Evolution, or just adaptation?

My view is that the researchers here don't know the difference between "natural selection based evolutionary changes" and simple adaptation. 

"In looking at the data, the researchers found evolution at work in 755 genes related to the traits they had selected over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years—and they included skin pigmentation, dietary traits and body measurements."

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-evidence-g...usand.html

Still no new limbs I see.

My view is that the researchers here don't know the difference between "natural selection based evolutionary changes" and simple adaptation. 

"In looking at the data, the researchers found evolution at work in 755 genes related to the traits they had selected over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years—and they included skin pigmentation, dietary traits and body measurements."

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-evidence-g...usand.html

Still no new limbs I see.

How about you explaining the difference?

What Steve asked.

~~ Paul

My view is that the researchers here don't know the difference between "natural selection based evolutionary changes" and simple adaptation. 

"In looking at the data, the researchers found evolution at work in 755 genes related to the traits they had selected over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years—and they included skin pigmentation, dietary traits and body measurements."

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-evidence-g...usand.html

Still no new limbs I see.

What is the difference between the two?

~~ Paul

How about you explaining the difference?

 

 Adaptations are the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of time. Adaptations usually occur because a gene mutates or changes by accident! Some mutations can help an animal or plant survive better than others in the species without the mutation.

https://nhpbs.org/natureworks/nwep1.htm

In between the correct statements above, is a false one (in bold).  Failing versions of neo-Darwinism still hold on to definitions that serve a metaphysical view.  Adaptations are defined as caused by blind evolution, in the assertion above.  This simply is not true ---- and actual physiological pathways are revealed that eliminate blind evo belief.  

Evolution, as regards to mental causation, is driven by direct knowledge of environments.  Evolutionary adaptation is the opposite of blind.  It is a combining of the databases of organisms and their physical and informational environments.  Adaptation is from feedback from experience.  You can define electronic feedback with SI units of measure.  

You need information science to understand cybernetic feedback and behavioral homeostasis.

The difference between adaptive processes and evolutionary processes cannot be described in a two-step physical cause and effort model.  Minds are at work through 3 step models of communication where logical enforcement lowers local entropy and enhances organisms future chances for survival.

Evolution is a record of changes.  In exists in every field of study.  Bio-evolution is no different - it is not a cause!!!!  It is a simple record with commentary about patterns behind the changes.  Random mutations as a driver of "evolution" is not a modern theory in favor.  (while still a favorite of old guard  materialist philosophy)

We adapt for example when we build defenses to illnesses.  This is not evolution and observing such adaptation does not prove evolution.  I think evolution is the most likely way we came about (although not randomly) but the page I linked to does nothing to show this.

We adapt for example when we build defenses to illnesses.  This is not evolution and observing such adaptation does not prove evolution.  I think evolution is the most likely way we came about (although not randomly) but the page I linked to does nothing to show this.

I hope to hear counterpoint from Steve and Paul.  I am sure they think I am over-confident.  I find little in the well- formed research in the linked article and in the abstract of the paper, helping their points of view.

The article is not making any metaphysical claims and delivers what it says.  It is research into bioinformatic data and compares traits of interest and how they are changing with time with the code.  They are not defending "Evolution", they are reviewing the changes (evolution) in the samples of code.  That  speaks to the capabilities within information science's scope, making this profitable and possible.  The paper is focused on "signals" in the data, that may indicate significant adaptation.

Bio-coding systems change like regional dialects did in the past  It is like how memes spread thru media.  Language is always exploring the coding space as style, as personalization, and as the changing memes of culture.  Why would DNA/RNA/Ribosomes' language be different?

  the researchers found evolution at work in 755 genes related to the traits they had selected over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years—and they included skin pigmentation, dietary traits and body measurements. All three traits were found to be under near constant selection pressure, leading to near constant changes to the genome.

Those traits all seem like style to me.

The research seems well-formed, aiming at stuff in the current data sets about predetermined traits.  I personally think that turning their techniques to something more "real" may be less profitable, but better for understanding our modern world.  Our brains are rewiring  -- caused by extended thought processes, which are dictated by electronic signals pattered with intelligent algorithms.  

I posted an article about how deep is the data-collecting on taste appeal in a recent thread.   Do skin pigmentation, dietary traits and body measurements all have current research ongoing in the selling of goods and services?  oh hell ya there is money in the Marketing budget to get data.

I think we may adapt negative responses to the style electronic information age thinking, even as we each know more facts.  Creativity needs to transcend style.

 
Evolution, as regards to mental causation, is driven by direct knowledge of environments.  Evolutionary adaptation is the opposite of blind.  It is a combining of the databases of organisms and their physical and informational environments.  Adaptation is from feedback from experience.  You can define electronic feedback with SI units of measure.  

I have no idea what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're suggesting that I can have direct knowledge of my environment and then somehow arrange for my DNA to change. But that can't possibly be what you're saying.

~~ Paul

I have no idea what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're suggesting that I can have direct knowledge of my environment and then somehow arrange for my DNA to change. But that can't possibly be what you're saying.

~~ Paul

Thanks for responding.  In the current framework for neo Darwinian evolution, it is not an option.  Science is moving on, as the data supports mental evolution as delineated by C. Darwin and G. Romanes.  Let's look at the premises and assumptions.

Organisms gain knowledge of their environments as mutual information from their senses.

DNA's systems of communications and regulation do change and evolve within a lifetime and from generation to generation.

DNA's system's have been shown to react with tools such as epigenetics. This activation of targeted molecular behavior addresses changes in both internal and external environments.

DNA's systems have been shown to execute intelligent strategies that address adaptation for use by future generations.

Your comment about "arranging" implies the whole process is consciously worked out.  Most of it is sub-conscious information processing.  Are any of these facts open to debate?  They are new, although this research has been around for several decades.  (see L. Caporale)
https://www.livescience.com/non-random-dna-mutations

Genetic changes that crop up in an organism's DNA may not be completely random, new research suggests. That would upend one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution.

Researchers studying the genetic mutations in a common roadside weed, thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), have discovered that the plant can shield the most "essential" genes in its DNA from the changes, while leaving other sections of its genome to build up more alterations.

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

Well here's hoping that others start to fix a broken theory.  Not the facts of bioevolutions - just the silly one where mind is not involved in the outcomes of adaptation.

Thanks for responding.  In the current framework for neo Darwinian evolution, it is not an option.  Science is moving on, as the data supports mental evolution as delineated by C. Darwin and G. Romanes.  Let's look at the premises and assumptions.

Organisms gain knowledge of their environments as mutual information from their senses.

DNA's systems of communications and regulation do change and evolve within a lifetime and from generation to generation.

DNA's system's have been shown to react with tools such as epigenetics. This activation of targeted molecular behavior addresses changes in both internal and external environments.

DNA's systems have been shown to execute intelligent strategies that address adaptation for use by future generations.

Your comment about "arranging" implies the whole process is consciously worked out.  Most of it is sub-conscious information processing.  Are any of these facts open to debate?  They are new, although this research has been around for several decades.  (see L. Caporale)
https://www.livescience.com/non-random-dna-mutations

Well here's hoping that others start to fix a broken theory.  Not the facts of bioevolutions - just the silly one where mind is not involved in the outcomes of adaptation.

I need some serious evidence that "DNA's systems of communications and regulation do change and evolve within a lifetime and from generation to generation." I don't even know what those systems of communication are.

~~ Paul