Intelligent Goal Focussed Evolution vs evolution by natural selection

sure something must evolve but why did we end up with only one form of result and not mulitudes [ multiple forms of humanoid and not just homo sapien] after all the probablity would be better odds for multitudes rather than just one.
[Actually quite a strange notion I must admit - multitudes of humanoid genomes on one planet- chuckle]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Death isn't the only chooser, there is also sex, there are gradations of success. Anyway, there were many kinds of humans on Earth, Neanderthals, the "hobbits" of Flores in Indonesia, and many others. But they all had relatively recent common ancestors. The fact is that humans are not necessarily the best solution for success in living on this planet. Where a chimp can walk into the woods naked and survive, few humans could do the same without tools and training. We aren't a plateau where evolution must end up. It also ends up with crocodiles, birds, insects, and all the rest...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

gorillas,monkeys, apes,etc
would they not qualify for 'humanoid' in shape?
don't they have enough DNA identicalness to be considered 'humanoid DNA'?
these are just the species that has survived..

that is a good pro-God statement..
(i did not say anti-evolution.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I get the impression you don't fully understand the mechanism of evolution.

Ionizing radiation in the form of natural background radiation is the mechanism of evolution. Natural Selection is merely a process that ensures the most robust organisms survive, but does not actually cause evolution to occur.

While natural background radiation is tolerable now, in Earth of the distant past had you come here you would be incapacitated, bleed out and die in about 20 minutes. However, many other species are impervious to the physiological effects.

There is a high correlation between the level of natural background radiation, reproductive maturity, reproductive rate, number of offspring produced, and the number of organisms by class, family and genus.

It was the totally random, completely chaotic zinging of high energy photons through mediums like sea water and air that caused mutations at the genetic level.

Those mutations were benevolent, benign or malevolent. In the case of malevolent mutations, those organism died, died before being able to reproduce, or reproduced and their offspring died. In the case of benevolent or benign mutations, the species survived and passed the mutated genes to offspring, and the process of Natural Selection did the rest.

At the time mammals evolved, what we see are more complex organisms that take longer to reach sexual maturation, reproduce less often, and each reproductive cycle yields fewer offspring. Simultaneously the rate of natural background radiation has declined considerably, so that evolution no longer occurs as rapidly, and there are no longer any "explosions" of groups or species.

To suggest the process was not random is a little absurd, since the ejection of gammas and x-rays from radioactive isotopes is completely random (and chaotic), as is their path of travel through a given medium, as is their collision with electrons, protons and neutrons. Each photo will ionize on average about 30,000 other particles, causing them to interact randomly at the atomic level of other atoms.

Again, it is that randomly chaotic activity that leads the alteration of DNA, a mutation, which then may or may not lead to the evolution of that organism at that time.

 

(Natural) selection is considered a classical mechanism/agent of evolution.

 

Although we have yet to conclusively prove the origins of homo sapiens, I would suggest that since our species became self-aware, that we have had 'goal oriented evolution', for by every choice we make, from what we hunted, the advent of language, agriculture and technology, we have been shaping both the environment and the bias of evolution.

Since the time of cave drawings and likely even prior, the impacts of our kind have been affecting the final outcomes.

From extinctions to the creation of new breeds, we have become the major cause of change and effect.

I might hypothesize that it is our randomly chaotic activity that leads the alteration of DNA, a mutation, which then may or may not lead to the evolution of that organism at that time. In recognition that many may believe otherwise, this is just my opinion.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not quite what I meant in that knowing the complexity of the human genome there is no reason at all why there is such commonality amongst humans if truly random processes were involved. [apart from "superficial" differences the human being is surprisingly homogenous physically as a race.]

The fact is that the only successful sapient race on this planet to ever evolve is the homo-sapien and it is puzzling, if randomness is truly present why this is and was so.
thus Goal-focussed-evolution could be contended with or with out random mutation...
also we have no recorded evidence humans [homosapiens] demonstrating physical evolution pre-se

 

but are you not talking about behavioural or emotional evolution here and not physical evolution?

we have only such limited data on early homo-sapient man and when we say "early we are talking a mere 10,000 years or so [ 60,000 years in somes cases] and this is not even a "twinkle" in evolutions eye so to speak and if you want to speculate about earlier times we are still only talking about a very small time span evolution history.

 

How long would it take to evolve a homo sapien from a lifeless universe?
obviously before our records and evidence available to us...

 

Yes, we are.

There is an eye seeing you.

Focus on the right thing.

 

I would suggest that our ability to dramatically change habitat, effect exterminations and to create new species through gene splicing is having a physical effect on evolution.

Rather presumptuous of us to dabble without a better understanding of how our own ecosystem is interwoven.

For such a recent innovation, our species is definitely 'precocious' in my observation.

 

I'm still contemplating where the 'real estate' or 'space' came from that the universe occupies, lol....

Pandora's box......once escaped therefrom, never to be re-contained.....

The universe, from nowhere to somewhere and beyond......not unlike our own brief experiencing of individuality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Probably between about 13.71 and 13.73 billion years at most, since it appears that Homo sapiens evolved around 250 - 400 thousand years ago. This is assuming that the universe really is 13.75 billion years old as per our best estimate.

I think the more interesting question to ask however is how long it might take any form of similarly intelligent life to evolve. It could have happened a few billion years after the first second generation star systems formed (where the requisite chemical elements had been scattered around due the first generation stars going supernova), which could have been as early as a few hundred millions years after the Big Bang.

 

this intones that we could have evolved from different puddles of primordial ooze..more than one genetic line to origin, if so ,less commonality would make more sense, it can be assumed that there is a commonality in a single genetic line.

i think we make it more complicated than it is, we as a species do not want to acknowledge that we are not that special, science has found behaviors in nature that are identical to humans , granted not all in the same species like humans,but we are a naturally mimicking species (we see something that works better, we copy it).
and
intelligence comes with communication, (assuming that is the context you are referring to when you say 'the only successful sapient race')
science thinks dolphins can communicate with each other,that they are intelligent.
now i am starting to get into the question of defining what it is to be sapient..
(see above about not wanting to know, definitions limits who we are as a species)

and now i am thinking, i missed something..

and again..

 

One theory, with much evidence behind it, is that the species was almost wiped out fairly recently - probably by something like a meteor strike, or other cataclysm. Do you intend to attempt to describe the patterns of meteor strikes without invoking randomness and probability, or similar rare events of great violence?

Being run through a genetic bottleneck simplifies a species genome - according to the laws of probability.

But your assertion is wrong anyway - by the standard probability-based theories of evolutionary mechanism, such as the "broken stick" model of diversification from a common ancestor, most species are fairly isolated on their genetic limbs - only a minority of the genetic branchings produce many closely related twigs. We have a couple of close relatives, and that's what is most likely.

 

Design vs chance

The current theory of evolution focuses on genetics and selective advantage as the alpha and omega of evolution. If this is true, random makes complete sense based on those premises.

However, there is another variable set which also works. This set uses an organizing alpha, for a slightly less random genetic omega. The final model is a blend of order and random.

As an analogy of the contrast, if we look at two trees of the same species, the placement of the branches and leaves will have a randomness to them, with respect to each other. However, the leaves, bark, flowers and fruit, are relatively uniform (characteristic) for a particular tree species. This implies a layer of order within the apparent random. What you perceieve, in terms of the ratio of the two, will be dependent on what you are conditioned to see as important. Some fixate no what is common, while others fixate on what is different, with each leading to a different theory. Some see full order without random (creation), others full random without order (evolution). Some see half and half, like me.

The ordering principle within life, that complements the randomness of change on the DNA, is connected to entropy and energy. The physical structures of life evolve in the direction of higher energy and lower entropy. The impact of life on the earth is different. I am focusing on the physical structures, organization and configurations using a still snapshot and not on their activities.

Going from the gaseous chemical CO2, via photosyntheis, into cellulose, lowers the degrees of freedom of CO2 (lowers chemical entropy) and adds energy by forming wood. Polymerizing smaller subunits into DNA lowers the degrees of freedom of the monomers, thereby lowering entropy. If we go from wood back to CO2, we will increase entropy. This direction is not about living structure, but about the impact of life.

If we look at bulk changes within evolution, common to all life, going from RNA to DNA is consistent with energy increasing and entropy lowering; DNA is more reduced and has fewer degrees of freedom; only a double helix). Going from single to multicellular is also consistent (separated cells have more freedom than connected and differentiated cells). Evolving the brain and consciousness is also consistent (the membrane potential increases over a larger volume of cells. The membrane potential increases energy stored in a structure, while lowering the entropy of cations. Even genetic alternations such as methyation, are consisent , since this further lower the degrees of freedom of DNA while also adding reduction potential.

The entropy/energy ordering consideration is not as limited to only genetics considerations, since this principle holds true even for abiogenesis. To build up the preliminary cellular structures and organization, we need to lower the degrees of freedom of smaller mobile chemicals such as CO2, NH3, H2O, CH4, etc.

Based on energy/entropy ordering, human are a logical extension of this. Humans can add order to nature, which nature can not add without humans. Humans can turn the randomness of aluminum oxide ores, into highly uniform aluminum metal, etc. This won't happen in nature spontaneously due to energetics, since humans need to increase energy and lower entropy to make metal aluminum.

The energy and entropy principles continues on within the human mind, apart from genetics. Education creates order within perception while also adding energy; ideas that can create human potential. The randomness of genetics hooked up between abiogenesis and human thinking. But entropy and energy where there from the beginning and will be there when human can lower the entropy within the DNA, using medicine, and cure all forms fo genetic disease and disorder.

We need to broaden our theory for life andchange to beyond that middle area that works good for genetic theory. A better theory should go from the randomness of gases in the primordial ooze all the way to the very future of the human invention. Only energy and entropy can go there since they add order and direction (follow the curves).

.

 

....just thoughts:

On the road to our Goal of being all powerful "Gods in our own right" possibly...
Mankind has a significant ambition generally speaking hardwired genetically and in all other ways, and that is to become master of his environment, including his own physical being. Striving ultimately to the greatest "freedom" [ aka: "maximisation of choice therefore free will" ] - seeking the freedom that a metaphorical God would have so to speak.

All science and endeavour is focussed ultimately towards becoming what they (we) have worshiped over millenia, that being devine. IMO [ re: Human God complex]

..and as we become more proficient at "exterminations" and environmental controls etc etc we can allow ourselves to become more athiestic in our approach, dropping the worship of an "extrenal" role model [God] and applying same to "self" ... thus in my opinion demonstrating by default the issue of Goal focussed evolution which this God Complex behaviour is very much a part of.

"The universe is seeking to evolve a sapient "God" that as yet has only existed as a metaphor, so to speak, and the competitive nature of it all means only one can finally make it."

The God of the Chrstian Bible for example is to me a Testimony to this evolutionary process - from externalising to internalising thus self realisation etc etc. [evolving existentialism]

An evolutionary process that Aristotle added tremendous emphasis to, with his "Prior analytics" and the subsequent emmergence of "reason" [theory] over "mysticism" [eh! -theosophy] and the death of what we refer to today as Ancient Greek Mythology

 

I like that ! I feel special after reading your thoughts . The god Complex Me is familiar with that

 

eh...nothing wrong with the 'ole "God Complex"....just don't let it go to your head! [chuckle]

[like it has with most societies - extreme consumerism, environmental disaster, excessive capitalism, war, genocide etc etc]

 

I think I am genetically disposed to it. As I do analysis of my genetic tree I can't help but notice high achievements in human endeavors good and bad . Oh to be a Greathouse . You fuckers don't know what kind of presser that is . Our Dads can be real A-Holes sometimes too. We come by it naturally .
I think about that a lot . The social robbery by Megalomaniacs that are in it for personal power/wealth/control, I mean I like all those things , but they appear to Me like things and I just never been a trinket type of person.
So what do we have ? Victimized class leaders ? A direct result of Hippiesm and war mongering clashing . Yet the public will not let go of the past . Evolution will force the hand . My child tonight is all on top of the new paradigm. He question the old "model of work ethics" today . I could not believe it . I have not talked to him much about this even though It has been the thoughts that haunt my unconsciousness ever sense I was enslaved into the construction industry at the age of 8. His question is if expansionism is no longer the economic model of human production then what is the purpose of the " work model" everyone chases after . He was talking about prevalent " work ethics of society " You know " Go get a Job " I tell you the kids are thinking and you lucky bastards have my son to help you understand new economic modeling . Fucking kid is brilliant and teaches Me new things all de time. I can see it in his peers too.