What is the definition of "natural selection"?

The most advantageous traits survive in the environment.

What is so profoundly scientific about the above statement that is an ohvious truism?

If other animals have self awareness, it suggests an emergent quality of natural selection that helps survival. Do you agree or disagree? Do you have an opinion?

Self awareness emerged because it helps survival.

Okay.. how does it emerge?

How does the environment produce self awareness?
TOE to my knowledge does not prove that the environment inevitably produces consciousness.
Does it?

I cant formulate an opinion because I dont know the answer.
You are suggesting something grand here.

Is this where we point to ourselves and say we are proof of our hypothesis?

Ps.

Ants are incredibly great at survival without self awareness.

I didn't say the record was complete as obviously not everything is fossilized. Many paleontologists think the record is representative and that what is there is not Darwinian gradualism.
It's often said that a reason for gaps is that soft bodied creatures don't fossilize as well as hard bodied ones. That's true but nevertheless,Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Simon Conway Morris have pointed out that "the majority of Cambrian explosion fossils are soft bodied."
It's not a good explanation for the glaring wholesale lack of intermediates between pre-and Cambrian fossils.
http://www.discovery.org/f/119

I'd be surprised if anyone on Earth has ever made that claim.

You seem to be arguing against no one.

What claim did I make?
I said that TOE, as far as I know, doesnt explain consciousness.
Then I asked Geo if he thinks or knows if it does.

Learn to read, Strawman.

You're the one having trouble here. I didn't say you made a claim, the answer to your inquiry is that no one has ever made that claim.

In your vague quasi-skepticism about evolution, you seem to consistently misunderstand what claims scientists have made about it.

I didnt say anyone here ever made that claim either. Duh.

I guess TOE cant explain consciousness even though its alleged to be a product of the environment.
But TOE would want to explain the evolution of consciousness. "Its emergent" isnt quite satisfying.
Kinda like a vague "the environment magically dun it" huh?
You satisfied with that?
Does the awe and wonder of that explanation make you feel spiritually connected with the dumb environment?

I never said you did, you're trying to weasel your way out again.

Do you know how I'm so confident that NO ONE HAS EVER made a claim about TOE explaining consciousness? Because an 8th grade introduction to evolution would be enough to know that is beyond the scope of the theory. But you didn't seem to know that.



I guess not. You sure smacked it down and put it in its place.

But do you believe humans evolved or not?

I never said you made a claim that TOE explains consciousness. Now yourr wanting to argue that I did.
You have another strawman to protect your deep psychological need for blind and dumb nature.

Never mind, you can't read or understand even the basics of what evolution is about.

Oh yes I can.

Life evolved from lower forms of life.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.
Another is genetic drift
yet another is random mutations

Well, TOE doesn't want anything because it's a theory. What I said is that self awareness seems emergent, but hey, I'm just a guy on the internet. If you really are interested in these questions, I would recommend reading some books. Emergent evolution is a hypothesis. And no one has ever claimed that anyone is satisfied with this explanation. That would be your strawman. No one is ever satisfied, which is why scientists are still studying evolution and why our knowledge of evolution is constantly changing

There's nothing magical about any of this stuff either. In a world that has an atmosphere, you would expect eyes to emerge as a recurring trait because it aids in survival. And so it appears that eyes have evolved independently on our planet several times. I’d say that higher consciousness and intelligence appear to be recurrent traits as well and that’s good for humans. This armchair philosopher supposes self awareness may have aided our survival at some point and likely has contributed to our current domination of the planet. But not all animals need self-awareness, as you point out. Not all animals need long necks either.



No, this would be a very species-centric perspective. Why would self awareness be any more special than acute hearing in felines or long necks in giraffes? Self awareness may help some animals thrive in their niches, but there’s really nothing special about humans in the grand scheme of things. We could die out in a hundred years and the cockroaches would remain the reigning champs. Obviously I think humans are pretty special with our art and literature and digital watches, but from the universe's perspective, we're just monkeys with an overinflated sense of ourselves. Sort of like Donald Trump.

By the way, John Gurche's forthcoming paleoart book looks awesome. Thanks for posting this, Dexter.

Don't you have to understand what is currently known to say the entirety is not well understood? Cherry picking doesn't give you the context to make that assessment. We understand the mechanism well, at the same time the way specific things evolved is unknown. If it still isn't clicking, I can try again with my erosion analogy.



I guess I don't understand what your point is. The idea of a gradual evolution has been falsified. It's no longer used, depending on how you conceptualize gradual change.

This is like relativity replacing newton's formulas, in a way. The same forces are at play, and both conceptualizations have their use. But one is more false, where the other is more true. In either case, we know the answer has to do with the evolution of species. Even if our understanding of that process has changed over the last century.