This Week in Science

[wizards8507]

Ahhhh yes...we are in agreement and wizards is posting on something he probably shouldnt. I guess I was correcting you when you said, "just because we dont know...". We do know a whole bunch. Just wanted to emphasize that point. In discussions like these, I feel the need to be direct and frank. Sorry if that comes off as opposing you. Not my intent.

I personally enjoy when they use the argument that the 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes evolution. That one is always fun to slice up.

Holy shit, you guys need to work on your reading comprehension.

I did NOT say that evolution is false or refuted or anything like that, simply that the current iteration of the theory is not sufficient in and of itself to explain the amount of biodiversity that exists in just 4ish billion years of Earth's existence.

I also did NOT say that the fact that evolution is a "theory" makes it untrue. In fact, I was making Cack's point, that a "scientific theory" is generally true. My point was in reference to an article criticising Mike Pence for referring to evolution as a "scientific theory," which he was exactly correct in doing. That doesn't mean he was denying evolution, it just means he was using the exact vernacular that biologists use.

Darwinian evolution also does dick to explain the origin of life itself, so there's that.

 

[BGIF]

Holy shit, you guys need to work on your reading comprehension.

I did NOT say that evolution is false or refuted or anything like that, simply that the current iteration of the theory is not sufficient in and of itself to explain the amount of biodiversity that exists in just 4ish billion years of Earth's existence.

I also did NOT say that the fact that evolution is a "theory" makes it untrue. In fact, I was making Cack's point, that a "scientific theory" is generally true. My point was in reference to an article criticising Mike Pence for referring to evolution as a "scientific theory," which he was exactly correct in doing. That doesn't mean he was denying evolution, it just means he was using the exact vernacular that biologists use.

Heisenberg was uncertain.

 

[Cackalacky]

Holy shit, you guys need to work on your reading comprehension.

I did NOT say that evolution is false or refuted or anything like that, simply that the current iteration of the theory is not sufficient in and of itself to explain the amount of biodiversity that exists in just 4ish billion years of Earth's existence.

I also did NOT say that the fact that evolution is a "theory" makes it untrue. In fact, I was making Cack's point, that a "scientific theory" is generally true. My point was in reference to an article criticising Mike Pence for referring to evolution as a "scientific theory," which he was exactly correct in doing. That doesn't mean he was denying evolution, it just means he was using the exact vernacular that biologists use.

Darwinian evolution also does dick to explain the origin of life itself, so there's that.

Alright.... based on your last sentence (evolution was not nor is intended to explain the ORIGIN of life... so there is that ...By saying this its clear to me you do not know what evolution is or what it does and does not explain. People Like Pence prey on on people like you by casting doubt where there is none becasue it doesnt conform to their rigid belief system). I dont know if I should do this as I dont really think you want to know these things so I am uncertain if I should waste my time responding but I will go against my better judgement hoping you do learn something. I will post that in a separate thread.

 

[wizards8507]

Alright.... based on your last sentence (evolution was not nor is intended to explain the ORIGIN of life... so there is that ...By saying this its clear to me you do not know what evolution is or what it does and does not explain. People Like Pence prey on on people like you by casting doubt where there is none becasue it doesnt conform to their rigid belief system). I dont know if I should do this as I dont really think you want to know these things so I am uncertain if I should waste my time responding but I will go against my better judgement hoping you do learn something. I will post that in a separate thread.

Don't waste your time. I understand evolution. Very well. And I AGREE WITH IT. My issues with the theory are not that any part of it is wrong but that it's simply incomplete. I 100% agree with the biology but I have problems with the math. 4.5 billion years just isn't enough time for 1) life to form from the primordial ooze and 2) modern complex organisms to come into existence through genetic mutation alone.

 

[Cackalacky]

Don't waste your time.

Spoken like a true Unpersaudable.

I understand evolution. Very well. And I AGREE WITH IT. My issues with the theory are not that any part of it is wrong but that it's simply incomplete.

You clearly dont. I am trying to help you. Here (Misconceptions about evolution) is a one-stop shop to address all of your misconceptions. I hope you will check it out. the apposite section says this:

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.

CORRECTION: This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories. While we don't know everything there is to know about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, does not yet explain everything we observe in the natural world. However, evolutionary theory does help us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), does make accurate predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life's diversity.

The ONLY well-supported explanation. Meaning, nothing comes close to the predictive and explanative powers of this theory. And it is not going anywhere. Its only going to be more well supported. Not sure what else it will take to convince someone. Usually at this point it is becasue the implications can't be easily assimilated. I am interested as to why you think its incompleteness in anyway a problem? Also what amount of evidence would it take to convince you?

I 100% agree with the biology but I have problems with the math. 4.5 billion years just isn't enough time for 1) life to form from the primordial ooze and 2) modern complex organisms to come into existence through genetic mutation alone.

How can you agree with something when you reject its basic tenement? There has been plenty of time for it to have happened. There’s plenty of time for evolution.



Further, mutation isnt the driving force of evolution. It isnt the only thing that acts on our genes Mechanisms of Change
We have directly observed evidence of anoles evolving over 20 generations.

Though it’s often portrayed as a process that takes place over thousands of years, under the right circumstances the evolution of enhanced traits in a species can occur with surprising speed. Exhibit A involves green anoles.

The only anole species native to the United States, these small lizards are typically found on or near the base of trees, where they feed largely on insects. When brown anoles were introduced to this country in the 1950s, these highly invasive lizards quickly began to crowd out the native species, and drove green anoles off the forest floor to higher perches.

Forced to move toward the treetops, a Harvard study found, over just 20 generations in 15 years the green anoles evolved larger toe pads equipped with more sticky scales to allow for better climbing. The study is described in an October 24 paper in the journal Science.

https://scitechdaily.com/rapid-fire-evolution-green-anoles/

Please tell me more about your disagreement with the math. I am interested in this disagreement and your explanation as to why its impossible (improbable), becasue it is a direct contradiction to literally all the evidence that supports evolution and I would like to see your evidence to object to it. I will make it even easier for you. For approximately 80% of the 4.5 billion years, there was only single cell life. Meaning that ALL complex life arose in the last 20% of time on this planet. Geology, Palenotology, Zoogeography, Cladistics, Genetics, Embryology, Virology, radiology, biochemistry all support the fact that life has diversified immensely since it first arose*** and exponentially since the last 900 million years.

 

[Irish#1]

Way down in the jungle deep
The badass lion stepped on the signifying monkey's feet
The monkey said, "Muthafucka, can't you see?
Why, you standing on my goddamned feet."
The lion said, "I ain't heard a word you said."
Said, "If you say three more I'll be steppin’ on your muthafuckin’ head!"

Now the monkey lived in the jungle in an old oak tree
Bullshitting the lion every day of the week
Well every day before the sun go down
The lion would kick his ass all through the jungle town
But the monkey got wise and started using his wit
Said, "I'm going to put a stop to this ol’ ass kicking shit!"

So he ran up on the lion the very next day
Said, "Oh Mr. Lion there's a big, bad muthafucka coming your way
And when you meet, it's gonna be a goddamn scene
And wherever you meet some ass is bound to bend."
Said, "he's somebody that you don't know
He just broke loose from Ringling Brothers’ show."

Said, "Baby, he talked about your people in a helluva way
He talked about your people ‘til my hair turned gray
He said your daddy's a freak and your momma's a whore
Said he spotted you running through the jungle
Selling asshole from door to door!

Said your sister did the damndest trick
She got down so low and sucked an earthworm's dick
He said he spotted your niece behind the tree
Screwing a muthafuckin flea
He said he saw your aunt sitting on the fence
Giving a goddamn zebra a French

Then he talked about your mammy and your sister Lou
Then he started talking ‘bout how good your grandma screw
Said your sister's a prostitute and your brother's a punk
And said I'll be damned if you don't eat all the pussy
You see every time you get drunk

He said he cornholed your uncle and fucked your aunty and your niece
And next time he see your grandma he gonna get him another good piece
He said your brother died with the whooping cough
And your uncle died with the measles
And your old grandpa died with a rag chunked up in his ass
Said he was going on home to Jesus

And you know your little sister that you love so dear
I fucked her all day for a bottle of beer
So Mr. Lion, you know that ain't right
So whenever you meet the elephant be ready to fight
So the lion jumped up in a helluva rage
Like a young cocksucker full of gage

He let out a roar, tail shot back like a .44
He went through the jungle knocking down trees
Kicking giraffes to their knees
Then he ran up on the elephant talking to the swine
Said, "All right you big, bad muthafucka, it's gonna be your ass or mine!"
The elephant looked at him outta the corner of his eye
Said, "Alright go ahead home you little funny-bunny muthafucka
And pick on somebody your own size.”

The lion jumped up and made a fancy pass
The elephant side-stepped him and kicked him dead in his ass
He busted up his jaw, fucked up his face
Broke all four legs, snatched his ass outta place
He picked him up, slammed him to the tree
Nothin’ but lion shit as far as you could see

He pulled out his nuts, rolled ‘em in the sand
And kicked his ass like a natural man
They fought all that night and all the next day
Somehow the lion managed to get away
But he drug his ass back to the jungle more dead than alive
Just to run into that little monkey with some more of his signifying jive

The monkey looked at ‘em and said, "Goddamn! Ol’ partner
You don't look so swell." Said, "Look like to me you caught a whole lotta hell."
Said, "Your eyes is all red and your asshole is blue
I knew in the beginning it wasn't shit to you
There's one thing you and me gotta get straight
Cause you one ugly cocksucker I sho’ do hate!”

“Now when you left, the jungle rung
Now you bring your dog ass back here damn near hung
Look muthafucka, ain't you a bitch
Your face look like you got the Seven Year Itch
I told my wife before you left
I should kicked your ass my muthafuckin’ self!”

“Why I seen when he threw you into that tree
Cause some of that ol’ lion shit got on me
Why every night when me and my wife is trying to get a little bit
Here you come ‘round here with some that old ‘Aiee-yo’ shit
Shut up! Don't you roar!
Cause I'll bail outta this tree and whoop your dog-ass some more!”

“And don't look up here with your sucka-paw case
Cause I'll piss through the bark of this tree in your muthafuckin’ face!”
The little monkey got happy, started to jump up and down
His feet missed the limb and his ass hit the ground
Like a streak of lighting and a ball of white heat
That lion was on his ass with all four feet

Dust rolled and tears came into the little monkey's eyes
The little monkey said, "Look Mr. Lion, I apologize!"
Said, "If you let me get my nuts out the sand
Why I'll fight your ass like a natural man
Look muthafucka, ain't you a bitch, you ain't raising no hell
Cause everybody saw you jump on me after I slipped and fell.”
Said, "If you'll fight like men should
I'd whoop yo’ ass all over these woods!"

This made the lion mad!
It was the boldest challenge he ever had
He squared off for the fight
But that little monkey jumped damn near outta sight
Landed way up in a banana tree and began to grin
Sayin’, "Look here you big, bad muthafucka, you been bullshitted again!”

Said, “Why, I'll take me one of these bananas
And whoop on your ass ‘til it sings the Star-Spangled Banner!"
And said, "Now if you ever mess with me again
I'm gonna send you back to my elephant friend!"
Said, "The things I told you will never part
But what I'm gonna tell you now is gonna break your muthafuckin’ heart!"

Said, “Your mammy ain't no good and your sister's been a whore."
Said, "I had that bitch on the corner for a year or more!"
But the lion looked up with a helluva frown
Roared so loud that little monkey fell back to the ground
The little monkey looked up and said "Please, Mr. Lion!
Please don't take my life ‘cause I got 13 kids and a very sickly wife!"

Said, "All my money to you I'll give
Mr. Lion, please just let me live!"
But the lion kicked him in his ass and broke his neck
Left that little monkey in a helluva wreck
The monkey looked up to the sky with tears in his eyes
Nothin’ he could see or nothing he could hear
He knew that that was the end
Of his bulllshittin’ and signifyin’ career

Signifying career…

-Rudy Ray Moore

??????????

 

[wizards8507]

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.

CORRECTION: This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress.

Okay professor, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I did not say "evolutionary theory is invalid," nor did Mike Pence for that matter. I said it's incomplete, i.e. "a work in progress," i.e. exactly the thing your cutesy little Q&A article states.

You keep trying to start an argument based on the idea that I'm denying evolution. I've never said any such thing.

Mechanisms of Change

The problem with these examples is that they presuppose that beetles have always existed and that different populations of what we call beetles have always been sexually compatible with one another. Something somewhere was the first thing in all of history we'd classify as "beetle." Beetle-0's parents would be some kind of not-quite beetle. Mutation is the only of those four processes that can create something entirely new. With three billion base pairs in human DNA, the odds of random genetic mutation in that code rendering something useful (and thus allowing the natural selection mechanism to kick in) is remarkably small. Not only does the mutation have to be useful, it has to be so useful that it yields differential reproduction, i.e. makes more babies.

 

[Cackalacky]

Ok lets go back to what you really said. Mike Pence is a Evolution denier.He does not accept it. Simple. As such he tries to discredit it by casting doubt among those who dont know the science. Typical ploy recently promoted by fundamentalists and creationists who try to interject religion into science classes.

Evolution IS just a theory, just like general relativity and Newton's second law of motion.

.
SO.... when you say "Evolution IS just a theory" in response to a post about Pence I understand tha tto mean you think it lacks some explainative power, when in reality it IS the answer to diversity of life. It explains it all and in great detail and from multiple lines of evidence. Nothing explains this or has the predictive power of Evolution.

You then say Newtons Second law of motion is a theory which is incorrect. A law does not have the power, breadth or depth of a Scientific Theory. So, based on this post it appears to me that you are mischaracterizing "Theory" becasue you equate a law to a Scientific Theory, which is very innaccurate.

"Scientific theory" is different than the vernacular use of the term.

Yes this is true. However in light of your earlier statement this is confusing.

Do some research on "irreducibly complex systems." Fascinating stuff. Basically, Darwinian evolution only works if each incremental mutation confers a benefit on the organism. But a complex system cannot spontaneously come into existence through a single mutation and the mathematics break down when you need many complimentary mutations to occur at the same time.

In other words, Darwinian evolution is legit but the math says it can't be the whole story.

This post is what really shows that you don't understand. There isn't anything in here that is valid. Irriducible complexity is not a thing. Its not supported by anything. It doesnt occur and it doesnt explain anything. It is a made up word by Micahel Behe by a Creationist Think Tank called the Discovery institute. Their main goal is to interject creationism into science classes. He testified in a court in Kitzmiller v Dover. The Creationists lost as it was ruled to be religious indoctrination with no scientific credibility.

Complex systems dont arise spontaneously. There is not one scientist who does biology that claims this is true. Complex systems arise from previous systems and are re-purposed due to evolution. The bacteria flaggellum is a perfect example of descent with modification. The eye is a perfect example of descent with modification. I dont even know what you are talking about regarding that mathematics of spontaneous evolution. Scientifically speaking this is a word salad.

Darwinian evolution didnt and couldnt explain what we know today. One would expect that. He described possible errors in his theory. He described possible sources of evidence to void his hypothesis. Luckily we have the modern synthesis and lo and behold everyone of his predictions has been verified and then some. Items that could nullify his hypothesis have never been found (quite the opposite really). So, again I dont know what you are getting at here other than exhibiting a clear misunderstanding of what it you are posting about.

Okay professor, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I did not say "evolutionary theory is invalid," nor did Mike Pence for that matter. I said it's incomplete, i.e. "a work in progress," i.e. exactly the thing your cutesy little Q&A article states.

You keep trying to start an argument based on the idea that I'm denying evolution. I've never said any such thing.

That is not what you are saying. The fact that you deny the time it occurred over, apparently support Pence's stance on it, and mention mind-numbing canards like IC clearly indicate a misunderstanding. I doubt you accept it given these evidences as how can you?

 

[wizards8507]

Ok lets go back to what you really said. Mike Pence is a Evolution denier.He does not accept it. Simple. As such he tries to discredit it by casting doubt among those who dont know the science. Typical ploy recently promoted by fundamentalists and creationists who try to interject religion into science classes.
.
SO.... when you say "Evolution IS just a theory" in response to a post about Pence I understand tha tto mean you think it lacks some explainative power, when in reality it IS the answer to diversity of life. It explains it all and in great detail and from multiple lines of evidence. Nothing explains this or has the predictive power of Evolution.

You then say Newtons Second law of motion is a theory which is incorrect. A law does not have the power, breadth or depth of a Scientific Theory. So, based on this post it appears to me that you are mischaracterizing "Theory" becasue you equate a law to a Scientific Theory, which is very innaccurate.

Yes this is true. However in light of your earlier statement this is confusing.

This post is what really shows that you don't understand. There isn't anything in here that is valid. Irriducible complexity is not a thing. Its not supported by anything. It doesnt occur and it doesnt explain anything. It is a made up word by Micahel Behe by a Creationist Think Tank called the Discovery institute. Their main goal is to interject creationism into science classes. He testified in a court in Kitzmiller v Dover. The Creationists lost as it was ruled to be religious indoctrination with no scientific credibility.

Complex systems dont arise spontaneously. There is not one scientist who does biology that claims this is true. Complex systems arise from previous systems and are re-purposed due to evolution. The bacteria flaggellum is a perfect example of descent with modification. The eye is a perfect example of descent with modification. I dont even know what you are talking about regarding that mathematics of spontaneous evolution. Scientifically speaking this is a word salad.

Darwinian evolution didnt and couldnt explain what we know today. One would expect that. He described possible errors in his theory. He described possible sources of evidence to void his hypothesis. Luckily we have the modern synthesis and lo and behold everyone of his predictions has been verified and then some. Items that could nullify his hypothesis have never been found (quite the opposite really). So, again I dont know what you are getting at here other than exhibiting a clear misunderstanding of what it you are posting about.

That is not what you are saying. The fact that you deny the time it occurred over, apparently support Pence's stance on it, and mention mind-numbing canards like IC clearly indicate a misunderstanding. I doubt you accept it given these evidences as how can you?

1. I have no idea what Pence believes. Haven't looked into it because it doesn't matter to me. Literally the only thing I commented on was his use of the word "theory."

2. You keep attacking Michael Behe like he's some hack. He's not. He has an Ivy League Ph.D. in biochemistry.

3. Even if Behe was a hack, so what? That's like me saying "Al Gore is a fucknut so climate change definitely isn't real."

4. Know who came up with the idea of irreducibly complex systems? Charles Darwin. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

[Cackalacky]

The problem with these examples is that they presuppose that beetles have always existed and that different populations of what we call beetles have always been sexually compatible with one another.

NOPE! Beetles have not always existed. It doesnt state that as a premise at all!
Here is a cladogram for the diversity of beetles. They share a common ancestor with many other largely diverse insect groups. Insects evolved from a group of crustaceans.

Coleoptera Beetles are one of the most diversified organisms on the planet and they are most definitely not compatible with each other as there are numerous species that dont and cant interbreed..

Something somewhere was the first thing in all of history we'd classify as "beetle." Beetle-0's parents would be some kind of not-quite beetle. Mutation is the only of those four processes that can create something entirely new. With three billion base pairs in human DNA, the odds of random genetic mutation in that code rendering something useful (and thus allowing the natural selection mechanism to kick in) is remarkably small. Not only does the mutation have to be useful, it has to be so useful that it yields differential reproduction, i.e. makes more babies.

Nope. None of this is true. Natural selection (non-random), gene flow (more specifically barriers to gene flow), and mutation (random) all contribute to speciation and development of what you call "something new". Mutation rates vary as do their effect as do their results. Most mutations are not deleterious or beneficial but neutral. They dont have to be useful. Many are not at first. Some are re-purposed due to natural selection. Some of copied and mistranslated, gene flow can accentuate errors and mutations....

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Okay professor, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I did not say "evolutionary theory is invalid," nor did Mike Pence for that matter. I said it's incomplete, i.e. "a work in progress," i.e. exactly the thing your cutesy little Q&A article states.

You keep trying to start an argument based on the idea that I'm denying evolution. I've never said any such thing.


The problem with these examples is that they presuppose that beetles have always existed and that different populations of what we call beetles have always been sexually compatible with one another. Something somewhere was the first thing in all of history we'd classify as "beetle." Beetle-0's parents would be some kind of not-quite beetle. Mutation is the only of those four processes that can create something entirely new. With three billion base pairs in human DNA, the odds of random genetic mutation in that code rendering something useful (and thus allowing the natural selection mechanism to kick in) is remarkably small. Not only does the mutation have to be useful, it has to be so useful that it yields differential reproduction, i.e. makes more babies.

Not as a primary actor. Anything that makes us more fit for our environment will add to the opportunities for reproduction or we could produce same number of babies who can outcompete or find/develop novel solutions to stay alive.

Let's hypothesize a world with a "chaos level" of 14 on average, with random fluctuations usually accounting for +- 7. Let's say the chaos level grows by .000001 every year. If the average animal of my species has developed a level 15 "chaos tolerance" and my genetic mutation increases my kins "chaos tolerance" to 17, my kins genetic profile is more likely to be passed on.

This increases the likelihood of my genetic profile growing through the species because over long swaths of time, the likelihood of it mattering that a 17 > 15 inevitably goes to 1.

 

[Cackalacky]

1. I have no idea what Pence believes. Haven't looked into it because it doesn't matter to me. Literally the only thing I commented on was his use of the word "theory."

which you apparently dont understand

2. You keep attacking Michael Behe like he's some hack. He's not. He has an Ivy League Ph.D. in biochemistry.

and he is quite literally a hack. He has zero credibility based on his testimony in the Dover trail. His work is consistently refuted. Kenneth Miller destroyed him on the stand and in the science community. What have you been reading? Also as we have seen with Ben Carson, being a brain surgeon doesn't mean you are intelligent.

4. Know who came up with the idea of irreducibly complex systems? Charles Darwin. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Now we are quote mining Darwin, just like Behe did.... hmmm. He didnt call it that. It was a limitation in his reasoning that he observed but he stated he could not find any. Through the modern synthesis we know that complex systems arise in multiple manners with multiple purposes which are mutable and re-usable.

Quote #1 If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.

Context This passage, in Darwin’s hand, comes from chapter 6 (p. 189) of On the Origin of Species (1859, Murray: London), “Difficulties on theory,” in a section where he covers organs of extreme perfection. Immediately following the quoted passage, Darwin wrote: “But I can find out no such case.” This is a perfect example of quote-mining in which a sentence immediately following a passage that works for creationist purposes (to make Darwin seem like he doubts his own theory or idea) is simply not shown.

 

[wizards8507]

Not as a primary actor. Anything that makes us more fit for our environment will add to the opportunities for reproduction or we could produce same number of babies who can outcompete or find/develop novel solutions to stay alive.

It amounts to the same thing, it's just a few generations down the line, i.e. I have the same number of babies but my babies are exceptionally fit and/or sexy. Depending on the size of the initial population, the novel mutation of a single individual must truly be a whopper if that individual's gene pool is going to promulgate throughout an entire species (or create a viable new one).

Most random mutation is useless, can we agree on that? And complex useful things come to be when a bunch of random simple useless shit comes together and is useful as a system, can we agree on that too? Good. Now, what mechanism causes the useless shit to stick around from generation to generation when we all agree it isn't worth a damn on its own and it's going to take several (hundreds? thousands?) generations for the complementary useless shit to come around and make a system?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

It amounts to the same thing, it's just a few generations down the line, i.e. I have the same number of babies but my babies are exceptionally fit and/or sexy. Depending on the size of the initial population, the novel mutation of a single individual must truly be a whopper if that individual's gene pool is going to promulgate throughout an entire species (or create a viable new one).

Most random mutation is useless, can we agree on that? And complex useful things come to be when a bunch of random simple useless shit comes together and is useful as a system, can we agree on that too? Good. Now, what mechanism causes the useless shit to stick around from generation to generation when we all agree it isn't worth a damn on its own and it's going to take several (hundreds? thousands?) generations for the complementary useless shit to come around and make a system?

To the first bolded: It doesn't have to be a whopper if it confers a small advantage over time. The mutation could result in a different amino acid (can happen from a single base pair mutation) that more successfully binds a needed molecule.

As to the underlined word, I think you meant proliferate.

Most random mutation is useless, yes. Complex useful things are brought about by a culmination of simpler useful things, yes. I don't understand your logic? You think a complex system has to all of sudden function? A complex system can be many simpler systems that are functioning and conferring advantage and eventually work synergistically. They don't have to be completely useless then one day a single mutation results in a kidney.

 

[NorthDakota]

Regarding science, I let the Church sift through it.

Evolution is chill apparently.

 

[wizards8507]

Most random mutation is useless, yes. Complex useful things are brought about by a culmination of simpler useful things, yes. I don't understand your logic? You think a complex system has to all of sudden function? A complex system can be many simpler systems that are functioning and conferring advantage and eventually work synergistically. They don't have to be completely useless then one day a single mutation results in a kidney.

No, I'm not saying it needs to all of a sudden function. But until it's useful, it doesn't do the organism any good in terms of survival or reproduction. It's not like one individual's mutation is suddenly present the entire population, only in that individual's offspring. And whatever the odds of the initial mutation happening, the odds of a complimentary mutation are compounded exponentially.

Example: You need Mutation X and Mutation Y to develop Useful Trait Z.
Odds of Mutation X are 1 in 1 million. Odds of Mutation Y are 1 in 1 million.
Thus, odds of developing Useful Trait Z are 1 in 1 trillion (1 million^2)

Blow that out for complex systems that require tens, hundreds, thousands of incremental mutations to fully form and it grows exponentially.

 

[Bishop2b5]

It amounts to the same thing, it's just a few generations down the line, i.e. I have the same number of babies but my babies are exceptionally fit and/or sexy. Depending on the size of the initial population, the novel mutation of a single individual must truly be a whopper if that individual's gene pool is going to promulgate throughout an entire species (or create a viable new one).

Most random mutation is useless, can we agree on that? And complex useful things come to be when a bunch of random simple useless shit comes together and is useful as a system, can we agree on that too? Good. Now, what mechanism causes the useless shit to stick around from generation to generation when we all agree it isn't worth a damn on its own and it's going to take several (hundreds? thousands?) generations for the complementary useless shit to come around and make a system?

I'll take a stab at this for you, Wiz. First, the bolded in your statement above is not quite accurate. The vast majority of random mutations are indeed useless or even harmful. However, it's rarely if ever the case that an accumulation of these produces a useful trait or system. Instead, what happens is that thousands of mutations arise by chance, 99.9999% of them do harm or do no good, but that tiny, tiny percentage that does confers an advantage, sometimes ever so slight, upon its owner. It doesn't have to confer a huge advantage or produce a dramatic, major advantage or change. It's enough to produce a very slight advantage. Even if that advantage only gives it and its descendants a .01 greater chance of survival, that starts to add up over the generations until this new advantage becomes prevalent in the population.

The large changes, major advances, and other dramatic differences we see in species are not a result of random, useless mutations coming together to form a useful system. Those useless or harmful mutations get weeded completely out. They're the result of countless small changes that were useful. It's sort of like putting a small amount of money in a savings account. It may only earn a small amount of interest, but given enough time, that starts to add up.

 

[wizards8507]

I'll take a stab at this for you, Wiz. First, the bolded in your statement above is not quite accurate. The vast majority of random mutations are indeed useless or even harmful. However, it's rarely if ever the case that an accumulation of these produces a useful trait or system. Instead, what happens is that thousands of mutations arise by chance, 99.9999% of them do harm or do no good, but that tiny, tiny percentage that does confers an advantage, sometimes ever so slight, upon its owner. It doesn't have to confer a huge advantage or produce a dramatic, major advantage or change. It's enough to produce a very slight advantage. Even if that advantage only gives it and its descendants a .01 greater chance of survival, that starts to add up over the generations until this new advantage becomes prevalent in the population.

The large changes, major advances, and other dramatic differences we see in species are not a result of random, useless mutations coming together to form a useful system. Those useless or harmful mutations get weeded completely out. They're the result of countless small changes that were useful. It's sort of like putting a small amount of money in a savings account. It may only earn a small amount of interest, but given enough time, that starts to add up.

I understand and agree with all of this, maybe I didn't articulate it in this way. When I said "system," I don't mean something as complex as "the human circulatory system." I meant in the strictly mechanical sense of the term "system," as in "connected things that work together."

Again, my issue is not the biology, it's time. I know you were just being rhetorical but you used terms like "vast majority," "99.9999%," and ".01 greater chance of survival." To get to the current state of biodiversity that we see today, I think those 99.9999% and .01s get compounded to the point where a few billion years just isn't enough time. Once again, I'm not making a single claim about biology. I'm strictly talking probability and statistics. Even Cack's sources acknowledge that evolution is a working theory that continues to develop and change as we learn more.

 

[Cackalacky]

No, I'm not saying it needs to all of a sudden function. But until it's useful, it doesn't do the organism any good in terms of survival or reproduction. It's not like one individual's mutation is suddenly present the entire population, only in that individual's offspring. And whatever the odds of the initial mutation happening, the odds of a complimentary mutation are compounded exponentially.

Example: You need Mutation X and Mutation Y to develop Useful Trait Z.
Odds of Mutation X are 1 in 1 million. Odds of Mutation Y are 1 in 1 million.
Thus, odds of developing Useful Trait Z are 1 in 1 trillion (1 million^2)

Blow that out for complex systems that require tens, hundreds, thousands of incremental mutations to fully form and it grows exponentially.

This is so wrong I cant even.... and I won't.

I apologize profusely to the board.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

This is so wrong I cant even.... and I won't.

I apologize profusely to the board.

Word. Wiz, I don't really know how to untangle that but I'll suggest broadening your understanding of systems. They are non-linear, sometimes stochastic, sometimes complementary, sometimes synergistic, sometimes deleterious and cumulative.

You seem to understand the basic bio 101 stuff but you may need to better understand the micro to appreciate the macro. This isn't an ad hominem.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Cack: from an old Catholic Science prof who taught about "Natural Selection" (the better phrasing to use here as it carves away all the screwed up ignorances of what science research has really been about), I praise your patience in this thread, and say that not only is your view the view of the Vatican but the view of myself following their lead. I would like to just briefly mention two other things (well known by both general biological science and Catholic scientists) of relevance:

1). you can see the mechanism by which Natural Selection creates new species in simpler life forms right in the field and in the lab (it MUST be the simpler ones wherein we see it precisely, because Natural Selection takes several generations to spread useful variations --- this fact allows deniers to object that big complicated creatures with slow reproductive rates have not been so scientifically demonstrated, so "evolution" is "just a theory" and therefore shouldn't be taught in the classroom --- the kind of thing Pence believes.) (we HAVE come darn close however due to our intense imitation of Nature with our stock-breeding.) Since the Natural Selection process for big beasts will always have to have involved multiple accumulating genetic accidents over centuries, the simplistic "proof" is buried palaeontologically. This is fortunate for deniers but not for good sense nor truth, as they will always be able to indulge their religious needs --- let's be clear when talking about this: almost no deniers give a damm about whales or gorillas or tigers, just "us." When you get this ferocity of denial, it is from two causes: a]. lack of enough faith that the Creator waits for His Created Laws to develop a proper physical vehicle before inserting the Soul (this is current Catholic scientific theology), and b]. the misbehavior of "scientistic" biology instructors who go materialist reductionist in front of the classroom by stating that what you see in physical evolution is all there is. Both extremists are wrong, and ferocious about their "religions", thus science and truth suffer.

2). every knowledgeable researcher in the biogenesis field sees huge quantities of data which points to the concept that the simplest forms of life (single-cells) are mind-bogglingly quick to occur. Evidences for Life Formation on our planet is seen WAY back near the beginning of the forming of the Earth and just after it would have cooled down. The myriad "pot-experiments" involving simple gaseous chemicals plus inorganic matrices and forces like heat, electricity, UV, all show rapid complexification of these simple compounds and the consequent formation of the units of proteins and nucleic acids, plus other life-important stuff. I personally own two meteorites which contain these substances, apparently formed in space. If anyone was actually knowledgeable about arguing the denying side of this, they'd never try to build a case out of the initial origin of life issue, but rather the origin of multicellular life --- THAT is apparently the time-constrained step. But once THAT trick is accomplished, the pace of advancing life and divergent forms is dizzying (geologically speaking.)

Anyway, Cack, hats off to you. (I know how irritating these threads get.)

 

[zelezo vlk]

Well said, OMM

 

[Old Man Mike]

Along the line of Veritate's sage remark: Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel by showing the mathematical reasons why the development of more complex life from simpler is REQUIRED by natural law.

"Any Self-Organizing perturbable system will, if repetitively perturbed, reorganize itself to take the perturbation into account." ---- roughly Prigogine's words indicating simplistic systems' inevitable reaching of low-disturbance or survival structuring of their flexible natures in order to come into harmony with their environments. ---- this at the end of a LOT of math and reasoning. (which, once seen, becomes one of those "ah-ha naturally!! moments.)

 

[woolybug25]

Walks in: "Wiz still in here making an ass of himself?"

Crowd: "yup"

Walks out

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Walks in: "Wiz still in here making an ass of himself?"

Crowd: "yup"

Walks out

 

[Irish#1]

Cack: from an old Catholic Science prof who taught about "Natural Selection" (the better phrasing to use here as it carves away all the screwed up ignorances of what science research has really been about), I praise your patience in this thread, and say that not only is your view the view of the Vatican but the view of myself following their lead. I would like to just briefly mention two other things (well known by both general biological science and Catholic scientists) of relevance:

1). you can see the mechanism by which Natural Selection creates new species in simpler life forms right in the field and in the lab (it MUST be the simpler ones wherein we see it precisely, because Natural Selection takes several generations to spread useful variations --- this fact allows deniers to object that big complicated creatures with slow reproductive rates have not been so scientifically demonstrated, so "evolution" is "just a theory" and therefore shouldn't be taught in the classroom --- the kind of thing Pence believes.) (we HAVE come darn close however due to our intense imitation of Nature with our stock-breeding.) Since the Natural Selection process for big beasts will always have to have involved multiple accumulating genetic accidents over centuries, the simplistic "proof" is buried palaeontologically. This is fortunate for deniers but not for good sense nor truth, as they will always be able to indulge their religious needs --- let's be clear when talking about this: almost no deniers give a damm about whales or gorillas or tigers, just "us." When you get this ferocity of denial, it is from two causes: a]. lack of enough faith that the Creator waits for His Created Laws to develop a proper physical vehicle before inserting the Soul (this is current Catholic scientific theology), and b]. the misbehavior of "scientistic" biology instructors who go materialist reductionist in front of the classroom by stating that what you see in physical evolution is all there is. Both extremists are wrong, and ferocious about their "religions", thus science and truth suffer.

2). every knowledgeable researcher in the biogenesis field sees huge quantities of data which points to the concept that the simplest forms of life (single-cells) are mind-bogglingly quick to occur. Evidences for Life Formation on our planet is seen WAY back near the beginning of the forming of the Earth and just after it would have cooled down. The myriad "pot-experiments" involving simple gaseous chemicals plus inorganic matrices and forces like heat, electricity, UV, all show rapid complexification of these simple compounds and the consequent formation of the units of proteins and nucleic acids, plus other life-important stuff. I personally own two meteorites which contain these substances, apparently formed in space. If anyone was actually knowledgeable about arguing the denying side of this, they'd never try to build a case out of the initial origin of life issue, but rather the origin of multicellular life --- THAT is apparently the time-constrained step. But once THAT trick is accomplished, the pace of advancing life and divergent forms is dizzying (geologically speaking.)

Anyway, Cack, hats off to you. (I know how irritating these threads get.)

Call me impressed.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Along the line of Veritate's sage remark: Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel by showing the mathematical reasons why the development of more complex life from simpler is REQUIRED by natural law.

"Any Self-Organizing perturbable system will, if repetitively perturbed, reorganize itself to take the perturbation into account." ---- roughly Prigogine's words indicating simplistic systems' inevitable reaching of low-disturbance or survival structuring of their flexible natures in order to come into harmony with their environments. ---- this at the end of a LOT of math and reasoning. (which, once seen, becomes one of those "ah-ha naturally!! moments.)

It's funny you should mention that, you were the one who suggested I read Ilya Prigogine so I purchased "The End of Certainty" and had a terribly difficult time slogging through it. His understanding and interweaving of concepts made me feel like a gorilla just learning sign language.

At some point, I'll read "Order out of Chaos" but I hope I'm up to it mentally.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Veritate: It's a tough slog indeed --- for me included. But lots of guys brighter than I appear to thoroughly understand it, and I at least can understand the simplified version.

Ironically, sometimes to understand the frontiers of science you need a little faith.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I understand and agree with all of this, maybe I didn't articulate it in this way. When I said "system," I don't mean something as complex as "the human circulatory system." I meant in the strictly mechanical sense of the term "system," as in "connected things that work together."

Again, my issue is not the biology, it's time. I know you were just being rhetorical but you used terms like "vast majority," "99.9999%," and ".01 greater chance of survival." To get to the current state of biodiversity that we see today, I think those 99.9999% and .01s get compounded to the point where a few billion years just isn't enough time. Once again, I'm not making a single claim about biology. I'm strictly talking probability and statistics. Even Cack's sources acknowledge that evolution is a working theory that continues to develop and change as we learn more.

No, I'm not saying it needs to all of a sudden function. But until it's useful, it doesn't do the organism any good in terms of survival or reproduction. It's not like one individual's mutation is suddenly present the entire population, only in that individual's offspring. And whatever the odds of the initial mutation happening, the odds of a complimentary mutation are compounded exponentially.

Example: You need Mutation X and Mutation Y to develop Useful Trait Z.
Odds of Mutation X are 1 in 1 million. Odds of Mutation Y are 1 in 1 million.
Thus, odds of developing Useful Trait Z are 1 in 1 trillion (1 million^2)

Blow that out for complex systems that require tens, hundreds, thousands of incremental mutations to fully form and it grows exponentially.

Wiz, I understand your concerns about whether there's been enough time for many of the changes & speciation we see to occur. Given that life has been around on our planet for about 3.7 billion years, complex life for more than 500 million, the rate at which mutations occur and can accumulate, and that most organisms reproduce at a rather rapid rate with way more offspring than can or will survive, there's been plenty of time and opportunity for all the variety we see and some.

Some major changes in behavior and morphology occur rather slowly as a slow steady buildup of small changes. Many, maybe even most, occur when a population is put under extreme stress from a change in their environment (new diseases, new opportunities, changing food sources, major changes in climate, contact with new competition or predators, etc.) and are forced to adapt very quickly or die. In those cases, we usually see an explosion (relatively speaking) of new varieties, new species, and even whole new families soon arise. The changes come relatively quickly, often within just a few thousand years.

As for your "Mutation X and Mutation Y to develop Useful Trait Z" comment, that's not really how it works. You're thinking about it as though it's just one animal who would need to be lucky enough to win the lottery twice, or at least win it once and it's offspring in the next few generations win it again. Here's how it actually works. Mutation X occurs and it's that 1 in a million mutation that's slightly helpful (not a rare thing given that most species are producing millions of offspring every year or few years). Even if it confers only a 1% survival or reproductive advantage, it only takes a few hundred generations until this helpful mutation has become the norm in the entire population. Then when mutation Y occurs, mutation X is already there in the entire population for it to act upon. You don't need a 1 in a trillion chance to get to useful trait Z. You need a 1 in a million chance that has millions of organisms to occur in, followed by all their millions of surviving offspring to have another 1 in a million mutation, and so on. In other words, this sort of thing is extraordinarily likely to occur given all the opportunities, millions of offspring, and acting over the course of hundreds or thousands of generations.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Since this fellow Behe's name was thrown out here as an important player in this issue (and since I've been retired 17 years and don't even want to keep up with every little thing) I felt it interesting enough to look him up.

He is indeed a good biochemist and a researcher on insects --- good reputation. He believes that his work indicates that there aren't enough unit animals to account for the number of mutations necessary to evolve functional forms in all the diversity that we see them. Therefore his deduction is that God is guiding the entire ecology microbes, mosquitoes (one of his areas of expertise), and mammals to produce the amount of functional forms over and above what accident might allow. This is quite debatable of course, and Behe cannot honestly state that his work is anywhere sufficient to allow him to create statistical arguments about mutations, mutational clusters, macrophysical changes, or time guesses.

So, he falls into the Intelligent Design camp, but in an odd way. He believes that God has a constant hand in all of this, but is doing so in a peculiarly slow and covert way (My guess:so as not to demonstrate His existence too clearly and therefore damage the free choice environment for free will?) Whatever he's doing, the conservative religious community has finally found out that Behe believes in a multibillion year old Earth, an early development of life, AND AN EARTH ECOLOGY ENTIRELY BASED UPON A SINGLE ANCESTRAL LIFE ORIGIN --- including the human body. As one commentator wrote: "Michael Behe is no friend to Bible-believing Christians."