acronos

*** This is a response to a post in the EOG forum titled “Worldviews that belong to atheists.” This is not intended to convince anyone to believe in evolution nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of evolutionary science. It is an explanation of how my understanding of evolution impacts my world view, and it answers some questions that Kent asked from the other forum. I am not a specialist in evolution so my history may not be the correct order things happened on earth. This is only my scenario for how it is possible based on the evidence that I am aware of. I have tried to keep this from becoming a book so I did not go into much depth. I left out Abiogenesis due to space but I am willing to discuss it if anyone wants to know. I know it is still too long and is so cursory that it has about zero chance of convincing anyone. Sorry.***

My problem with all of this is that these concepts require significant groundwork and foundation before they make sense. Humans know many things that they don’t understand. Many of our words exist to convey concepts that that are vastly more complicated that what we find in Webster’s dictionary. What is consciousness? While we don’t know very good answers to this question, we talk about it with ease. Why do we love? A theist might say because that is the nature of God. Why does God love? A theist might say ‘Because he does’ or ‘because that is his nature.’ This is circular and gets us nowhere. I could say that we love because it is our nature. However, my world view does include an explanation of why we love even though I do not consider such an explanation necessary to maintain an atheist view. A tiny portion of my explanation follows.

One level of complexity and order can lead to an even higher level of complexity and order when mixed with a little random noise and some selection method. The selection doesn’t need to be conscious like human dog breeders. It could be as simple as water selecting limestone over granite to carry away. Why am I using the human term “selection” which carries humanist baggage? The reason is that I don’t see any other option. There is no English word that I can think of that implies a choice was made without intelligence. This is not really a concept that exists in our culture, and it is certainly not widely accepted. However, what I am talking about is a choice without intelligence. Some inanimate chemicals choose to bind with one material and refuse to bind with another. I wish there was another English word that implies what I intend, but I don’t know of one so I am stuck working within the confines of my language. So for my purposes here I create a new word, ‘floice.’ Floice – 1) a selection or choice made without intelligence. 2) An influence on a selection or choice made without intelligence. Unintelligent selective pressure. Floiced – floice past tense.

Because I am sure it will be an issue, let me address how a choice can be made without intelligence. Say we have a coin. If I flip the coin and it turns up heads, then I agree to give you the coin, otherwise I keep it. There are two options here. One of those options will be picked by the random flip of the coin. When I flip the coin, a choice has been made without intelligence. The water analogy I mentioned earlier is another example. Water flowing through a cave system will carry out much more limestone than granite. If you still disagree that this is choice, then ok accept a new word to mean what these examples represent. Surely you accept that water can flow through a cave system and a coin can be tossed. If so, then that is the concept I intend when I say choice, but I don’t have another word for it. Just call this concept floice and consider it a new concept. Floice is what happens when a river carries out more limestone than granite.

I am a computer programmer. I have made networking protocols that exhibit a very high level of sophistication. They allow two computers to communicate. They allow two computers to share information. Again, I am having trouble with the humanist baggage in the words ‘share’ and ‘communicate.’ I have also written programs that allow me to study complexity. I have seen how very simple rules can result in very complex and orderly systems. I have also created algorithms based on my knowledge of evolution. These algorithms work. They actually develop from simple snippets of code into more and more complex pieces of code that solve the problem that is being floiced for. I have studied how the death rate and mutation rate affects the rate of change. Snippets of code evolve much faster when there is a high (70%) death rate before replication. If the death rate is too high, then the population dies out. If it is too low another effect happens – the snippets of code become more and more alike as they are mixed together. I have actually seen all of this with my own eyes in my computer models. This experience affects my opinion of what is possible because I know that evolution works.

Does the word ‘advantage’ have humanist baggage? Yes it does. When I use the word in the following, I mean something like this example: Say we take a mixture of amino acids and put them in a bottle with a mixture of minerals and water. Then we shake the bottle and walk away. When we come back, we find that there is a higher concentration of a certain amino acid that spontaneously formed from the minerals. One mixture of minerals generates primarily one amino acid and another mixture generates a different one. The amino acid that ultimately formed the highest concentration in each mixture has the advantage. That is all I mean by advantage.

Long ago, there were single celled organisms. These organisms evolved in many different ways. A few evolved to work together as teams. These teams floiced that the division of labor created a more efficient life form that could better fight off predators and find food, increasing their advantage for survival and replication. These teams became multi-celled organisms. As time passed these teams grew more and more complicated, each in it’s own niche. Most of these early teams used light as a source of energy. By detecting when energy was being generated, they were able to determine when they were close to light. More light means more energy so it became an advantage to move toward the light. The first simple eye was born. As complexity and order continued to increase, cells began to be dedicated to neuronal control of the systems. These neurons became more and more elaborate forming brains. The brains were connected to sensor cells. These cells generated signals when stimulated. Certain stimuli indicated that intense trouble was in store for the organism. Organisms that initiated quick fleeing actions when they received these signals were less likely to burn their limbs on something hot. The first reflexes were born. Organisms that were able to allow another level of indirection, were able to weight two factors into the decision to execute a fleeing action. These organisms developed pain to indicate that a fleeing action was in order but allow for the option that there may be higher level needs that need to be considered. There was an advantage in being able to motivate actions similar to the way that pain discouraged them. We now call this motivation pleasure.

As time passed evolution continued to increase the tools of intelligence. These tools included refinements of pleasure and pain such as sexual pleasure, the taste of sugar, hunger, and fear. Other tools were added to the mixture such as limited memory, learning, and more states such as happy (a dog wagging tail), sad, etc.

Another type of team began to form. These teams became herds and tribes of multi-celled organisms. Once again, teams of organisms that worked together had an advantage. They could better fight off predators and find food. There was an advantage to these teams to develop methods to coordinate this interaction.

Today, we have a species of vampire bat. This bat lives in a community. The bat can only survive a few days without food. Sometimes individuals in the community are unable to find food before they die. When this happens other bats will share their own food. The bats develop close relationships of sharing. Those bats that do not share are ostracized by the community and they eventually die of starvation. There is a strong floice to share.

With the evolution of such communities, came new tools. The bats ability to share and ostracize are examples. Another example is simple communication. Monkeys scream when they see danger allowing the rest of the tribe to flee. Dogs growl when they feel threatened to warn to leave them alone. This new capability evolved into the most powerful evolutionary advantage of all - language.

*** Here is where I seriously move outside of mainstream teaching on evolution. Scientists have created very precise definitions of evolution. An example might be, “Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.” By specifying that evolution only applies to genes, the arguments are limited to genes. I believe scientists do this to keep from muddying the waters with creationists. However, the idea of evolution is much more powerful that what the biologists have restricted it to. I believe it applies too much more, although there is not much serious research going into these other fields, and as such they are not considered to be scientifically supported. ***

Humans have a very flexible language. With this characteristic a new form of evolution began. A complex culture could be passed down from generation to generation. Inevitable conflict between different ideas created a battle of ideas. Human cultures, ideas, and languages evolve. All of these are intimately related to language. Language is the new DNA, and minds are the new populations. The ideas that survive are what we believe. Culture is the group of beliefs for a society. The cultures with the strongest characteristics survive. Ideas, language, and culture evolve far faster than genes.

To get a glimpse of humans before such cultures evolved, you could look at the wolf children at this website - <a href="http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_feral_kids.htm" target="_blank">Feral kids</a>

Finally, humans are communal beings. We work together in teams. Evolution has provided several human characteristics that facilitate such a community. These all evolved either genetically or in our language or both. These tools include: 1) the need for the approval of other humans. 2) Empathy for other humans. 3) Love and friendship for those who share. 4) Hate for those who don’t share. 5) Moral codes including concepts such as stealing, sexual conduct, and murder. 6) Families. 7) Laws and the structure of our society. All of these facilitate the smooth operation of a community, and as such have an evolutionary advantage. Most of them are primarily in the evolution of ideas rather than the evolution of our genes.

Kent:
This is a skimped down version of my derivation of the formula of Human thoughts, morals, and one of the origins of the complexity and order we find in our universe. My derivation does not have to be accurate for the formula to still be true. Humans can think and have morals whether I understand the origins of them correctly or not. The failure of evolution does not affect my world view any more than discovering the 7 in the series affected the 1-5 in our other discussion. Evolution is my explanation of the origins of human thought and morals. If evolution were to somehow fail to be true, I would attempt a different explanation, but that explanation would not include God because God doesn’t solve any of the problems. God just leads back to the same questions. A phenomena does not have to be explained to be accepted, but an explanation is nice.

scigirl

Nice post, acronos.

Have you read the book called The Moral Animal by Robin Wright? He touches on some of the ideas you mentioned - why humans don't share, etc. I didn't agree with all of his theories, but it was definitely thought-provoking!

scigirl

acronos

It will probably be my next purchase. However, no I have not read it.