Zone1 What is a person?

[alang1216]

The central nervous systems of all mammal species has gotten larger as they evolved.

so the nervous system of critters like the mouse are fundamentally different than their Cretaceous ancestors?

 

[ding]

No, they begin with an isolated population. I'm not sure the size matters.

Does an isolated population mean a small population? If so, does the DNA of the individuals in that small population matter?

 

[ding]

so the nervous system of critters like the mouse are fundamentally different than their Cretaceous ancestors?

You mean other than being larger?

 

[alang1216]

Does an isolated population mean a small population?

Not necessarily. A population could be isolated on the continent of Australia or South America for example.

If so, does the DNA of the individuals in that small population matter?

The population is the individuals. The importance of any DNA is its percent of the population's DNA.

 

[alang1216]

You mean other than being larger?

Are you assuming/guessing or do you know that from fossil evidence?

 

[ding]

Not necessarily. A population could be isolated on the continent of Australia or South America for example.

Sounds like you are still talking about slight successive changes. How would your example of a long period of stasis followed by an abrupt change work on that isolated species on Australia? Because that's really my issue with your belief that individual DNA isn't important.

 

[ding]

The population is the individuals. The importance of any DNA is its percent of the population's DNA.

Again... you are addressing slight successive changes leading to new species. You aren't really addressing abrupt changes. Do you believe DNA of individuals aren't important when a new species arises abruptly?

 

[ding]

Are you assuming/guessing or do you know that from fossil evidence?

Not sure what the basis was for that statement. I would assume fossil evidence. I read about it in a talk about the evolution of intelligence. It made perfect sense to me because I see increasing complexity in the tree of life. Unlike you I don't believe intelligence evolving was random or an accident. I see it as an eventual outcome because beings that know and create are possible under the laws of nature and because it's logical for intelligence to evolve and continue to evolve because it's logical because intelligence is a functional advantage which aids survival and the flourishing of a species.

Maybe it was lost on you that the Darwin award was awarded to stupid people who Darwinized themselves out of existence.

 

[alang1216]

Sounds like you are still talking about slight successive changes. How would your example of a long period of stasis followed by an abrupt change work on that isolated species on Australia? Because that's really my issue with your belief that individual DNA isn't important.

Again... you are addressing slight successive changes leading to new species. You aren't really addressing abrupt changes. Do you believe DNA of individuals aren't important when a new species arises abruptly?

I think our definitions of 'abruptly' are wildly different. If you think in human terms, only viruses and bacteria can possibly generate a new species in an 'abrupt' timeframe. I don't know that even they can do it with their multiple generations in a single day. For most species, 'abrupt' change means geologic time, plenty of time for a thousand or more generations.

 

[alang1216]

Not sure what the basis was for that statement. I would assume fossil evidence. I read about it in a talk about the evolution of intelligence. It made perfect sense to me because I see increasing complexity in the tree of life. Unlike you I don't believe intelligence evolving was random or an accident. I see it as an eventual outcome because beings that know and create are possible under the laws of nature and because it's logical for intelligence to evolve and continue to evolve because it's logical because intelligence is a functional advantage which aids survival and the flourishing of a species.

Sorry but I just don't agree.

Maybe it was lost on you that the Darwin award was awarded to stupid people who Darwinized themselves out of existence.

That makes no sense.

 

[ding]

I think our definitions of 'abruptly' are wildly different. If you think in human terms, only viruses and bacteria can possibly generate a new species in an 'abrupt' timeframe. I don't know that even they can do it with their multiple generations in a single day. For most species, 'abrupt' change means geologic time, plenty of time for a thousand or more generations.

The norm is long periods of stasis with abrupt changes. So, no, for most species 'abrupt' change does not mean geologic time.

 

[ding]

Sorry but I just don't agree.


That makes no sense.

Then you have never heard of the Darwin awards.

 

[alang1216]

Then you have never heard of the Darwin awards.

I have but that doesn't mean your comment made any sense.

 

[ding]

I have but that doesn't mean your comment made any sense.

The Darwin awards are given to stupid people who died doing dumb things, right?

 

[alang1216]

The norm is long periods of stasis with abrupt changes. So, no, for most species 'abrupt' change does not mean geologic time.

How much time does 'abrupt' change take then? Years or generations will do.

 

[alang1216]

The Darwin awards are given to stupid people who died doing dumb things, right?

Yes.

 

[ding]

How much time does 'abrupt' change take then? Years or generations will do.

One generation.

 

[ding]

Yes.

So how is that not an example of intelligence is a functional advantage that aids survival since lack of intelligence leads to demise?

 

[alang1216]

One generation.

Not a chance. If that were so why don't we see it happen?

 

[ding]

Not a chance. If that were so why don't we see it happen?

What evolution have you seen?