Good morning.
I’ll be the low-intelligence person addicted to childish dichotomies and you can be the evolutionist, if you like. We’ve all been called names before.
evolutionist
/ˌiːvəˈl(j)uːʃənɪst/
noun: evolutionist; plural noun: evolutionists
1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection. -Oxford dictionary
That’s not how that works. Either physics happens, in which case information flow occurs, or it does not. Can’t have both.
Sounds an awful lot like information processing to me.
If vision is not what distinguishes the eye from the non-eye, then what else is? You are saying that eyes cannot ever be eyes. That’s gibberish.
Correct.
Incorrect.
A temperature above 0 K.
Under a sufficiently narrow and arbitrary definition of “clearly explain”, you are right. But that’s not saying much. By rules this fluid I’m sure you could be made unable to provide an explanation of what is required to build an information processing system from proteins and chemistry and godly powers.
Eh. Maybe. But that’s jumping ahead of ourselves, isn’t it? We were talking about eyes first.
Is that why eagles can see better than humans, too? Or does that completely arbitrary law you invented only work when ignoring all the cases where it doesn’t?
Maybe in some countries. On this board, however, everybody is allowed to use any and all of the English vocabulary they know of, even words they do not actually understand the meaning of. Like how they might not know that there is a distinction between “eye” and “visual system” and use them interchangeably. No trouble from the rules awaits them just for this, for what it’s worth.
This is absolutely true. The human brain fills in enormous amounts of detail from prior learning and by integrating over time to form mental images more detailed than the actual real time signals from eye sight.
But then we have jumped forward to an end point which emerges from a long evolutionary journey. What do you think are the implications?
So, I have noticed that conversations on if/how information relates to cellular processes, such as RNA transcription, seem to generally not be so productive. Which is rather odd.
We can look at nature and identify a system that clearly involves no information processing (like the earths volcanic system or water cycle) . And then also identify one that does (our visual system).
I am able to determine the difference between the 2 because I am a dumb creationist and I realize one system requires a scheme or function that says “let this equal something else” and the other does not.
But evolutionists seem to have difficulty in understanding this. So I am wondering how they are even able to determine one type of system from another.
This is important because unless they can do this, then they cannot provide a logical progression or “steps” that will explain how a system which cannot process any information, can “evolve” or be made into a system that can.
It’s not.
information processing
noun
noun: information processing
“we tested their speed of information processing and memory recall” - Oxford Dictionary
I did not name this topic and I did not use the word “eye” a single time, either here or in the topic it was split from. I would consider this topic to be poorly titled.
So when the volcanic system says “let the pressure inside equal the pressure outside plus how ever much pressure the lava dome’s structural integrity can provide”, and the water cycle says “let the precipitating water equal the difference between the amount of water suspended in this region of air and that region’s water vapor capacity”, that is somehow different from when an eye’s lens makes it so “let the object equal but in orientation and size its image on the retina”.
Different systems do different things and in different ways. Telling them apart is seldom much of a problem. But “does/does not process information” is just not a differentiating criterion, especially when it’s left entirely undefined like you are leaving it. If you can actually explain how you tell the difference, if you can actually define what you mean by information processing, then maybe there is a line that can or even should be drawn in the sand. But as it stands, the way and reason you are able to determine this difference is by just “being a dumb creationist and realize” it. It’s rooted, it would seem, entirely in your intuition, which you cannot rely on everyone else sharing. It was trivially easy to interpret the examples you gave as all having some information processing, and until you can give any reason as to what was wrong with it beyond you just subjectively deciding a different way, there’ll be precious little progress made here on that topic.
The volcanic system can not say that because a volcano does not know what pressure is. But we do, because we are able to process information.
Again information processing
“we tested their speed of information processing and memory recall” - Oxford Dictionary
Our visual system is an information processing system because it compiles data as it detects photons, which is then interpreted to yield useful information such as brightness, color and distance.
In one sense you are correct - but not for the reason you think.
It is difficult to use our visual system as a basis for explaining how life evolved an information processing system, because our visual system is the result of about a billion years of evolution in which a functioning information processing system already existed. The original information processing systems didn’t involve vision. They may even have arisen in a deep-sea environment completely devoid of light.
So we can talk about the origins of information processing systems, about neurons and nerve nets and inter- and intra-cellular signalling systems. Or we can talk about retinas and eye-spots and photoreceptors. But the evolution of the latter isn’t part of the evolution of the former, and most organisms that have information processing systems do not have visual systems.
You might as well be asking us to explain how the ancients built the first wheeled vehicles, and predicting that in the case of Tesla cyber-trucks, we won’t be able to do this. Well of course we can’t. But that’s to be expected.
Our visual system involves an intellect - but ours is not the only visual system, and there are plenty of visual systems in other organisms that do not have an intellect like ours.
Can they?
Adults process images better than infants - but that could be because of experience, not necessarily because of intellect. And infants have less visual capability - but that could be because of developmental processes, not because of lack of intellect.
So [citation needed].
This is becoming semantic. At what point does the eye stop and the visual system begin?
Go back to the GPCRs that mutate to become sensitive to light. The GPCR prior to mutation is involved in intercellular signaling. When the cell detects a chemical signal from it’s surroundings, it reacts a certain way (there’s a cascade of reactions inside the cell that are triggered, ultimately resulting in a change in gene expression). This is a system that responds to the environment already, the only difference between a visual system and this system is that it doesn’t produce this reaction in response to light.
When the mutation occurs that makes this system sensitive to light, it has become a visual system. You could consider the GPCR itself an eye, and the intracellular reaction cascades to be the visual system. This implies the “system” that produces altered cellular behavior actually predates the evolution of the eye. That the eye is a modification and adaptation of an already existing system that was responsive to external environmental stimuli, into one that became responsive to light.
If you mean the relationship between the brain and the eyes, all of that ultimately comes from cell differentiation. The evolution of the capacity for individual cells in a multicellular organism to have programmed(environmentally sensitive) cell-fates.
And yes, we can in fact explain how that can happen. In fact we have directly observed in experimental evolution, the origin of bona fide cell differentiation. But instead of typing long paragraphs fruitlessly for you to ignore and move the goalposts about, let me just point you to this nice interactive website for the Ratcliff Laboratory at Georgia Tech, where they are studying the evolution of multicellularity:
https://ratclifflab.biosci.gatech.edu/
I am not actually sure what you are talking about here. A system that results in a change in gene epression as a response to the environment sounds like an epigenetic response to me. And epigenetic expressions are said to not remain fixed in a population over a long period of time.
The theory of evolution has to explain how complex biological functions arose. All of them. These are not my goal posts. They are yours.
The last paper that someone referred me to on the evolution of multicellular life involved an experiment where they spun some algae around in a centrifuge and observed a change in phenotype. But I could not find whether or not they sequenced the genome afterwards, so I could not understand why they called it evolution.
I am certain Dr. William Ratcliff’s name was on that paper.
In all honesty, it seems to me you are asking questions that don’t really pertain to evolutionary theory. Evolution deals only with the physical structures and systems that make up living things. And what we have learned over the past century and a bit is that these structures and systems arise thru changes in genomes that occur over successive generations. We also now understand the processes by which those changes occur: Mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.
If we want to know how the visual system evolved, in theory it is quite simple: You identify the physical structures involved in this system. Then you identify the genes responsible for producing these structures. From there, it becomes a matter of identifying the historical sequence of how these genes arose thru the aforementioned processes. This it can be done thru comparative genomics and evaluating the fossil record. As I said, in theory this is relatively simple, but in practice it would require considerable effort and resources. Nonetheless, as you have already been made aware, we have already have pretty good ideas of how this process unfolded.
Now, the questions you are asking above actually touch on a different matter entirely, which is referred to as “intentionality” or “mental representation.” That is to say, many of our thoughts seem to be about something, or directed towards something other than the mere sensations we are experiencing, So when the light waves reflected from the surface of a red apple are refracted onto our retina and give rise to a series of neural impulses that spread thru our brain, we don’t just experience a visual image of an object. We also associate it with a name ('apple"), we know it is food, we have an idea how it will taste, we might make a decision whether we wish to eat it, etc.
How does this happen? Can physical processes alone account for it? If so, how? Why do we experience our neurological functioning in this manner (assuming intentionality is the result of neurological functioning) when other organisms seem to survive perfectly well, seemingly, without it?
These are all live questions up for debate in neuroscience and philosophy. And while evolutionary biology can certainly play a part in this debate, by itself this debate does not really raise any questions that are problematic for evolutionary theory itself. Not so far as I can see.
It is also the case, I must say, that “Intelligent Design” proponents have produced absolutely nothing of any interest or importance in this debate,
Also, you may have missed my question in all the re-shuffling of this thread that has happened, so I will ask it again: What progress have “Intelligent Design” researchers made in explaining how the visual system arose? As far as I can tell, they have not even made the slightest effort to devise even the most basic testable hypothesis. But if I am wrong about that, please provide some citations. TIA.
It is not clear what you are asking here. Are you saying evolutionary theory must provide the explanatory framework thru which the origin of all complex biological functions can be explained? If so then, as I have explained above, this objective has been achieved.
If, OTOH, you are saying it must provide a mutation-by-mutation account of the evolutionary history of every single system and structure of every single organism then, no, that is your goal post, and a rather silly one at that.
You’re just confusing two different understandings of the word epigenetics. This isn’t your fault as there is a bit of a nomenclature problem in the field.
A succinctly as I can make it: Gene expression can also go by the word epigenetics.
But you’re speaking about the term epigenetics as a form of evolutionary change, where the environment somehow induces a heritable genetic change that usually only lasts a few generations (though in principle it could last longer).
I’m speaking about neither. If you need to, look up the concept of cell differentiation. That’s what I’m talking about, and how that would evolve. The key to understand how specialized tissues (such as brains and nerves) could evolve in a multicellular organism requires you first familiarize yourself with what cell differentiation is, and then you can read about how differentiation evolves.
This is what I can be bothered to help you with off the top of my head. That should put you on the right track. You have to do work yourself if you want to move on from there. You’re welcome to ask questions if you run into something you don’t understand, but people here aren’t going to teach you cell and molecular biology just so they can even converse meaningfully on the topic of evolution with you.
Then your problems extend so far I do not believe I will be able to help you. Just a quick hint: Evolution was studied long before genome sequencing became a thing. If you can’t figure out the rest yourself, too bad.
Maybe. I am not sure why someone quoted me, split the topic and named this this topic “Evolution of the Eye”. But I am doing my best to make it work.
What I was asking before the topic got split was for someone to start with a mechanical system(as in a system that involves no information processing) and then explain how a visual system could arise from it. So far, everyone’s answer seems to involve adding an information processing system to a mechanical or simply ignores that the fact I am actually asking for someone to start with a mechanical system
The part of my post that you have ignored explains why, IMHO, your question is misconceived and misguided. So maybe read that part and let us know if you have any thoughts.
Alright. I will take your advice. I do not know much about cell differentiation.
Yes but any explaination that does not specifically appeal to mutation in the genome is potentially just an appeal to a mechanism that evolution cannot explain. Does not evolution require mutation? Thus the importance of genetic sequencing in modern experiments, when possible.
Anyway, I am not an expert. I feel you have given meaningful advice so I will take it.
Ok, fair enough. I will give it another look. I am just a man and sometimes I don’t always get the point the first time around.
No. Certainly mutation is part of the explanation for the history of life on Earth, but you can get change in the frequency of existing alleles without new mutations. There’s also recombination of course.
Thank you, and good luck then!
Oh FFS, exactly one of us is name calling. Exactly one of us has pasted a one-word label on the other. My mistake was to assume that you would understand, when I wrote “usually,” that I was encouraging you to distinguish yourself from low-intelligence people who are addicted to childish dichotomies. I was a fool to think you would read and think before responding.
Now perhaps you will consider taking the time to think about the question I posed, which is how your definition of “evolutionist” describes a person (or maybe, in your world, some kind of sick degenerate) who is “not allowed to use any words that imply a mind or intellect” when explaining evolution. My advice is that you needn’t bother: the only way to make that word imply such a thing is to define “evolutionist” in a way already absent from the definition you pasted. If you want to try actually thinking, you might ask yourself how a Christian evolutionist would answer your inane question.
No need to respond; I won’t be reading your posts.
Ah, so information processing is the processing of information.
Like how a volcano processes the pressure balance and reacts accordingly if and when a threshold value is exceeded.
But our visual system doesn’t know what a photon is. Or brightness. Or colour. Or distance. With the exception of distance, most people don’t know what any of those things are either (to say nothing of non-human animals with fully functional visual systems). Kinda like a volcano doesn’t know what pressure is. So, by your logic, even full-grown human beings have no visual information processing.
The only difference I see between systems you deem are information processsing systems and systems you deem are not, is precisely your personal deeming one way or the other. The definitions you provide do not invite this distinction, and the reasoning you give for why your verdicts are as they are readily apply just the other way around.
Aside: I hate the term ‘epigenetics’ with the fury of a billion suns.
It just ‘regulation’, or regulation of gene expression. It’s several mechanisms of regulation among many and unfortunately, the definition of ‘epigenetics’ has morphed and been remixed into a mishmash of concepts that make it a useless term in most discussions.
Maybe I can help. In your toilet seat example, let “up” be a one and “down” be zero (so now we have one “bit”). The position of a toilet seat will remain the same unless some outside force acts on it. This bit isn’t Information in the mathematical sense; it is memory. This could be a trivial case of Information Processing, but because the output never changes the amount of Information output is always equal to zero.
I might go on about Information content or how to manipulate memory through computation, but I don’t think that is useful to your question.
But evolutionists seem to have difficulty in understanding this. So I am wondering how they are even able to determine one type of system from another.
You are essentially asking for a determination in terms that don’t make any sense for the material task. Suppose you are a skilled engineer, capable of designing and building any object possible from the appropriate materials. I give you the instructions, “Build me a 3D scale replica of the Eiffel Tower constructed from shades of the color blue.” Your engineering skill do not apply to this task because “color” is a concept, not a construction material. It is in essence asking a nonsense question.
This is important because unless they can do this, then they cannot provide a logical progression or “steps” that will explain how a system which cannot process any information, can “evolve” or be made into a system that can.
If you reframe this task to an appropriate context, such as chemistry (which Rummy did above), then we have a context for which the task makes sense. Light sensitive chemical reaction are common, I think, but I’ll leave that to the biochemists.
It’s not you. There are a lot of similar examples in the ID literature essentially asking scientists to “prove evolution using shades of the color blue.” Nonsense questions like this generate a lots of heated discussion, but accomplish little. It’s important to ask the right question in the right context.
From an evolutionary view, the ability of a bacterial cell (or something much like it) to detect warmth is useful. Nutrients are more likely to be moving about in warm locations compared to cold, and moving toward warmth means moving towards potential food sources.
Warmth means heat, and the transfer of heat through Infrared radiation, and Infrared is a form of light . This means any cell capable of detecting warmth has a form of vision; perhaps the most basic form of vision possible.
Using this definition of vision, I don’t think it is possible to find a living cell that is not influenced by heat in it’s environment, and therefore all cell have a form of vision. Granted this definition if pretty trivial, but once this vision trait exists in a cell, natural selection can act on it.