Rhea Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Ok. So I have been thinking about this for a while. I would like to get someone's opinion. As far as I have encountered.....evolution is considered to be random. Well the mutations are random....natural selection itself is not. I was wondering if it is posible that mutations are not random either.....but governed by the second law of thermodynamics. What I mean is.....with exactly equivalent initial conditions perhaps the same exact mutations would occur because they arein some way favorable. I have mostly heard that if we had earth start all overagain.....the course of evolution would be really unpredictable.....but what if we had perfect information about the initial conditions of the earth....is it posible thatevolution would take the same course.I am having a hard time expressing this idea....so please let me know if i am being really unclear. Its just a thought.....I am looking for any opinions on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Originally posted by: Rheabut what if we had perfect information about the initial conditions of the earth....is it posible that evolution would take the same course. There is no such thing as perfect information, so there is no way we could know the initial conditions with absolute certainty. The origin of the Earth is not the start of it all - the Solar system, galaxy formation, Big Bang - how far back should we go to say "this was the beginning"? Even though we knew *everything* there was to know at the starting point, we would also need to know *everything* that follows it. Ie, how does the atmosphere form, where are the earthquakes, when do asteroids hit the earth...there are so many factors which will interfere with both the origin of life and the evolution of species. I think what you are trying to say is "would the world be the same today if it started over with the exacts same conditions". And the answer is, who knows? This is the kind of thing that is very hard to experiment with, but Goedels incompleteness theorem basically forbids anyone to have complete knowledge about anything, so I don't think it would be possible to prove/disprove it. I don't think the second law of thermodynamics can "govern" the way mutations occur. They are random by nature. Just some thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 One of the problems with this issue is one of the problems with any of scientific discussions. Our language is often far from sufficient in discussing the issues. We have to use existing terms with previous meanings to describe new ideas or actions. e.g. are mutations "random"? To the extent that we may not be able to predict which specific mutations a specific offspring may have, it would appear random. But it can not be truly random as it has to operate within a specific number of base pairs, A,T,C,G. It could not randomly decide to use "Z" (whatever that might be). When certain forms of laser holography (transmission type) where being invented, it was found that you could take portions of the larger plate and the entire image was still encoded on it. The "whole" was encoded into each subsection. Some suggest that if you completely evaluate the information matrix of any particle, it would contain all of the information for ever4ything that has happened to that point. IOW that particle represents the total causality up to that point. It would not be there/ then with the properties it has if everything to that point had not been the way it was. Or that our ability to predict weather, or inability, is based on upon it not being 100% predictable, but on our current lack of ability to understand, measure and compute all of the information needed currently. Thus some see a completely deterministic world. One in which everything that is has or will happen was determined at the outset (BB?) if by nothing else than the conditions established at the beginning and the natural progression of events based on those causal paterns. Based on this, yes winding the clock back and starting over would wind up with me sitting here typing this exact answer once again. While others, especially if Uncertainity is 100% not just a lack of knowledge of all the strange attractors and such, would suggest that it is a crap shoot. That I might not always make the same typos the next time around. Erg, to live in that world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 FT, my words, almost exactly. Only the crap shoot is govenerned by laws of cause and effect. If you played it all over again without changing any of the variables, you would end up with the identical result. Linda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Hm...empirically, that sounds reasonable. Yet it is difficult to prove, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteyou would end up with the identical result. LindaYou mean no matter how often we did it, we would always windup with Linda? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodHm...empirically, that sounds reasonable. Yet it is difficult to prove, no?Well it is equally empirical that in an infinite period of time, we would have repeated this an infinite number of times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Er....no! We have no empirical data about infinite periods of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Very amusing! Linda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 FreeThinker: Well it is equally empirical that in an infinite period of time, we would have repeated this an infinite number of times. No, that's not empirical. No one ever has nor ever will observe or experience an infinite period of time. PS: Ooops, Tormod beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlameTheEx Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 The genes are arranged rather like a modular computer program. Life probably has a fair store of switched off modules that used to be useful, and just might be useful in the future. Perhaps these modules are arranged so that they are easily switched on again by random mutation. We could speculate as to likely modules. Camouflage, and coloration (especially in butterflies). Ability to process specific foods. Behavioural changes. Immunity to specific diseases (that might have last been useful against a plague thousands or millions of years ago). It makes sense that any module that has been useful in the past should be switched on for a few individuals, in case the environment has changed to again favour it. There is another possible mechanism. We know that viruses can transfer genetic information to other non-related viruses. It is possible to engineer viruses to transfer genetic information to human cells. Could it be possible that at some time in the history of evolution, there was a virus that infected reproductive cells, and occasionally, accidentally, transferred genetic information between species? The genetic advantages would be so great that I could imagine such a virus becoming effectively symbiotic. We just might not be the first to invent genetic engineering! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodEr....no! We have no empirical data about infinite periods of time. That depends. It would seem empirical that our finite time frame is contained within an infinite one. Or that a quantum pair did not exist for an infinite time before/ after it's creation/ destruction in our finite space. And what of the very basic 1st law? If energy can not be created nor destroyed, it HAS to be infinite. Finite would be a subset of infinite. We can not have a Finite space/time without infinite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by: BlameTheExWe just might not be the first to invent genetic engineering!I think there is no question of it. It is more a matter of locale and intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: Tormod Er....no! We have no empirical data about infinite periods of time. That depends. It would seem empirical that our finite time frame is contained within an infinite one. Or that a quantum pair did not exist for an infinite time before/ after it's creation/ destruction in our finite space. And what of the very basic 1st law? If energy can not be created nor destroyed, it HAS to be infinite. Finite would be a subset of infinite. We can not have a Finite space/time without infinite. I'm confused by this argument. Here's a thought. For a point in time to be reached, all prior points in time much occur before it can occur. If there is an infinite number of prior points in time to the current point, then an infinite number of points must be transversed prior to the current one. Since an infinite cannot be completely transversed, this would never happen, and thus the assumption that there is an infinite space/time is false since the current point has been reached. Sort of like, the probability of you amd me existing at the same time is 1. Linda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteI'm confused by this argument. Here's a thought. For a point in time to be reached, all prior points in time much occur before it can occur. If there is an infinite number of prior points in time to the current point, then an infinite number of points must be transversed prior to the current one. Since an infinite cannot be completely transversed, this would never happen,This sounds just like some of Zenos' Paradox. 2500 years ago he asked similar questions. Take a given destination point, there is a half way point between where you are and the other point. If you walk to the half way point, there will be a new half way point between where you now are and the original destination point. And another half way point and another. If each point has a half way point between that new point and the original destination point, we can never get to the destination point, there will always be a half way point in between. Thus he concluded that there must be a finite smallest measurable distance. But it was not my intent to suggest an infinite number of finite points between any two points in our finite time. First this would I feel violate General Relativity by seperating time from spacetime. What I did intend to suggest was an infinite time outside of our spacetime. That there is a finite spacetime we exist in and that is a finite subset of the infinite set of "all possible spacetimes and non-spacetime". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 I suppose anything is possible.[/size]<b/> But then "nothing would be certain." -- that's from a signature on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Whose signature? What? Where?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.