Samir Okasha - Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Finite beings have their limits in predicting the future in an infinite reality. There are so many factors involved in predicting the direction of human evolution, not the least of which will be factors that we simply can't imagine in present.

[@tedgrant2]

The most important "transition" in evolution was the scientific method, which allows us to shape the future for ourselves. The only thing holding us back is religion.

[@BailelaVida]

Hard to compare the two fields of evolutionary biology and something like QED. One goes to the extreme in limiting its scope to things that are unimaginatively minute, like quarks; whereas the other does the opposite: go to the extreme of wanting to include vast and unaccountably large systems that contain the highest complexity we know of, namely Life itself.

[@mandelbot5318]

I had to replay the first couple of minutes because I got seriously distracted looking at the size difference between these two in some shots. It was like watching Frodo and Gandalf chatting on the wagon. 😮

[@hanspeter919]

Mr. Kuhn I dont know why but I got a little concerned about your health in this video. I know its a stretch but please make sure youre healthy. Youre important.

[@sustainabilityaxis]

Very nice production. Just few questions if you can throw some light. First, we are talking about philosophy so what started evolution, it is important to have mutual agreement on this point. Secondly, evolution drawing more from inside/within or from some external sources e.g. role of environment etc. few more word would have clarified for general viewers like me. And lastly, what led the guest to believe predictive modelling is not that accurate, why, comparison, data or/and some light. Thanks and keep up your good work.

[@simonhibbs887]

Evolution has several preconditions. Replication, variation and environmental selection. The simplest evolving systems we have found so far are autocatalytic sets. These are groups of molecules that mutually catalyse each other's formation from 'feedstock' chemicals in the environment. These could be naturally occurring organic chemicals, and even some inorganic salts. These autocatalytic chemical groups generate each other and come to dominate in the environment, but slight variations in the structure of the chemicals make some more efficient at this generative process than others. So we observe these chemicals adapting, with certain molecules becoming more common than others. If the environment changes, such as the temperature, pressure, the available feedstock chemicals, again the chemical cycles adapt to the new environment. It seems likely that these autocatalytic sets formed the first replicating systems which propagated and adapted to eventually form the first biological systems. We know that some autocatalytic sets can function within lipid bubbles for example, accessing feedstock chemicals in the environment through the lipid membrane.

[@matishakabdullah5874]

What was more important process that leaf to variation of species of living organisms; diversification or transition? I would say diversification. The key was diversification of information. In living thing systems the diversification can start as early as the diversification of DNA molecules; the basis biochemical unit for development of every species. So I would claim that diversification of life or living systems or species began at biochemical level of polymerisation of DNA or could be RNA molecules which lead to various types of cells and developed all kinds of living systems or species of lifes. That was primary but of course secondary minor diversification due to DNA modifications within speies expanding further diversification of living systems. In this process human came as very special and exceptional case: in addition to life human was provided with intelligent" ruh or soul'. (Infact I proposed the mathematical model of this process sometimes in 1990'es)!

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

There is nothing live evolution. I have not come across any research which proves 'A' evolved from 'B' and 'B' evolved from 'C' and so on.... Where are the other family members from monkey and human beings. It's high time science starts questioning itself.

[@stephenzhao5809]

2:46 ... what would be the last one in the sequence 2:50 SO: ... some researchers have sugested that humans may be currently underging a major transition uh from the individual the human individual to the cultural group 3:01

[@matishakabdullah5874]

What was more important process that leaf to variation of species of living organisms; diversification or transition? I would say diversification. The key was diversification of information. In living thing systems the diversification can start as early as the diversification of DNA molecules; the basis biochemical unit for development of every species. So I would claim that diversification of life or living systems or species began at biochemical level of polymerisation of DNA or could be RNA molecules which lead to various types of cells and developed all kinds of living systems or species of lifes. That was primary but of course secondary minor diversification due to DNA modifications within speies expanding further diversification of living systems. In this process human came as very special and exceptional case: in addition to life human was provided with intelligent" ruh or soul'. (Infact I proposed the mathematical model of this process sometimes in 1990'es. It was consistent with Profei John A Davison, Dept. of Biology, University of Vermont Burlingto although he was focusing in cell development)!

[@nickelmouse451]

Great video

[@pathologicallyfriendly]

Wouldn't you find it more comfortable to sit at an angle rather than directly face each other? 😊

[@l0zerth]

Most people tend to face each other ['s image] more or less directly when holding a conversation, whether in person, video call, etc.

[@y37chung]

On the weakness of evolutionary theory for forward predictions, I think it is a question of finding "relevant variables" (sometimes there are many). The "fitness" variable many evolutionists fixated on are fitted post-hoc and has zero power to be extrapolated.

[@HyzersGR]

To be clear, that criticism has no bearing on whether the theory is true or not.

[@y37chung]

@@HyzersGR The general theory is fine (variations, heritable information passing through environmental filters). Problems arise when people try to "mathematicize" it by plugging in too many misdirected terms and variables (i.e., they make a specific model out of a general theory).

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(1:20) *SO: **_"So, it's a process of increasing hierarchical complexity"_* ... This ongoing movement from simplicity to complexity serves as the basis for my book. We have no problem observing this type of evolution in nature, but it was also present during the 10 billion years predating the emergence of life. I am surprised at how so many will deny this type of evolution has happened regarding inanimate matter. ... This leads me to four questions: *(1)* If the universe started out with Hydrogen and the higher-complexity elements emerged afterward along with the planets, stars, proteins, and eventually "life," ... then why is it so difficult to accept that "Evolution" is not the exclusive domain of nature? *(2)* Since we can easily observe this universe evolving from a singularity into hydrogen, then into stars, galaxies, planets, all the other elements, and then into life, then how does one reconcile this type of evolution within the framework of an "infinitely existing Multiverse" where everything has always existed? *(3)* If someone doesn't recognize the evolution from simplicity to complexity happening during the first 10 billion years as being _directly related_ to biological evolution, then what is the mindset that causes one to believe they are distinct? *(4)* If someone does accept that biological evolution is just the "next stage" of the inanimate evolution that occurred during the first 10 billion years, then an absolute *minimum amount of intelligence* attached to all of this evolution would explain why it happens. And if this is the case, ... then why is it so hard to accept it?

[@jeremymanson1781]

The origin of time by Hertog and Hawkins asks some similar questions about evolution.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

why would prediction be expected in biology (life)? life and biology more about learning and development?

[@r2c3]

2:47 can we consider as "the last of the sequence" a stable mutation that has adapted to specific environmental conditions...

[@simonhibbs887]

Technology allows us to adapt our environment to us. So eventually if we reach a social and technological equilibrium, we might eventually come into balance with our environment and evolution would have nowhere further to go.

[@r2c3]

​@@simonhibbs887​I'd say, technology helps an organism survive wheather or not they're fit or able to adapt on their own... and by creating such dependencies, that organism might never even consider physical adaptation or natural selection as valid options...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@r2c3 Sure, I think they're basically equivalent, although evolution isn't something you choose.

[@r2c3]

@@simonhibbs887 actually an organism makes a choice whether or not it is in their interest to change... this ability to identify and select one of the available options is usually referred to as free-will...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@r2c3 Not when it comes to evolution. Those changes are due to random mutations or combinations of genes. We don't get to choose our genetics, though we might in the future through genetic engineering.

[@jimstraub7573]

Dude is huge

[@ameralbadry6825]

What drives and regulates evolution? Do viral infections or mutations induce evolution?

[@HyzersGR]

Random mutation + environmental pressures. Viruses would fall under the latter and have their own environmental pressures as well.

[@chaschoune]

Answer 1: the environment in which species evolve. This is what the theory of evolution says. Answer 2: nothing 'induce' evolution: viruses and mutations influence evolution, for sure, since they are part of the environment.

[@alfreddaniels3817]

In predictions you mention “ the likely response” when it comes to microevolution. But I don’t hear you repeating Darwins thesis of random mutations sorted out by survival of the fittest. What are your thoughts about that ? Do we have empirical proof of random mutations? Do we have empirical proof of selection ?

[@HyzersGR]

Yes and yes. Sexual reproduction randomizes genes and cancer is just random mutations spiraling out of control. Radiation itself damages and mutates genes. Selection can be either sexual selection or environmental selection.

[@alfreddaniels3817]

What do you mean by independent existence?

[@hobarttobor686]

amazingly complex for a random process...

[@HyzersGR]

Which could be applied to all sorts of phenomena. The gravity dynamics of just 3 stellar bodies is insanely complex.

[@chaschoune]

You are wrong: evolution is NOT a random process. If it was random, evolution would happen randomly amd this is NOT what is observed in reality. Evolution may have an element of randomness, but the environment influences what happens to that randomness.

[@hobarttobor686]

​@@HyzersGR Has the gravity dynamics of just 3 stellar bodies produced a Japanese Hornet, Bald Eagle, cephalopod, or an Oak Tree?

[@hobarttobor686]

​@@chaschoune My commnet was sarcastic. Only a blind fool or an academic could believe evolution is a random process.

[@HyzersGR]

@@hobarttobor686 have any of those creatures greatly influenced the orbits of other celestial bodies? What an inane question.

[@Dialogos1989]

Why are they sitting so close???

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Culture is a imaginative concept.🎉

[@Wtf-eva]

I think a cultural evolution is possible but it may require the world to work together and have a greater connection and understanding with one another and work towards common goals.

[@Marvin19661]

There is no better definition of this talk than a well told series of Just So stories.

[@chester-chickfunt900]

The nut of the issue is a deep examination of the Ethics of Evolutionary Biology. Of which there were/are none...until humans and the higher primates. And that is still a serious work in progress. So why is the evolutionary process so merciless and cruel? There must be some fundamental flaw in the Quantum programming for this universe. But why? Is this universe nothing but a grand rat's maze? Is the reason something more subtle...or existential? If so I hope to retain my consciousness upon death so I can kick "God" right in the f*cking balls for allowing such a heartless existence to continue.

[@robertmiller1299]

One of the troubles with evolutionary biology is that explains too much. What evidence could count against it?

[@codyjackson5664]

It depends on which part we're talking about. The genetic evidence is very strong for common origins and fossils had already settled the fact of evolution before Darwin came along. Natural selection is more vulnerable. Not so much that it occurs but whether it is an adequate explanatory tool on its own. If we could see some adaptations catching on far quicker than the ordinary population genetics of evolutionary biology would allow, if certain quantitative predictions of population genetics in simple cases where there are no complicating factors, then that will argue for a different principle operating. The most likely way in which we are likely to modify our current position is probably through embryology. Possibly there is some selection mechanism there that is neither adaptive nor genetic drift.

[@stellarwind1946]

We have absolutely no idea where DNA came from or how it evolved.

[@chaschoune]

@@stellarwind1946 And we might never know. But that changes nothing to the theory of evolution.

[@jimliu2560]

@@codyjackson5664 A lot of “Hand-Waving”…..? Evolution is true because “Scarcity” exists…..and Hate to say it, but. nothing is going to change that…

[@codyjackson5664]

@@jimliu2560 I am not doubting evolution. But the OP's point is that a theory must be falsifiable to be even scientific. And whether there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are still speculative. And the answer is that we cannot rule out other selection mechanisms besides natural selection

[@tedgrant2]

Millions of people think that donations to religious organisations is beneficial, but in fact that money could be used to find a cure for cancer and malaria which together kill millions of people !

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Why he declines figure out he model transition evolution though biology proceendings? Guys model shows biology process are pictures with WORDS superficial. It is no sense. It is NOT show up model proceendings honestly. Absolutetly. It is silly conversation about biology evolution .

[@johnbowen4442]

How can a random event build on another random event and so on to create the complexities of life as we have been taught in school makes no sense when you think about it ? How does a fish know its benefical to breathe air or walk on land when it has never done it before ? When you add consciousness in the equation it makes sense ? Now scientists are discovering cells are like radios that respond to signals which again points to consciouness .

[@new_criticiser]

What does consciousness have to do with evolution?

[@simonhibbs887]

>How does a fish know its benefical to breathe air or walk on land when it has never done it before ? They don't need to know it. Fish that randomly develop useless features die out, and those that randomly develop useful ones survive and thrive. It's survival in the enviornment that filters out beneficial adaptations from the random variation of mutation, and the genetic shuffling that happens in sexual reproduction. When the environment changes, the traits that promote survival change, so we see that organisms adapt to the new environment as the criteria for survival changes.

[@codyjackson5664]

It will take a mite long to explain it in full but broadly those changes which give a survivability advantage catch on because the survivability advantage means that the proportion of animals with that advantage will slightly increase with each generation until they become dominant. For example let say 1% of a population of cows develop resistance to some seasonal flu. Then because of this resistance more of these cows will survive and reproduce so the next generation will have a slightly higher percentage of such cows. The proportion of such cows keeps increasing till they become the dominant variety. What actually happens is more complicated than that but that's the general idea. The animal does not have to know ahead of time what is good for it. And an entire population will not uniformly acquire a particular mutation. A population has a genetic mean and individual animals diverge from that mean by different amounts. The animals to first acquire a favorable mutation will be quite far from the mean and initially quite scarce. But because of the survivability advantage, their proportion keeps increasing

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"How can a random event build on another random event and so on to create the complexities of life as we have been taught in school makes no sense when you think about it?"* ... There are two ways to answer to your question: *(1)* A long, extremely complex explanation that's chock full of technical terms, unconfirmed assumptions, and ideologically based presuppositions that are all *intelligently orchestrated* to convince you that intelligent life *randomly emerged* from non-intelligent non-life. *(2)* Everything that's included in that long, extremely complex explanation along with a *minimum amount of intelligence* (logic) being embedded within the core structure of "Existence" that is only able to orchestrate its evolution from simplicity to complexity for both animated and inanimate structure. *Summary:* You can choose whichever answer you like best, but only one answer satisfactorily explains the existence of intelligence whereas the other answer is left trying to explain how intelligence somehow "evolved" from nonintelligence. As for me, I can randomly toss paint onto a canvas for 14 billion years and never end up with anything like "The Stary Night" by Vincent van Gogh. At the very LEAST I would need a minimum amount of intelligence to discern between what is getting me closer to achieving a masterpiece and what is moving me farther away after each attempt.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >"As for me, I can randomly toss paint onto a canvas for 14 billion years and never end up with anything like "The Stary Night" by Vincent van Gogh. " And yet that's exactly how image generation AIs like StableDiffusion and Midjourney work. Every change to every pixel is randomly generated. >"At the very LEAST I would need a minimum amount of intelligence to discern between what is getting me closer to achieving a masterpiece and what is moving me farther away after each attempt." That's the selection function. In image generators this is a filter based on the training data set, so that random changes that tend towards a particular kind of result 'survive'. In biological evolution the filter is survival in the particular environment the organism finds itself, so changes that help the organism survive and reproduce are selected for. That's what gives evolution it's direction and structure, so that organisms function well in that particular environment.

[@Minion-kh1tq]

collaborating networks ...yah, that doesn't sound suspicious at all. 🤣 Science seems to be developing a dislike of rationality.

[@alfreddaniels3817]

The return of Haley’s comet is not an evolutionary process wherein new forms occur.

[@tedgrant2]

Every few seconds a child dies while the parents pray to a god for help. Imagine what it's like for those parents ! Yet they still love the god.

[@anywallsocket]

Why this interview look like a predator prey relation 😂

[@collinsanyanvoh7988]

Sorry!... I won't buy your idea. You cannot prove a single thing you're saying. Only facts beget facts. If you continue this way you will never come up with correct questions. You will keep wondering to neverend.

[@feltonhamilton21]

Change has evolution on a leash and dragging it through dimensions. This will never stop because it can't and it is the one and only entity that has no power to stop itself and realize time of rest this is beyond a loving and caring God. I believe change is the true anti existence that favors no one and nothing because it holds all the keys to everything including time and it's up and down clock motions.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Dar...win....?, no.

[@sanatkumarghosh5123]

What does evolution denotes? Obviously,it means everything happens in the aftermath of continuous process not happening all on a sudden. Darwin told I look upon Aristotle as intellectual giant,and frankly speaking he is God to me,who observed that life is not only bones and skeleton but forms and expressions too.In want of formal consciousness life is destractractly reduces to nothingness.Jhon PaulSatra rightly described,moral and aesthetic defiency regularly making our existence into Nihilist one.

[@JungleJargon]

Too much impossibility with evolution. It would need infinite possibilities without accountability for how it could happen which is no different than appealing to God who does account for everything with all knowledge, all power and access to all His Creation. Evolution accounts for nothing.

[@tomjackson7755]

You have been confused by the lies have made up. Accountability has nothing to do with natural processes. SMH Also your god is impossible to exist so it is very different for something that is possible.

[@chaschoune]

Your personal incredibility is not a scientific argument. Nobody said evolution needs 'infinite possibilities". Saying "god did it" is exactly the same as "magic did it": it is not a scientific explanation because it is based on faith, not on evidence.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@chaschoune Jungle is under the impression the everything he makes up magically becomes true.

[@JungleJargon]

@@chaschoune I said evolution needs infinite possibilities that it can never attain.

[@JungleJargon]

@@tomjackson7755 Well everything I say is true. Show me magical matter and magical morphing monkeys.

[@mikel4879]

Any philosophy=BS