The chicken comes before the egg.

[Burning ghost]

Evidence?

[Arjen]

Well, I was basing myself on 2 articles. One about the rapid evolution of a certain fish species in lake titicaca and one about the sudden evolution of a type of shellfish, after an invasive atlantic salmon species was released in the great ocean. Both were like 20 years ago and google isn't finding matches with my search terms. While I have these memories, I admit to not being able to provide evidence thereof.

[Burning ghost]

Well, I was basing myself on 2 articles. One about the rapid evolution of a certain fish species in lake titicaca and one about the sudden evolution of a type of shellfish, after an invasive atlantic salmon species was released in the great ocean. Both were like 20 years ago and google isn't finding matches with my search terms. While I have these memories, I admit to not being able to provide evidence thereof.

Er ... I’m confused? You just provided evidence for the theory NOT against.

Do a quick search about the different mechanisms for evolution (molecular). The two poles are Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium (the later is supported by the instance you referred to).

What does appear to be the case is that some species evolve using one or the other, or an admiture of these. I think the most commonly held view is something termed punctuated gradualism? It’s not my main field of interest though. I’m sure you can find information about this well enough by yourself. It is cetainly a common misconception about our understanding of evolutonary mechanisms. Advances in molecular biology and genetics has bolster our understanding greatly.

As an attempt to explain I believe a commonly used analogy is a simple sentence in English where we imagine that each letter represents some genome.

Example:

“I like to eat red fruits.”

With one little “glitch” can become,

“I lik to eat red fruits.”

Which hardly makes the sentence incomprehensible, but what about if this changes further ...

“I lick it at red foots.”

Or

“like to eat red fruits?” It becomes a queston here.

Anyway, I made example up ln the spot but the gist is there. With a few small tweaks meaning can disappear (“junk”) then reemerge with a completely different meaning. The dramatic shift, the evolutionary step appears dramatic yet it happens over extended periods of time due to subtle alterations in the DNA that had ZERO morphological effect on their own. It’s a very simple and elegant principle. People used to laugh at Lamarckian ideas too, but the environment is just as important and we really only use these kinds of polar ideas because they make things easier to grasp - the reality is nuanced and often confusing if we don’t appreeciate that the universe doesn’t operate under black and white assumptions in a binary manner of all or nothing.

[Gertie]

Whether the chicken comes before or after the egg is a philosophical question which apparently has never been asked before here on this forum, according to my research. So, let's ask it now.

But if it hasn't been asked by now, we may first want to wonder why. I suspect that the reason is that it has no apparent implications and is therefore a non-issue. But I think it does matter when you think about the issue of abortion: If you kill the egg, you also kill the chicken that comes after the egg. But if you kill the chicken, are the eggs that the chicken would have had also murdered?

If the chicken comes before the egg, then you can kill the chicken without killing the eggs. If the egg comes first, then you can't kill the chicken by killing the egg.

Anti-abortionists feel that we come from eggs and therefore the egg comes first but I am starting to think that the fact that we are made by eggs does not imply that we come from an egg. Who we are may be made by our dreams and thinking and this is where we are really from. And so, I believe the chicken comes first and that it comes down from the land of chalk drawing.

Holding this belief will make you feel that the right of the chicken to have an abortion is more important than the right of the egg to become a chicken because the chicken comes first.

Once more, what do you think? The chicken or the egg comes first, and does this issue has any implication in the abortion debate?

Re abortion, I believe consciousness is the foundation for morality, because conscious critters have qualiative experiential states, can suffer or be happy, have a Quality of Life. Life itself isn't the issue, it's the Qualiative/Experiential nature of life which some (conscious) critters have, but say cabbages, eggs, rocks and computers seemingly don't.

However there is an argument that we should value (equally?) Potential sentient life with Actual(ised) sentient life. A non-sentient foetus/cell/egg/sperm with a sentient human being.

I don't know how to answer that 'Potential' argument morally, I simply don't know what basis to use. I can understand that if I kill a chicken I am harming her by taking away her ability to experience a quality of life. But I don't know how to morally assess smashing an egg that way, whether it's no different to smashing a non-conscious rock, or whether the egg's Potential to become a sentient chicken-critter with a quality of life makes a key difference. (I'm a vegetarian who eats eggs but not chickens, but I'm not sure I should be eating eggs)

But on a practical level the Potential argument gets very complicated very quickly, because all life is entwined, and implies we should do all we can to produce every possible Potential baby. Every wanked away sperm and flushed away period egg is destroying a Potential human being. Just as much as aborting a non-sentient foetus, if you follow the logic of the Potential argument. And that's such a heavy moral burden to carry, most people wouldn't contemplate it for a moment, nevermind the practical implications.

[Arjen]

Well, I was basing myself on 2 articles. One about the rapid evolution of a certain fish species in lake titicaca and one about the sudden evolution of a type of shellfish, after an invasive atlantic salmon species was released in the great ocean. Both were like 20 years ago and google isn't finding matches with my search terms. While I have these memories, I admit to not being able to provide evidence thereof.

Er ... I’m confused? You just provided evidence for the theory NOT against.

Do a quick search about the different mechanisms for evolution (molecular). The two poles are Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium (the later is supported by the instance you referred to).

What does appear to be the case is that some species evolve using one or the other, or an admiture of these. I think the most commonly held view is something termed punctuated gradualism? It’s not my main field of interest though. I’m sure you can find information about this well enough by yourself. It is cetainly a common misconception about our understanding of evolutonary mechanisms. Advances in molecular biology and genetics has bolster our understanding greatly.

As an attempt to explain I believe a commonly used analogy is a simple sentence in English where we imagine that each letter represents some genome.

Example:

“I like to eat red fruits.”

With one little “glitch” can become,

“I lik to eat red fruits.”

Which hardly makes the sentence incomprehensible, but what about if this changes further ...

“I lick it at red foots.”

Or

“like to eat red fruits?” It becomes a queston here.

Anyway, I made example up ln the spot but the gist is there. With a few small tweaks meaning can disappear (“junk”) then reemerge with a completely different meaning. The dramatic shift, the evolutionary step appears dramatic yet it happens over extended periods of time due to subtle alterations in the DNA that had ZERO morphological effect on their own. It’s a very simple and elegant principle. People used to laugh at Lamarckian ideas too, but the environment is just as important and we really only use these kinds of polar ideas because they make things easier to grasp - the reality is nuanced and often confusing if we don’t appreeciate that the universe doesn’t operate under black and white assumptions in a binary manner of all or nothing.

I am not contradicting that evolution is a factor. I am saying that the way species change is different than in 2000 generations or so. The new genetic trait emerges in 1 generation. If it is beneficial for survival, the whole species changes in 2 or 3 generations. That means that somehow, the genetic information was already present and the species willed it into existence. In combination with difficulties for the old genetic variation, the new one takes over quickly. That was my point. There is evidence for this, but I can't reproduce it.

[Burning ghost]

Arjen -

What do you mean “somehow already present”? I gave you sufficent pointers. There mutations that do nothing - because they’re “junk” - then a particular mutation happens turning on a whole sequence (basic biomolecular mechanism; but certainly very, very complex given the number of variables).

There is certainly no consensus about how much is Gradualism and how much is Punctated Equilibrium. There are valid mechanisms in place we know about (even if the intricacies are not fully understood due to the complexities involved).

[Arjen]

Well, Burning ghost, I agree with the genes turning on a 'mutation' and that junk dna isn't exactly junk. I don't know all the details about how that works, but I do agree with it.

The point that I am making is that there are no cases of a claw on a crab that is only half there. Never does it still need to evolve more. It is either there or it isn't. Another example is that no species has an unequal number of limbs. This kind of information is already present. The genes turning things on or off are pointing in the same direction. Somewhere (in DNA?), somehow, the 'designs' are already present. Do you agree with that? Necause from there it is easily concluded that the whole 'system' emerges at once, not bit by bit: the chicken and the egg both at the same time.

So you tell me, by the way, is this somehow an intelligent design argument? I have a hard time with that, by the way. But it does somehow seem to be an argument in favor of it.

[Eduk]

So you tell me, by the way, is this somehow an intelligent design argument?

On the face of it it seems to be an argument from personal incredulity.

[Arjen]

So you tell me, by the way, is this somehow an intelligent design argument?

On the face of it it seems to be an argument from personal incredulity.

I thought ad hominem remarks were not allowed?

[Eduk]

It isn't an ad hominem. You are saying you don't understand something. You are then saying this is an argument against something. I was just pointing out that it isn't.

[Arjen]

Eduk please clarify with quotes how I did that.
It is entirely possible I made a strange thought.

[Burning ghost]

Arjen -

Here:

How is that possible, when evolutionary biology suggests this is a process of many generations, possibly thousands?

I had the same impression as Eduk. I pretty much outlined the basic principles and named the theories involved. It does seem like you completely missed what I said (or I said it so badly it made no sense?)

[Eduk]

Arjen amongst other things you said

The point that I am making is that there are no cases of a claw on a crab that is only half there.

you also said

So you tell me, by the way, is this somehow an intelligent design argument?

So you are saying you don't understand how a crab claw can evolve and then saying this is an argument against evolution.

I may as well say I don't understand how QM tunneling works so therefore this is an argument against computers.

[Arjen]

Eduk : That is not a good comparison. The point is that claws do not exactly 'evolve' as Darwin says. They are either present or not. There is never half a limb, or half a claw. It can change shape over generations, or change color, but it never appears or disappears halfway. Therefore, the conclusion must be that the genetic trait is somehow 'switched of or off', like Burning ghost said. And I agree with that.

Given this 'fact', the question becomes how the information to grow the claw appeared in the DNA. Was it put there by a designer? Had it evolved in a Darwinian sense millions of years ago and been stored in junk DNA? Were there half-claws millions of years ago?

That is what I am questioning. Simply because the way Darwin sees evolution happening is not how changes are observed. An interesting side note is that there is actually a lot of criticism on Darwin from the field of Biology. I am reading Pjotr Kropotkin concerning mutual aid as a factor of evolution. He is explaining time and time again that replacements of species or major changes in species are seen when the 'old' version's food supply is endangered (while the 'new version' has an alternate food source unattainable for the 'old') or a disease appears that the 'new version' is able to fight off, while the 'old' is not. In these situations, the changes appear in 1 generation, and (almost) only the ones that have the genetic benefit survive, thus replacing the 'old' version and making it appear as if there was some competition between the two versions, while in reality, there was none. But this might be completely off topic.

[Eduk]

Yes, exactly. You are saying you don't understand something (in this case the evolution of claws) and then concluding that this is an argument against evolution. This is not an argument against evolution. All you have proved is that there is something that you don't know.

An interesting side note is that there is actually a lot of criticism on Darwin from the field of Biology.

No there isn't.