Chance and evolution

[DAK]

<Evolution is driven by genetic changes, that is either due to UV-rays or similar high-energy impacts on genetic material, or the combining of genetic material through sexual means.>

 

Again, that is potentially very broad even assuming you've covered all possible forms of DNA change... 'energy' is everything. So everything can effect everythings DNA... including, presumably the unified field... which might be god.

 

<Currently, the best theory we have explaining the different species on Earth, is evolution.>

 

Sorry for dragging on Biochemist, but this seems like a good ending to the thread:

 

It's pretty clear that the bedrock idea of 'evolution' is NOT going to be dismissed, that's for sure:

 

THREAD CLOSED

 

DAK

[Boerseun]

<Evolution is driven by genetic changes, that is either due to UV-rays or similar high-energy impacts on genetic material, or the combining of genetic material through sexual means.>

 

Again, that is potentially very broad even assuming you've covered all possible forms of DNA change... 'energy' is everything. So everything can effect everythings DNA... including, presumably the unified field... which might be god.

 

<Currently, the best theory we have explaining the different species on Earth, is evolution.>

 

Sorry for dragging on Biochemist, but this seems like a good ending to the thread:

 

It's pretty clear that the bedrock idea of 'evolution' is NOT going to be dismissed, that's for sure:

 

THREAD CLOSED

 

DAK

 

Huh? What? The 'bedrock idea' of evolution is not going to be dismissed - you're quite right about that.

Why? 'Cause there's a mass of evidence pointing in that direction, and supporting the hypothesis.

I was under the impression that his was a science-oriented forum, where evidence supporting the hypotheses might just be appreciated, even if it blows your, or my, or Osama's, or anybody's, God or Gods out of the water.

And no - with energy, I did not imply a god, or God, or Goddess, at all. That should have been obvious. If you feel the need to invoke a deity in the referred sentence, feel free to do it. It's just an admission of ignorance.

I did not realize you could close a thread without being a moderator, at the very least - maybe you should read up on the rules.

 

Evolutionarily and atheistically yours,

 

Boerseun.

[DAK]

<'Cause there's a mass of evidence pointing in that direction, and supporting the hypothesis>

 

That is the point, yes.

 

<I was under the impression that his was a science-oriented forum, where evidence supporting the hypotheses might just be appreciated, even if it blows your, or my, or Osama's, or anybody's, God or Gods out of the water.>

 

My point is simply that IT DOESNT.

 

<And no - with energy, I did not imply a god>

 

I know... I simply pointed out that neither did your listing of mechanisms show it's not a possibility... and btw, it would fit the classic definition of God, everything, everywhere, omni omni omni.

 

<If you feel the need to invoke a deity in the referred sentence, feel free to do it. It's just an admission of ignorance.>

 

There was no invoking anything, apparently the ignorance is of your understanding of 'invoke'.

 

<I did not realize you could close a thread without being a moderator>

 

OK... we'll let him do it.

 

DAK

[eMTee]

You have your theory, I have mine..there are absolutes...and there is only one absolute answer. we will find out who is right and who is wrong in the end when we die. and that is a fact.

[Queso]

that is not a fact.

considering the FACT that we are UNCONCIOUS and incapable of KNOWING at all when we are dead, we will not know.

[eMTee]

that is not a fact.

considering the FACT that we are UNCONCIOUS and incapable of KNOWING at all when we are dead, we will not know.

that is your theory...and yet this is still a fact, one way or another, the truth will be revealed to us threw afterlife or dead unconsciousness ...if that theory ends up being true...then I'm ok with that.

[Queso]

you don't seem to understand you will be incapable of "being ok with that" when you are dead. and that is not a theory, that is a scientifical fact.

you will be dead just like the roadkill on the side of the road. there is no difference.

[Boerseun]

100%, Orby.

 

Our brains, the seats of our personalities and consciousness, are incredibly complex machines that we do not understand fully.

 

But hear ye, hear ye:

Once you die, your brain stops telling your heart to pump.

Once you die, your brain stops telling your diapraghm to expand, suffocating you in the process.

Once you die, your brain will continue to function untill the above two points caused such a lack of oxygenated blood in your brain tissues, that your brain cells start dying off en masse.

People have been resuscitated, having been "dead" for longer than was thought possible, and in most cases they suffer brain damage, the degree of the damage being relative to the time their brains have been denied oxygen.

But once you're dead, that's it. There's no mechanism known to science capable of transplanting your consciousness into any other medium. You call it the Afterlife, I call it wishfull thinking.

And you can try to put the fear of god into me by going on and on about going to hell if I don't watch it, but apart from that not being a very Christian sentiment in the strict New Testament point of view, it's a typical argument from a side that has no argument.

By the way - there's nothing wrong with my understanding of *invoke*. Maybe there's something wrong with your perception of what's to be discussed in a science forum.

 

Right.

 

We are discussing 'Chance and Evolution' here. If you want me to corrupt your Christian souls any further, we can start up a new chat somewhere else. Let's stick to the issue at hand.

[bumab]

There's no mechanism known to science capable of transplanting your consciousness into any other medium. You call it the Afterlife, I call it wishfull thinking.

 

There's no mechanism known for cosmic expansion, either :hyper:

 

 

Back to chance and evolution...

 

There are many folk who use math to show evolution is not feasible. It's certainly a viable and correct stratagy, yet most scientists do not address it. For those of you who think the math is wrong, why? What number should be changed?

[Fishteacher73]

There are many folk who use math to show evolution is not feasible. It's certainly a viable and correct stratagy, yet most scientists do not address it. For those of you who think the math is wrong, why? What number should be changed?

 

I brought this up in a thread in the math forum about the weight of mathematical "evidence". Math is great in predicting concepts we understand, and as well as filling the holes in things that may have some grey areas, but evolutionary process IMO is extremely complicated, inter-related, chaotic if you will. The exacting process is UNKNOWN, so to use math to explain how something works when we don't know exactly how or what of everything is involved seems a bit useless. Just like we cannot use math to predict earthquakes or volcanos because we do not fully understand the mechanisms involved.

[Biochemist]

...Math is great in predicting concepts we understand, and as well as filling the holes in things that may have some grey areas, but evolutionary process IMO is extremely complicated, inter-related, chaotic if you will. ...

Since I am one of the folks that often brings up the "math" issues related to evolutionary theory, I thought I ought to chime in here.

 

I agree with FsT that the math per se is not a proof of anything. But the math can be used to infer a problem, and perhaps to redirect a solution. In the "Punctuated equilibria theories" thread, Bumab and I were knawing on the PE timeframes, and attempting to reconcile it with generational math.

 

For example, there are about 250 million years in the fossil record between the first chordate and the first mammal. The mammal arrives on the scene suddenly, with no identifiable morphological precursor. Bumab has been advocating the stardard mutation theory position, and suggested that there was time for mutation to occur over the 250 million years.

 

My response was mostly mathematical. So:

 

 

1. Most of the species that were chordates probably have one-year birthing cycles, so there are probably only 250 million generations
   
2. It looks like there is no identifiable morphological precursor to the mammal, and that the fossil record of this is probably representative of reality
   
3. If the daughter species was morphologically different form the parent species, it probably had at least one enzyme system that was materially different that its parent species.
   
4. A typical enzyme system had 6 to 8 enzymes in it
   
5. If we offer a number of highly optimistic assumptions: a) that the daughter species was able to be "selected" on the basis of a single new enzyme system; :hyper: that each of six enzymes in the enzyme system was ONLY ONE amino acid different than an existing enzyme in the parent species, but c) 6 new enzymes are required for successful phenotypical representation, then
   
6. The calculations are as follows: a) odds of a new specific amino acid being randomly inserted successfully in one enzyme: 1 in 20 amino acids X 300 amino acid residue locations in a typical enzyme = 1 in 6000 :eek: six enzymes required for phenotypical expression = 1 in 6000^6 = about 1 in 10^19 c) assuming a million individuals in each generation, we would have 250 billion opportunites for such a serial mutation d) dividing "b)" above by "c)" above still puts the odds at about 1 in 10^9, even though the starting assumptions were HIGHLY favorable to the mutation oriented schema.
   

My suggestion was not that this math proves anything, but it does suggest that there is something funny going on here. My hypothesis was that this math supports the notion that mutation is unlikely to be a driver, and we should be looking for other gene transforming biochemical services that generate viable daughter species, not presuming that this would happen by mutation.

 

Conclusion: the math does not prove anything, but it can certainly generate inferences that steer incremental research activity.

[bumab]

Bumab has been advocating the stardard mutation theory position, and suggested that there was time for mutation to occur over the 250 million years.

 

In my defense, only a semi-standard position :hyper:

 

My suggestion was not that this math proves anything, but it does suggest that there is something funny going on here. My hypothesis was that this math supports the notion that mutation is unlikely to be a driver, and we should be looking for other gene transforming biochemical services that generate viable daughter species, not presuming that this would happen by mutation.

 

Conclusion: the math does not prove anything, but it can certainly generate inferences that steer incremental research activity.

 

Excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree.

[Biochemist]

In my defense, only a semi-standard position :hyper:

My apologies for mis representing B's position. Bumab does include some other non-standard ideas, but his position is not usually as heretical as mine.

[TeleMad]

It looks like there is no identifiable morphological precursor to the mammal, and that the fossil record of this is probably representative of reality

 

Some of the defining characteristics of mammals are that they produce milk to nourish their young, they have hair, and most give live birth.

 

Do you propose that ~300-million-year-old mammary glands should be found in the fossil record? Why? We got really lucky when we found soft tissue in a dino that was just 65 million years old.

 

Where is the hair on a dolphin, or a whale? They do have hair, but most of us wouldn't know that by looking at them, or by looking at the fossilized remains of one.

 

Concerning live birth, do you propose that ~300-million-year-old placenta of some kind should be found in the fossible record? Again, we were lucky to obtain soft tissue that was 65 million years old.

 

 

In other words, EXACTLY what are you looking for when you are looking for "pre-mammals" in the fossil record?

[Biochemist]

...In other words, EXACTLY what are you looking for when you are looking for "pre-mammals" in the fossil record?

Morpohological similarity. Unlike the apparent speciation in lower taxa (i.e., genus and below),the paleontological evidence of sudden occurence of higher taxa (i.e., phyla, classes, orders) in the fossil record is reasonably well established.

 

Are you disagreeing with this?

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: [Most of the definingn mammalian characteristics - mammary glands, hair, placenta (for most mammals), endothermy - wouldn't be easily preserved in the fossil records for the very first mammals]. In other words, EXACTLY what are you looking for when you are looking for "pre-mammals" in the fossil record?

 

Biochemist: Morpohological similarity.

 

Do you not understand the meaning of the word EXACTLY?

[skuinders]

as some here have already mentioned, the random element of evolution is often misunderstood. Here is a simple experiment that shows the error with one of the common arguments against evolution (the random-chance eyeball argument).

 

Say we have six 6-sided dice and our goal is to roll them and end up with all 1's. We try the following two methods.

 

Method #1:

 

Roll all six dice at once. If you do not get all 1's, pick them up and try again.

 

Method #2:

 

Roll all six dice at once. If you get any dice that are 1's, put them off to the side and pick up the remaining dice and roll them. Continue this process until there are no more dice to roll.

 

 

It is clear that you wouldn't to spend your time on Method #1 (assuming 1 roll per second, on average Method #1 would take ~13 hours and Method #2 would take ~1 min). Because of natural selection and its system of attribute preservation and loss, evolution builds on its successes and cuts its failures. Everything is a process taking place on huge timescales. The eye wasn't formed in one generation (or one roll of n dice), it was a long process of 'keep this, lose that,' and 'try this next.'