regards.
-
DKV, I'm going to have one last try at explaining this to you, and if you continue to refuse to listen then I will give up and, like Stefan, ask you to read up about the subject before posting again.
Maybe moths and chickens are too close to your heart, so I will use an extra set of examples.
You seem to grasp that with the peppered moth, random mutations offered an advantage to specific individuals, who were then more likely to breed (as they were less likely to be predated) and so the proportion of these mutations was higher in the following generation. Assuming these still offered an advantage, this process would be repeated and the next generation would also have a higher proportion of these mutations and so on
You don't, however, seem to understand that with chickens it's not those that get eaten that are important, but those that we choose to breed. One cockerel has a mutation that makes his offspring produce more eggs - so we breed him with others. His offspring also carry this mutation, so we breed them with others. We are selecting the traits that we want. We do not allow free mating in the chicken population, we decide which chickens will breed - so the mutations that become more common in the future generations are not ones for survivability, as they are in the moths, but the ones for traits that we find desirable.
What is the difference between Chicken evolution and the Moth evolution ? Chance.
Do you now see that this is completely wrong? The difference is the selection pressure - in moths a pressure applied by their predators that results in better camouflaged ones surviving to breed, in chickens a pressure applied by us hat results in fatter chickens/chickens that produce more eggs being bred.
Okay, a new example to try and help you get over the intellectual problems you are having with chickens and moths...
A wolf living in the wild - any adaptation that helps a wolf survive, (be they better able to hunt, withstand hunger, cope with a wider range of temperatures) will make that wolf more likely to survive long enough to breed. This means that these adaptations will be better represented in the future wolf population. So the pressures of it's environment act to select the mutations that offer an advantage to the organism.
Okay so far?
A huskie living in a community that relies on dog sleds - The sled owners will carefully chose which male dog to mate with their bitches. They will not chose the dog with the best instincts/abilities for survival, they will pick the best runner or the one with the best endurance running skills. This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation, but the mutations that improve speed and endurance will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.
How're you doing?
Pet Dog breeding - take, for example, a poodle. A poodle with best adaptation to survive in the wild may not have the traits that poodle breeders want. Nor would a poodle who could run fastest, pull the heaviest load or run for longest. Poodle breeders are looking for the most handsome dog, the nicest, glossiest, curliest fur and the proudest eyes and face. So, and I think you can see where I'm going with this - This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation. The mutations that improve speed and endurance will not be selected, and will not increase in proportion in the next generation. But the mutations that improve quality of coat and attractiveness in the eyes of the breeder will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.
If this is the case then no meaning can be attached to Natural selection. It is a purely random process. There is no selection involved.
I hope now that you will see that this statement is simply wrong.
I'm sure everyone on this forum encourages original thought, but we must take into account what is already known. Please let us know that you have decided to research evolution and natural selection further before pursuing your TSP ideas, as right now TSP can be outright rejected as it doesn't fit with known theory and observation.
I am going to assume that if you still refuse to comprehend, then you are simply unwilling or unable to understand the topic that you are discussing, and I will discontinue this conversation. I hope this will not be the case.
-
DKV, I'm going to have one last try at explaining this to you, and if you continue to refuse to listen then I will give up and, like Stefan, ask you to read up about the subject before posting again.
Thank you and dont mention the pain of reading the books incorrectly.
Maybe moths and chickens are too close to your heart, so I will use an extra set of examples.
You seem to grasp that with the peppered moth, random mutations offered an advantage to specific individuals, who were then more likely to breed (as they were less likely to be predated) and so the proportion of these mutations was higher in the following generation. Assuming these still offered an advantage, this process would be repeated and the next generation would also have a higher proportion of these mutations and so on
You don't, however, seem to understand that with chickens it's not those that get eaten that are important, but those that we choose to breed. One cockerel has a mutation that makes his offspring produce more eggs - so we breed him with others. His offspring also carry this mutation, so we breed them with others. We are selecting the traits that we want. We do not allow free mating in the chicken population, we decide which chickens will breed - so the mutations that become more common in the future generations are not ones for survivability, as they are in the moths, but the ones for traits that we find desirable.
Amazing insight you have.Random admission is so rare to find.
However now you must admit that the theory of replication is no different than what you said previously
you think that to call a selection pressure put in place by people 'artificial' is to anthropomorphise.Fair enough.
==========================
What is the difference between Chicken evolution and the Moth evolution ? Chance.
Do you now see that this is completely wrong? The difference is the selection pressure - in moths a pressure applied by their predators that results in better camouflaged ones surviving to breed, in chickens a pressure applied by us hat results in fatter chickens/chickens that produce more eggs being bred.
More eggs is simply a way to propagte the Chicken genes and the whole explanation is based on intentional selection.... BUT ask yourself is the intentional selection any different than the selection made by birds which eats insects or lion which eats zebra....
Field is it part of biology??Do the field work.
=======================================
Okay, a new example to try and help you get over the intellectual problems you are having with chickens and moths...
A wolf living in the wild - any adaptation that helps a wolf survive, (be they better able to hunt, withstand hunger, cope with a wider range of temperatures) will make that wolf more likely to survive long enough to breed. This means that these adaptations will be better represented in the future wolf population. So the pressures of it's environment act to select the mutations that offer an advantage to the organism.
Okay so far?
Amazing explanation.The so called natural Environment gives greater or better chances of survival but the environment in the lab doesnt offer any moves. Other birds were not eaten and the diversity of human diet remained limited to chickens....We do not eat everything. Name the bird which is eaten widely outnumbering any other species by a huge margin...? You will search the books I guess.
The looks of chicken provides no evidence of blood and you are talking about genes.. h
========================================
A huskie living in a community that relies on dog sleds - The sled owners will carefully chose which male dog to mate with their bitches. They will not chose the dog with the best instincts/abilities for survival, they will pick the best runner or the one with the best endurance running skills. This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation, but the mutations that improve speed and endurance will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.
How're you doing?
I am running. The so called Humanised species does not change the fundamentals of gene dynamics. Unless there are interests in cooperation the cooperation should not take place.... or you dispute this fundamental assumption of replication theory...We still find the cooperation between Men and Dogs... So I do not dispute this observation but same can not be applied to Chickens unless we admit a contract between Man and chicken in which chicken wishes to loose.
=============================
Pet Dog breeding - take, for example, a poodle. A poodle with best adaptation to survive in the wild may not have the traits that poodle breeders want. Nor would a poodle who could run fastest, pull the heaviest load or run for longest. Poodle breeders are looking for the most handsome dog, the nicest, glossiest, curliest fur and the proudest eyes and face. So, and I think you can see where I'm going with this - This way, the mutations that improve ability to hunt are not selected, and do not increase in proportion in the future generation. The mutations that improve speed and endurance will not be selected, and will not increase in proportion in the next generation. But the mutations that improve quality of coat and attractiveness in the eyes of the breeder will be selected, and will increase in proportion in the next generation.
If this is the case then no meaning can be attached to Natural selection. It is a purely random process. There is no selection involved.
I hope now that you will see that this statement is simply wrong.
I'm sure everyone on this forum encourages original thought, but we must take into account what is already known. Please let us know that you have decided to research evolution and natural selection further before pursuing your TSP ideas, as right now TSP can be outright rejected as it doesn't fit with known theory and observation.
I am going to assume that if you still refuse to comprehend, then you are simply unwilling or unable to understand the topic that you are discussing, and I will discontinue this conversation. I hope this will not be the case.
Do you really believe that the Replication explains evolution.
Who in this world knows the root cause?
Vote for Dawkins.
-
DKV, your comments are not coherent enough to properly respond to them.
In the time that you were absent from this lovely forum, did you at any time attempt to read and properly understand Darwinian Evolution? From what you have just written here, I would say NO.
Come back when you have understood the concepts correctly. Intentional ignorance of that which is being discussed is not tolerated in the world of science and reason.