The evolution of biological species and chance ...

[Janic]

Janic you are proof that evolution (of thought) does not exist!

Value judgment, worthless!

janic wrote: All of our mechanical achievements are "animated" like the biosphere and are nothing but lifeless objects.

Isn't the biosphere a thin film of life covering a terrestrial planet?

You're right, I should have put quotes in "biosphere" rather than using it as is.
This big pebble that is the earth, is not biological, it is only the living forms that inhabit it that cause this confusion.

There is an improvement in the reasoning then, since it is the basic postulate of "creationism" to note that chance does not explain and especially does not demonstrate anything!

All I am saying is that the complexity of living things forms a whole greater than the sum of the elements that compose it, it is the foundation of ecology.

This is what I say and repeat: a car is in itself only a large pile of scrap metal which alone is ... only a pile of scrap metal! The " everything greater than the sum of its elements "This is the technological device that represents, PLUS the motorist which is not an integral part of the car. As living things are more than just a heap of cells and organs that all corpses have too. And it is this more, which is not even definable (even with a word used to hide our ignorance) it is what differentiates raw matter, from the earth for example, from living matter.

Denying a form of intelligence to an ecosystem seems absurd to me, it is so obvious when we study the economy (intelligent techno-system).

An ecosystem has only the appearance of a form of intelligence due to itself. This aspect has already been seen and reviewed. An ecosystem (like the animal that we are) is only functional if all the parts that compose it are present sets, which makes impossible a progressive form postulated by evolutionism.

Intelligence appears at a certain level of interaction, through adaptive capacities, speed of reactivity
Intelligence is the set of processes found in more or less complex systems, alive or not, which allow to understand, learn or adapt to new situations. :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
You should have gone further: " Intelligence is studied by cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, anthropology (evolution), cognitive ethology (animal intelligence), neuroscience (biology) or even genetics.
In animals it is the endocrine and / or neuronal communication systems that produce intelligence »
Animals of which we are a part displeases those who see humans as the pinnacle of creation… sorry evolution, but it is the same discourse moreover. It would therefore be necessary that these different disciplines harmonize in all, which IS UTOPIC.
This is why we apply this term of intelligence to computer devices too, AI. But before embarking on a discourse that would arise from this appearance of the living, we must already manage to provide proof, which is desperately lacking.

Isn't this what the biosphere has been doing for more than 3 billion years ???

you are right to put question marks.
It's only on the assumption that life has existed for 3 billion years, which is only a free postulate!

Thermodynamics neither explains nor can explain living things, whereas this is very suitable for inert matter.

She explains it wonderfully, we are all thermodynamic beings!

We are thermodynamic like the engine of a car, which is not alive!

I peel Roddier's speech, which establishes links because they stick to his speech, but without proofs impossible to provide. But, once again, he has the freedom to link whatever he wants, automatically excluding the possibility of an external factor! It is like wanting to solve an equation with 4 unknowns (for example) by making it enter only 3 unknowns, it will obviously give a result, but far from what it would have given with 4 unknowns.

Here is a start of analysis, I am not yet at the end of the video:
Memorization allows the cause to precede the effect (31'42 '') hence the irreversibility and the sense of time.
Totally agree !

Out of equilibrium thermodynamics:
In the presence of a permanent flow of energy, so-called “dissipative” structures organize themselves to dissipate energy. Prigogine (33'30 '')

During the design, the creation of an engine [*], the inventor, the creator of it, provides that the heat generated is going to have to be removed to avoid its destruction, and therefore it designs a certain number of means to do this: conductive materials, coolant or fins, ventilated (= cyclone) with thermal, hydrodynamic regulation systems, etc ... is this a self-organization?
Any ignoramus will recognize that not since the product is known for not being self-made and therefore self-organized. But many other phenomena to which our contemporaries (who did not attend the initial organization necessary to produce these flows), may think (for lack of information) that the phenomenon is self organized, self fabricated. is ignorance as Klein would say)
Therefore, apart from initial life, no “self-organization” has ever been observed in animal or plant organisms. However, in matters of reasoning, we do not start from the omega, but from the alpha to build an alphabet. (the information in question which obeys rigorous laws).
The premise that life Sis organized is only a view of the philosophical spirit only, when it cannot be proven.
This is why the examples used depart from the usual diagrams known in mechanics for example which are however simple means of explanation.
But everyone ignores what life is and therefore its "appearance" on this planet and therefore it is only imaginative projections, not science.
Examples of dissipative structures:
a cyclone, the Earth's atmosphere, a living organism, an animal or plant species
41'40 '' self-organization dissipative structures self-organize like neural networks.
"What I'm going to try to tell you here is a bit like me saying it, it is not yet something fully accepted, we begin to understand that dissipative structures are organized like neural networks
To be continued !

[*] I use this example again because it evokes it itself with the Carnot cycle!

Izentrop
I am at the 50 'of your video and I must say that so far I agree 90% (roughly) with his speech (which I have mentioned many times over this topic). His analysis is excellent, although it lacks (but it is not his purpose) a follow-up of the cultural and societal environment from start to finish when he had started to mention it. However, it is this environment which will decide that such or such "scientific" option will be privileged rather than another. What will come of it next?

[Janic]

well I have just swallowed the rest and there again, I quite agree, in its main historical lines, with what he says, always with the nuance that chance, widely mentioned, becomes an excuse for our ignorance. simply (why not admit it?). There remains this term of evolution which becomes a linguistic commonplace, repeated, re-repeated like a mantra while mostly it speaks of adaptation, with which I agree as well as a number of scientists that I have indicated. There remains the discourse on "tiny" and continuous mutations which only obviously can credit the theory of synthetic evolution, over very long periods: here it is more subjective because it is based on a postulate that cannot be verified by lack of information. cause of the supposed long duration of this one. His opinion on Gould remains rather nebulous (perhaps he is less familiar with the subject?)
But as he suggests, roughly: " let's wait for the years to pass to see what the future will teach us again »

[sen-no-sen]

Yes and that confirms even more than the mutations are done by chance. Afterwards, if it promotes survival, there is a better chance that the gene will be passed on to subsequent generations, it's as easy as "hello".

What is chance Izentrop?

No, but "the global brain actually forming a sum of intelligences" you want to laugh

I would have liked a sustained argument rather than such a casual answer ...

[izentrop]

No, but "the global brain actually forming a sum of intelligences" you want to laugh

I would have liked a sustained argument rather than such a casual answer ...

I will try to develop what I expressed in 2 words:
If a mutation is valid, whether horizontal, vertical, molecular or "quantum",

• either it is unfavorable and the organism does not generate descendants,
• either it is effective and it will be preserved in the following generations.

It is a "coin flip". There is no brain or intelligence in the evolution of species.

Janic, I feel like you're not going to agree with me for long

[sen-no-sen]

I will try to develop what I expressed in 2 words:
If a mutation is valid, whether horizontal, vertical, molecular or "quantum",

• either it is unfavorable and the organism does not generate descendants,
• either it is effective and it will be preserved in the following generations.

It's "heads or tails", There is no brain or intelligence in the evolution of species.

OK!
Now let's take the example of a person who would face a situation totally new. What will she do?
Well, it's very simple, it will implement the evolutionary algorithm:
Attempt failure or success then memorization.

In reality a human being, endowed with a brain therefore, will operate by chance in the face of a situation that he does not know.
Of course it is rare to be faced with such an event, we always have more or less some answers in reserve in our memory faced with somewhat unusual situations, but at best, in such a case, we operate by trial and error. ..

So the grievance between evolutionists and creationists does not even concern God, but the notion intentionality against chance.
For the first life appeared by chance, then to evolve according to the same principle, while for the second life follows a divine intention.

The key argument of creationists is that the complexity of something like life can only be the product of an all-powerful entity and not by chance (Janic will confirm to us).
But let's take a closer look and ask the right question:What is the difference between chance and intention?

The answer is simple and is based on two things:memorizing a past event, and the information processing capacity.
Evolution has produced beings whose cognitive systems are more and more complex and whose information processing capacities are increasing.
Except what is the evolutionary process if not a gigantic cognitive system whose agents would be the species, this one playing the role of memory?
The human being, and long before him crowd of vertebrates quite simply concentrates in a few cm3 (brain) what evolution has spread over millions of km2.
What we do by thinking in a few hundredths of a second is actually found in evolution over billions of years.

There is in fact no objective difference between the chance of evolution and the notion of intentionality, it is only on our reduced time scale that we make a distinction between its two manifestations.
To help understand this point of view, we can also draw a parallel between a star and interstellar space, what is the difference between the two? The level of energy concentration.
Excluding the self-organization of the universe results in points of condensation which concentrates energy in order to maximize it: stars, cyclone, ecosystem, living being.
The brain only concentrates in a few cm3 what evolution has done over very long periods of time ... CQFD

It is quite logical that some people see the work of a deity, because such a process required a lot of astronomical information.

[izentrop]

The brain only concentrates in a few cm3 what evolution has done over very long periods of time ... CQFD

I don't really follow you in your deductions.

It is DNA, common to all cells in our body, that contains the history of our evolution.
98.5% in common with the chimpanzee, the man was very lucky.
"We know very little about what distinguishes us genetically from the chimpanzee," notes Swante Pääbo. Only one certainty: the sequences (the chain of elements constituting the genetic message) of the DNA of the two species differ only by around 1%. ”
More disturbing "the genetic gap between man and chimpanzee is much less than that which separates the two species of orangutan", notes the geneticist Pierre Darlu (Inserm). http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/1998/ ... ces_246928 (1998)

Rather, it seems that the evolution of theory of mind is mainly determined by limiting neurobiological factors such as brain size. http://presse.inserm.fr/dou-vient-linte ... ine/30327/

A simple question of size

[izentrop]

... we left 39 individuals sampled from seven non-human primate species (lemurs, macaques, mangabeys, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees) to engage in simple dyadic games against artificial ToM players (via a familiar human caregiver) . Using computational analyzes of primate choice sequences, we found that the probability of exhibiting a ToM-compatible learning style is mainly determined by the cerebral volume of the species (rather than by the size of the social group). In addition, the social cognitive sophistication of primates culminates in a precursor form of ToM, which remains below fully developed human ToM capabilities.
Reading wild spirits: a computational test of the sophistication of theory of mind across seven primate species (November 2017)

We must also see that the construction of the brain is done mainly during childhood, the duration of which is much longer for humans.

In addition, with DNA we were able to trace the history of humanity, the origin of the cradle of humanity, that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals made children together and that black, yellow or white, we all do of the same species.

All that to say that our intellectual superiority over animals is not much.

[Janic]

I pass on the above which would require to be better developed. Therefore :

Thus the grievance which opposes evolutionists and creationists does not even concern God, but the notion of intentionality against chance.

Reading the different diatribes on the subject, it seems to me, on the contrary, that it is this notion of god (without capital letter because it is only a qualifier, not a proper name) which opposes the two

For the first life appeared by chance, then to evolve according to the same principle, while for the second life follows a divine intention.

So rebelote! In science there is no divine intention since it (science) is supposed not to be of a philosophical spiritual order, but simply descriptive (the facts) .Or you do not want to leave a religious diagram which is not a theological or scientific reference. So I must repeat, I must disregard the divine word or that of god. Guillemant, followed or preceded by Roddier, does so by invoking information outside of time, a formula which ME is entirely suitable for. And I re-re-re-repeat, I am not a representative of any religion, nor has to defend their speech. However, I do not defend THEIR point of view here (as long as there is only one?) But MIEN and only MIEN. By evoking non-evolutionary scientists as evolutionists who have a discourse outside of usual good thinking.)
Well-thinking means the opinion and behavior of self-righteous people, "whose ideas are conformist" and subject to political correctness. The term "good-thinking" has a pejorative, polemical and ironic connotation, because it is mainly used by detractors of the politically correct.

The key argument of creationists is that the complexity of something like life can only be the product of an all-powerful entity and not by chance (Janic will confirm this).

As seen above, I am not the interpreter or the spokesperson of the various creationists and I cannot therefore speak for them. On a personal and only personal level, I am not talking about an all-powerful entity like the Hellenist or Roman myths, but of an "active will" (an intention according to your speech) from outside to our reference systems and that no one will designate in the way that suits him according to his culture, his beliefs, his superstitions, his indifference and which go from chance to god through nature, etc ...

But let's take a closer look and ask the right question: What is the difference between chance and intention?
The answer is simple and is based on two things: memorizing a past event, and the ability to process information.
Evolution has produced beings whose cognitive systems are more and more complex and whose information processing capacities are increasing.

And bingo! You see that you automatically favor the hypothesis of evolution (for reasons, cultural, philosophical, etc ..., but your speech is addressed primarily to an "evolutionist" which is therefore understandable) but this is not is not scientific since science cannot be reduced to ONE majority discourse, as currently, only!
Except what is the evolutionary process if not a gigantic cognitive system whose agents would be the species, this one playing the role of memory?
The human being, and long before him crowd of vertebrates quite simply concentrates in a few cm3 (brain) what evolution has spread over millions of km2.
What we do by thinking in a few hundredths of a second is actually found in evolution over billions of years.
Starting from a single a priori, the rest follows and automatically eliminates any other possible interpretation on the subject, which however carries other realistic possibilities. So I pass, to get there:

It is quite logical that some people see the work of a deity, because such a process required a lot of astronomical information.

In science there is no divinity, but only facts which can be described according to means and knowledge of the moment. However, from the beginning, all the arguments that I used disregard the religion, divine and others to stick to the facts, which like all the facts can be the subject of contradictory interpretations.
Politics, economics, and everything else, demonstrate all the differences of opinion and interpretation of the same factual elements.
The only thing on which we can join is indeed a quantity of astronomical information (and even beyond would say Buzz the lightning or quite simply beyond the cosmological horizon of our two accomplices), which does not have of time limit, and others, and therefore represents absolute information per se, outside of time, especially of our time.

I quickly come back to Maxime Hervé who thrilled me as his description of "cultural" evolution is accurate. However, and this is what is wrong with his speech is that after having laid the foundations for the social and political environment which was upset by the revolution
and therefore led to find another explanation of the phenomenon than that of creationism, in the Catholic religion way, he then disregards it while it is the fundamental element which determines future socio-evolutionary choices; I already mentioned this aspect by going beyond of his limitation to the revolution and what ensued. It's a shame, then, that this primordial lack to better understand the passage from one speech to another.

NOTE: it may be noticed that he does not address (but perhaps he did so elsewhere), phase 0/1 of the "big bang" of the appearance of life on earth.

All that to say that our intellectual superiority over animals is not much.

it is even due to nothing at all since the human takes himself for the absolute reference with respect to which everything must be measured (so it is due to his culture, his vanity to believe himself the result of creation as of evolution (same fight!) and nothing else) Our humanity is full of geniuses, sometimes autistic, and many morons too. (if there is a difference! ) which does not characterize any superiority whatsoever.

[izentrop]

All that to say that our intellectual superiority over animals is not much.

it is even due to nothing at all since the human takes himself for the absolute reference with respect to which everything must be measured (so it is due to his culture, his vanity to believe himself the result of creation as of evolution (same fight!) and nothing else) Our humanity is full of geniuses, sometimes autistic, and many morons too. (if there is a difference! ) which does not characterize any superiority whatsoever.

You still derive from ethical, political and religious considerations, scientifically, the difference is due to the volume of the skull, nothing more.

[sen-no-sen]

I don't really follow you in your deductions.

You would have had to understand that my remark concerned the notion of chance vs intentionality, it is for this reason that I spoke of brain.

It is DNA, common to all cells in our body, that contains the history of our evolution.
98.5% in common with the chimpanzee, the man was very lucky.

Yes, this is what I explain above when speaking of species playing the role of memory ... insofar as each individual carries genes, he is a guarantor of the history of evolution.
But you did not answer on the merits ...

Reading the different diatribes on the subject, it seems to me, on the contrary, that it is this notion of god (without capital letter because it is only a qualifier, not a proper name) which opposes the two

In the context of a scientific debate this is false since many scientists are believers, it is only on the ideological ground that the notion of god plays a role, but that is not the object of the discussion.

Further you write:

Now you do not want to get out of a religious scheme which is not a theological or scientific reference.

This is false, or else you do not understand what I am writing, I nevertheless insisted on the idea that what mainly opposes evolutionists and creationists is the notion of chance versus that of intentionality, i willingly put God aside ...

So I rephrase: what bothers some people is how the complexity of life could appear by chance, many non-believers attribute this complexity to the intervention of extraterrestrials, which only pushes the questioning further without answering it (1).

In science there is no divine intention since it (science) is supposed not to be of a philosophical spiritual order, but simply descriptive (the facts).

Thank you, but this is once again proof that you don't understand what I'm writing ...
I have never spoken of divine intention in science, since on the contrary (!!!) I opposed the notion of chance to that of intentionality in the manner of creationism.
I shyly tried to do a little of epistemology:Philosophical field which analyzes, studies and criticizes all the disciplines of science, as well as their methods and their discoveries.

And bingo! You see that you privilege automatically the hypothesis of evolution

Unless you are completely c ... creationist , the notion of evolution is obvious, the contemporary era is moreover the most tangible proof, everything changes more and more quickly.
In the oriental tradition the notion of impermanence to besides widely developed the subject for ages, the fixism to which you cling is an analytical bias linked to our subjective understanding of reality.
What is distressing is that soon we will create genetically modified human beings, average AI and we will always have creationists to tell us that there is no devolution ...


(1) To impute this complexity to God is also to push the problem further, as said Siddhartha Gautama : if God created the world, who created God?