Re: Evolution Is Religion, Not Science
al...@westserv.net.au
Jack Dominey wrote:
> Followups set to talk.origins, sci.skeptic
>
> In <1124769419.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "alen"
> <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Punctuated equilibrium is just a term that indicates
> >that the genesis of new species is not fully understood.
> >It points to the equilibrium, but throws no light on
> >the 'punctuation', which remains as mysterious as ever.
>
> False. When Gould and Eldredge introduced the concept over 30 years
> ago, they discussed two specific cases where the transition from
> species A to species B could be shown in a restricted area, followed
> by the geologically "sudden" replacement of A by B over the entire
> range.
>
> This also gives the lie to the assertion that evidence of speciation
> does not exist.
I wasn't intending to deny punctuated equilibrium,
and am quite happy to accept evidence for it, or
for continuous evolution, or a mixture of both.
What I meant to say was that the ultimate, underlying
causal basis for the development of complex living
organisms, by whatever method, remains a mystery.
Alen
Alfred A. Aburto Jr.
Yes. How did the first elementary "lifeforms" develop? How did DNA
develop? There are many questions yet to be answered. In science however
one does not claim an intelligent designer or God as the developer, at
least not at first if ever ...
>
> Alen
>
Ross Langerak
<al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1124980641.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection. If that
mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then natural selection,
acting on that mutation, will favor that increase in complexity. Complexity
evolves because the mutations that resulted in that complexity also produced
advantageous adaptations.
alen
Ross Langerak wrote:
> > What I meant to say was that the ultimate, underlying
> > causal basis for the development of complex living
> > organisms, by whatever method, remains a mystery.
>
> If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
> offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection. If that
> mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then natural selection,
> acting on that mutation, will favor that increase in complexity. Complexity
> evolves because the mutations that resulted in that complexity also produced
> advantageous adaptations.
The problem is the 'if'. Random mutation will be
virtually always destructive, because the destructive
alternatives are astronomically more numerous than
the constructive ones. Natural selection cannot
compensate for that, since the entities doing the
selecting are themselves mutating, which means that
there is no global selecting principle operating on
them all as a whole, but a random principle only.
To say, therefore, that the whole could evolve via
natural selection is like saying you can lift yourself
by your own bootstraps.
The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
be random in nature.
Alen
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
> to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> be random in nature.
Nature is random. Its basic laws are quantum theoretical.
Bob Kolker
Noone Inparticular
alen wrote:
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
> > > What I meant to say was that the ultimate, underlying
> > > causal basis for the development of complex living
> > > organisms, by whatever method, remains a mystery.
> >
> > If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
> > offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection. If that
> > mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then natural selection,
> > acting on that mutation, will favor that increase in complexity. Complexity
> > evolves because the mutations that resulted in that complexity also produced
> > advantageous adaptations.
>
> The problem is the 'if'. Random mutation will be
> virtually always destructive, because the destructive
> alternatives are astronomically more numerous than
> the constructive ones.
This is false. Most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness. It
is true that in comparison to mutations which improve fitness,
mutations which are less fit do occur more frequently, but less fit
does NOT equal destructive.
> Natural selection cannot
> compensate for that, since the entities doing the
> selecting are themselves mutating, which means that
> there is no global selecting principle operating on
> them all as a whole, but a random principle only.
Populations evolve, not individuals. You have got this backwards.
> To say, therefore, that the whole could evolve via
> natural selection is like saying you can lift yourself
> by your own bootstraps.
Your premise is false and thus so is your conclusion.
>
> The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
> to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> be random in nature.
The diversity of life is not driven by mutation. Mutation is the raw
material used by several mechanisms to derive the diversity we see. One
of these mechanisms is called natural selection. Natural selection is a
phrase which describes a non-random process. This is why the word
"selection" appears in it.
>
> Alen
manut...@yahoo.com
alen wrote:
> The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
> to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> be random in nature.
Exactly. The problem with objecting to the supposedly destructive
nature of "random" mutations is that it is based on misconceptions
about what it means for mutations to be "random." Mutations aren't
like a craftsman carefully placing a tiny detail *just so*, but neither
are they like a tornado in a junkyard flinging who-knows-what around
who-knows-where. Mutations are changes that in one sense happen
unpredictably but in another sense happen within predictable limits,
according to predictable mechanisms and processes, and with somewhat
predictable results (subject to limitations on how well we understand
the inner workings of biology). They're not really "random" in the
popular sense at all.
m
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
>
>>>What I meant to say was that the ultimate, underlying
>>>causal basis for the development of complex living
>>>organisms, by whatever method, remains a mystery.
>>
>>If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
>>offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection. If that
>>mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then natural selection,
>>acting on that mutation, will favor that increase in complexity. Complexity
>>evolves because the mutations that resulted in that complexity also produced
>>advantageous adaptations.
>
>
> The problem is the 'if'. Random mutation will be
> virtually always destructive, because the destructive
> alternatives are astronomically more numerous than
> the constructive ones.
15%, primarily attributed to genetic defects in the fetus. Lethal
mutations don't contribute much to the equation, because they don't tend
to come to term.
Consider the enormity of that percentage. Even if you believe that the
ratio of harmful to benefical mutations is 1000 to 1 (a dramatic
overestimate), that would mean that 1 baby in 6500 is born with a
beneficial mutation. That's a lot of mutants out there.
KWW
Noone Inparticular
Yes. But permit me to try to make this a bit clearer.
The word "random" as someone else on T.O. has pointed out recently, is
some times sloppily applied. In this case when a biologist uses the
term "random mutation" it means only one thing; that mutations occur
without respect for their utility. This is what I think you meant in
your last sentence.
It does NOT mean that they occur "randomly";
- in the genome -not true as there are known prefered site and prefered
nucleotides.
- in sequence -not true as some mutations increase the likelihood of
others occuring.
- with respect to site -not true, different nucleotides can mutate at
different rates.
- with respect to mutatgen -not true as some mutatgens are
environmental, some biological and most result in *specific*
("non-random") mutations.
The history and diversity of life owes a great deal to "random"
processes, including the occasional comet/asteroid strike, volcanic
eruption, glacial age, etc. Also genetic drift, a "random" process
itself, is likely the major factor in driving diversity (for at least
some species).
But let's be clear about what we mean when we use the words "mutation"
and "random" in the same sentence. Mutations occur without respect to
their utility - this is what is meant by "random mutation".
>
> m
R. Tang
alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
>Ross Langerak wrote:
>
>> > What I meant to say was that the ultimate, underlying
>> > causal basis for the development of complex living
>> > organisms, by whatever method, remains a mystery.
>>
>> If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
>> offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection. If that
>> mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then natural selection,
>> acting on that mutation, will favor that increase in complexity. Complexity
>> evolves because the mutations that resulted in that complexity also produced
>> advantageous adaptations.
>
>The problem is the 'if'. Random mutation will be
>virtually always destructive, because the destructive
>alternatives are astronomically more numerous than
>the constructive ones.
This is, of course, dead wrong.
Try again?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Ken Shackleton
Ultimate, underlying causal basis??? You mean like string theory? Oh I
get it.....you mean God!
>
> Alen
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The diversity of life is not driven by mutation. Mutation is the raw
> material used by several mechanisms to derive the diversity we see. One
> of these mechanisms is called natural selection. Natural selection is a
> phrase which describes a non-random process. This is why the word
> "selection" appears in it.
The word selection implies intent or consciousness. I prefer natural
filtering/sorting. A potatoe grading machine sorts/filters out potatoes
by size without a scintilla of conciousness.
Bob Kolker
Noone Inparticular
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Noone Inparticular wrote:
> >
> > The diversity of life is not driven by mutation. Mutation is the raw
> > material used by several mechanisms to derive the diversity we see. One
> > of these mechanisms is called natural selection. Natural selection is a
> > phrase which describes a non-random process. This is why the word
> > "selection" appears in it.
>
> The word selection implies intent or consciousness.
Yes, alone it does. But that's why the modifier "natural" is there; to
make the very distinction you do. It is there precisely to indicate
that no conscious process is doing the selecting.
Jim Willemin
news:1125070316.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
>> offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection.
>> If that mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then
>> natural selection, acting on that mutation, will favor that increase
>> in complexity. Complexity evolves because the mutations that
>> resulted in that complexity also produced advantageous adaptations.
>
> The problem is the 'if'. Random mutation will be
> virtually always destructive, because the destructive
> alternatives are astronomically more numerous than
> the constructive ones. Natural selection cannot
> compensate for that, since the entities doing the
> selecting are themselves mutating, which means that
> there is no global selecting principle operating on
> them all as a whole, but a random principle only.
> To say, therefore, that the whole could evolve via
> natural selection is like saying you can lift yourself
> by your own bootstraps.
>
> The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
> to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> be random in nature.
>
I have three comments. First, so what if the destructive mutations are
"astronomically" more numerous? (By the way, do we have the knowledge to
calculate that rigorously and accurately?) There are *LOTS* of
individuals of any given species in any given generation. Consider
humans. Homo sapiens has been around for at least 100,000 years, right?
During that time, how many infants have been born with fatal congenital
'birth defects'? Lots? How many infants have bee born with non-fatal
'birth defects'? Lots more? (Me, I was born with the last joint of both
little fingers bent towards the middle finger at about 45 degrees in the
plane of the hand. I can't play the piano or guitar easily, but I can
become an ancestor quite nicely, thanks very much.) Of those with non-
fatal mutations, how many of those traits would be strongly positive
under strong environmental stress, like being slightly stronger, or
slightly faster, or a better sense of smell, or have more nimble fingers
or stronger teeth or such? Random mutations are NOT "virtually always
destructive". All you need to do is to look at the vairability in any
population to see that. I think your argument fails without showing that
a population cannot sustain the loss of individuals due to non-viable
mutations.
Secondly, you do not seem to understand about natural selection - it is
NOT a random process, nor is it mediated only by the population of
reproducing critters. Natural selection is, in fact, a global selecting
principle. Natural selection includes the effects of environmental
factors outside the control of organisms - climate, disease,
introduction of new predators or prey or flora or toxins - these
environmental factors affect the entire evolving population and provide
exactly the sort of global screen required to foster the spread of new
traits in a population through reproduction.
Finally, if we accept for the sake of argument that complexity is the
result of non-random mutations, what kind of physical mechanism do you
envision for the creation of complexity? Just how is mutation guided?
What forces act to cause a deletion *here* or duplication *there*? How
are those forces guided? In how many individuals is a specific mutation
required simultaneously? All those is a reproductively isolated
community? Half of them? Two? One? Or do entire genomes poof into
existence? Does a fish egg hatch a frog? (Please note that this is the
least invasive way for a Designer to introduce new species - everything
else involves major suspension of physical law.)
alen
I don't start with the assumption that actual mutation
is largely destructive. I say that IF it is a random
process it MUST be overwhelmingly destructive and, if it
is not, it CANNOT be random. Why? Because a complex
organism is, of its nature, maximally asymmetrical,
whereas random patterns always display a lack of
asymmetry, like a handful of marbles dropped from a
height will always tend to scatter in all directions
roughly equally, and will never display the directional
asymmetry of a straight line, for example. Thus, a
random principle could never create 'designed' components
of a mechanism.
> Secondly, you do not seem to understand about natural selection - it is
> NOT a random process, nor is it mediated only by the population of
> reproducing critters. Natural selection is, in fact, a global selecting
> principle. Natural selection includes the effects of environmental
> factors outside the control of organisms - climate, disease,
> introduction of new predators or prey or flora or toxins - these
> environmental factors affect the entire evolving population and provide
> exactly the sort of global screen required to foster the spread of new
> traits in a population through reproduction.
The natural environment might act as some kind of
primitive selecting principle, but it does not contain
sufficient information to 'design' a population of
highly complex four-footed organisms, for example.
> Finally, if we accept for the sake of argument that complexity is the
> result of non-random mutations, what kind of physical mechanism do you
> envision for the creation of complexity? Just how is mutation guided?
> What forces act to cause a deletion *here* or duplication *there*? How
> are those forces guided? In how many individuals is a specific mutation
> required simultaneously? All those is a reproductively isolated
> community? Half of them? Two? One? Or do entire genomes poof into
> existence? Does a fish egg hatch a frog? (Please note that this is the
> least invasive way for a Designer to introduce new species - everything
> else involves major suspension of physical law.)
It doesn't matter how the mutation is restricted or
guided, because the agrument establishes that it MUST
be so, or the observed results would be impossible.
Thus, HOW it happens is a question that requires
investigation but THAT it happens is nevertheless certain.
Alen
alen
The argument is that if beneficial mutations ever
become effective, the underling mutation process cannot
be wholly random.
Alen
alen
Noone Inparticular wrote:
> > The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
> > to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> > be random in nature.
>
> The diversity of life is not driven by mutation. Mutation is the raw
> material used by several mechanisms to derive the diversity we see. One
> of these mechanisms is called natural selection. Natural selection is a
> phrase which describes a non-random process. This is why the word
> "selection" appears in it.
Yes, and if such selection is so sophisticated
that it can produce a complex, functioning mechanism,
it has to be the work of the equivalent of some kind
of design engineer, or it would produce only a
most crude and minimally asymmetrical, non-mechanistic
primitive 'diversity'.
Alen
alen
If it is, it can never produce a
mechanism of any kind
Alen
alen
Yes, I agree
Alen
george
Just thought I'd put a lot of fact into the header
Ross Langerak
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1125070316.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
> > > What I meant to say was that the ultimate, underlying
> > > causal basis for the development of complex living
> > > organisms, by whatever method, remains a mystery.
> >
> > If a mutation results in an increase in a species ability to produce
> > offspring, then that mutation will be favored by natural selection. If
that
> > mutation also produces an increase in complexity, then natural
selection,
> > acting on that mutation, will favor that increase in complexity.
Complexity
> > evolves because the mutations that resulted in that complexity also
produced
> > advantageous adaptations.
>
> The problem is the 'if'. Random mutation will be
> virtually always destructive,
Actually, most mutations are neutral. Genes carry the code to build
proteins. Many mutations have no effect on the amino acid sequence of the
protein it produces. Many more mutations have no effect on the function of
the protein. The amino acid sequence for hemoglobin varies greatly between
species. Obviously, there are many mutations have no effect on the function
of hemoglobin in particular, and proteins in general.
Deleterious mutations will be removed by natural selection, leaving the
genetic makeup of the population the same as it was before the mutation.
On those occasions when a beneficial mutation occurs, natural selection will
tend to favor that mutation.
> because the destructive
> alternatives are astronomically more numerous than
> the constructive ones.
How do you know this? What is the ratio of deleterious to beneficial
mutations?
> Natural selection cannot
> compensate for that, since the entities doing the
> selecting are themselves mutating, which means that
> there is no global selecting principle operating on
> them all as a whole, but a random principle only.
Mutations occur within an individual within a population. If a deleterious
mutation occurs, that individual is removed by natural selection and
breeding replaces it with an unaltered copy. The result is as if the
deleterious mutation never happened.
> To say, therefore, that the whole could evolve via
> natural selection is like saying you can lift yourself
> by your own bootstraps.
Actually, it's more like playing a hand of poker. The order of the cards in
the deck is random, but by discarding the cards you don't like, and
replacing them with cards from the deck, you can improve your hand.
Evolution progresses in much the same way. As deleterious mutations occur,
natural selection removes them from the population. When an advantageous
mutation occurs, natural selection tends to favor it and it spreads through
the population.
> The only possibility is that, if mutation gives rise
> to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> be random in nature.
A more likely explanation is that natural selection, acting on random
mutations, sometimes produces complex organisms. If an increase in
complexity is the result of an advantageous adaptation, then natural
selection will favor it.
Noone Inparticular
Good grief Alen, this makes no sense at all. You're just making this
shit up, man. I know I am not alone (I couldn't care less even if I
was), but I am sick and tired of know nothings claiming that the
knowledge I have gained through years of close study and long hours of
hard and often unsuccessful work can be so blithely dismissed.
Personally, I think you're a troll. Few creationists are able to post
more than two or three posts before condemning us heathens to the fires
of hell. You have not yet done it, so I figure you are just rattling
our cages.
I'm not impressed.
> Alen
Bob
let me be the first to ask:
why?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> The argument is that if beneficial mutations ever
> become effective, the underling mutation process cannot
> be wholly random.
The mutation process can be random. Natural selection/filtration is not.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> I don't start with the assumption that actual mutation
> is largely destructive. I say that IF it is a random
> process it MUST be overwhelmingly destructive and, if it
> is not, it CANNOT be random.
We only get to see the results of mutations and crossovers that are
survivable. Natural selection is what produces the assymmetry.
Toss a bag of potatoes of random sizes into a potatoe grading machine.
Isn't it amazing how the potatoes that come out the bottom are all
almost the same size?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Yes, and if such selection is so sophisticated
> that it can produce a complex, functioning mechanism,
> it has to be the work of the equivalent of some kind
> of design engineer, or it would produce only a
> most crude and minimally asymmetrical, non-mechanistic
> primitive 'diversity'.
Tell me sport, is a potating grading machine intelligent? Yet is spills
out potatoes of the same size at the bottom.
Is a ratchet and pawl intelligent? No. But it only permits motions in a
certain direction. Do I see intelligence at operation there? Or is it
simply the natural laws of mechanics at work?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> If it is, it can never produce a
> mechanism of any kind
Yes it can. It produced you. The outcome of quantum interactions (i.e.
observations) have known probabilities.
Bob Kolker
alen
Yes, but what sort of a 'grading machine' could
produce complex, living organisms like we see?
What sort of a 'grading machine' produced the
internal combustion engine? A design engineer
in a workshop or lab.
Alen
Jim Willemin
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
OK. In 1994 two folks from Lund University in Sweden published a paper
showing one possible pathway for the development of the vertebrate eye
from a simple patch of light-sensitive cells using nothing but small-
scale chenges and natural selection:
Nilsson, D.E., and Pelger, S., 1994, A pessimistic estimate of the time
required for an eye to evolve, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 22:256
(1345), pp. 53-58.
Now, it seems to me that Nilsson and Pelger have shown that just such
increase in complexity is possible through selection acting on variation.
Is it necessary to establish similar possible pathways for all organs and
features of all living things before you accept that complexity can
increase essentially without bound using long sequences of gradual
changes mediated by selection? What would it take to convince you?
Dana Tweedy
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> alen wrote:
>> > I don't start with the assumption that actual mutation
>> > is largely destructive. I say that IF it is a random
>> > process it MUST be overwhelmingly destructive and, if it
>> > is not, it CANNOT be random.
>>
>> We only get to see the results of mutations and crossovers that are
>> survivable. Natural selection is what produces the assymmetry.
>>
>> Toss a bag of potatoes of random sizes into a potatoe grading machine.
>> Isn't it amazing how the potatoes that come out the bottom are all
>> almost the same size?
>>
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>
> Yes, but what sort of a 'grading machine' could
> produce complex, living organisms like we see?
Natural Selection, acting on random variation in a population of reproducing
organisms.
> What sort of a 'grading machine' produced the
> internal combustion engine?
Internal combustion engines don't reproduce.
> A design engineer
> in a workshop or lab.
That's how human beings design objects. Extending the analogy to natural
processes doesn't work.
DJT
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Yes, but what sort of a 'grading machine' could
> produce complex, living organisms like we see?
A highly complex grading machine. Or a simple grading machine that has
several billions of years to do its thing.
> What sort of a 'grading machine' produced the
> internal combustion engine? A design engineer
> in a workshop or lab.
No. But a 15 billion year plus natural process produced the human
beings who produced the internal combustion engine.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> increase essentially without bound using long sequences of gradual
> changes mediated by selection? What would it take to convince you?
Trying to convince a creationist is like pissing up a rope. Difficult
and messy.
Bob Kolker
Kevin Wayne Williams
> become effective, the underling mutation process cannot
> be wholly random.
>
KWW
Stephen Poley
>Yes, but what sort of a 'grading machine' could
>produce complex, living organisms like we see?
A complex ecosystem.
--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
alen
Jim Willemin wrote:
> > Yes, but what sort of a 'grading machine' could
> > produce complex, living organisms like we see?
> > What sort of a 'grading machine' produced the
> > internal combustion engine? A design engineer
> > in a workshop or lab.
> >
> > Alen
> >
>
> OK. In 1994 two folks from Lund University in Sweden published a paper
> showing one possible pathway for the development of the vertebrate eye
> from a simple patch of light-sensitive cells using nothing but small-
> scale chenges and natural selection:
>
> Nilsson, D.E., and Pelger, S., 1994, A pessimistic estimate of the time
> required for an eye to evolve, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 22:256
> (1345), pp. 53-58.
>
> Now, it seems to me that Nilsson and Pelger have shown that just such
> increase in complexity is possible through selection acting on variation.
> Is it necessary to establish similar possible pathways for all organs and
> features of all living things before you accept that complexity can
> increase essentially without bound using long sequences of gradual
> changes mediated by selection? What would it take to convince you?
Nothing I have said contradicts any of this. I have
never argued that a mechanism like the vertebrate
eye did not evolve. Nor have I argued against the
principle of selection acting on variation. What I
have said has to do only with the underlying nature
of 'variation'; i.e. whether or not it expresses a
random principle. I say that, if it is random,
external selection cannot produce the increase in
complexity. Only if the variation is not random, but
itself operates in a substantially selective manner,
can the mechanism evolve. The external selection
plays a part, but cannot be sufficient of itself
in the face of a random principle, which must always
be overwhelmingly destructive.
I say that the conflict between a fundamentally
anti-asymmetric random principle and the asymmetry
intrinsic to 'design' is fundamental and independent
of all other considerations, and can be regarded as
having the quality of a theorem.
Alen
alen
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > Yes, but what sort of a 'grading machine' could
> > produce complex, living organisms like we see?
>
> Natural Selection, acting on random variation in a population of reproducing
> organisms.
>
> > What sort of a 'grading machine' produced the
> > internal combustion engine?
>
> Internal combustion engines don't reproduce.
>
> > A design engineer
> > in a workshop or lab.
>
> That's how human beings design objects. Extending the analogy to natural
> processes doesn't work.
>
>
> DJT
I was merely intending to point out that there
is a vast, qualitative, difference between the
result produced by a simple grading machine
and the nature of any kind of a working 'mechanism'
Alen
Ross Langerak
When a mutation occurs, it will produce either a decrease in complexity, an
increase in complexity, or no change in complexity. No particular random
mutation is going to be any more or less likely than any other. So why are
you ruling out just the increases in complexity as random?
> Only if the variation is not random, but
> itself operates in a substantially selective manner,
> can the mechanism evolve.
The mutations are random. Natural selection is selective. If an increase
in complexity is advantageous, then natural selection will favor it.
> The external selection
> plays a part, but cannot be sufficient of itself
> in the face of a random principle, which must always
> be overwhelmingly destructive.
Natural selection deletes the destructive mutations. When they are gone,
the population will be the same as it was before the mutation occurred.
However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, natural selection will favor it,
and it will spread through the population. If an increase in complexity is
advantageous, then natural selection will favor it and it will spread
through the population. The only time the population will change, is when a
beneficial mutation occurs.
[snip]
Jim Willemin
news:1125203368....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
--<snip>
>
> Nothing I have said contradicts any of this. I have
> never argued that a mechanism like the vertebrate
> eye did not evolve. Nor have I argued against the
> principle of selection acting on variation. What I
> have said has to do only with the underlying nature
> of 'variation'; i.e. whether or not it expresses a
> random principle. I say that, if it is random,
> external selection cannot produce the increase in
> complexity. Only if the variation is not random, but
> itself operates in a substantially selective manner,
> can the mechanism evolve. The external selection
> plays a part, but cannot be sufficient of itself
> in the face of a random principle, which must always
> be overwhelmingly destructive.
>
The overwhelming numbers of individuals with destructive mutations die
before or just after birth. That leaves a surviving population of
infants with neutral or positive mutations. (This is one reason critters
tend to have *lots* of babies - those critters whose reproductive rate is
unable to support the culling of destructive mutations disappear pretty
quickly). Anyhow, miscarriage, stillbirth, and infant mortality result
in a population in which the surviving mutations are non-lethal to
beneficial. It seems to me that natural selection has already changed
the original random distribution significantly, before we even really get
started on the road to differential reproductive success. Do you have a
problem with this so far? Or is the non-lethal to beneficial variation
among the surviving infants the "initially non-random variation" you were
postulating?
> I say that the conflict between a fundamentally
> anti-asymmetric random principle and the asymmetry
> intrinsic to 'design' is fundamental and independent
> of all other considerations, and can be regarded as
> having the quality of a theorem.
>
> Alen
>
OK. You are claiming that selection is unable to generate asymmetry from
a population showing random variation. You claim this as a theorem.
Theorems demand rigorous proof. Can you prove it rigorously? It seems to
me that you are presently arguing from incredulity. Alternatively, what
would you accept as a valid counterexample?
alen
I agree that many destructive mutations will not survive,
but that leaves an alternative other than only 'neutral
or positive' mutations. In my view, there would also be
slightly negative mutations that would be able to survive,
along with those too poorly adapted to survive. The intrinsic
nature of a random principle, which always works to degrade
any structure, would ensure that the number of slightly
negative mutations would always be far more numerous than
the positive ones, which would hardly ever appear, if at
all. Thus a whole species would become progressively
degraded towards extinction by the progressive appearance of
all sorts of slightly less well adapted mutations, with
the relative absence of positive ones. I think that
something like this would happen, but the fundamental
argument is that a random principle is always overwhelmingly
biased in a destructive direction.
> > I say that the conflict between a fundamentally
> > anti-asymmetric random principle and the asymmetry
> > intrinsic to 'design' is fundamental and independent
> > of all other considerations, and can be regarded as
> > having the quality of a theorem.
> >
> > Alen
> >
>
> OK. You are claiming that selection is unable to generate asymmetry from
> a population showing random variation. You claim this as a theorem.
> Theorems demand rigorous proof. Can you prove it rigorously? It seems to
> me that you are presently arguing from incredulity. Alternatively, what
> would you accept as a valid counterexample?
No, I can't prove it rigorously, which is why I said
no more than that it has the 'quality' of a theorem,
which I think it has. I don't know whether or not it
could be made into an actual theorem.
Alen
alen
Ross Langerak wrote:
> When a mutation occurs, it will produce either a decrease in complexity, an
> increase in complexity, or no change in complexity. No particular random
> mutation is going to be any more or less likely than any other. So why are
> you ruling out just the increases in complexity as random?
I think a decrease in complexity is always more
likely because the number of negative possibilities
is so much larger.
> > Only if the variation is not random, but
> > itself operates in a substantially selective manner,
> > can the mechanism evolve.
>
> The mutations are random. Natural selection is selective. If an increase
> in complexity is advantageous, then natural selection will favor it.
>
> > The external selection
> > plays a part, but cannot be sufficient of itself
> > in the face of a random principle, which must always
> > be overwhelmingly destructive.
>
> Natural selection deletes the destructive mutations. When they are gone,
> the population will be the same as it was before the mutation occurred.
> However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, natural selection will favor it,
> and it will spread through the population. If an increase in complexity is
> advantageous, then natural selection will favor it and it will spread
> through the population. The only time the population will change, is when a
> beneficial mutation occurs.
>
> [snip]
I say that the idea that natural selection deletes
all the destructive mutations is too perfect to be
real. Natural selection will be unable to eliminate
especially all the only slightly disadvantageous
mutations, because there will be so many of them,
of so many different kinds. And I think that these
would then gradually create a progressive decline,
because they will be overwhelmingly more numerous
than beneficial mutations. However, if mutations
themselves are already biased in a beneficial
direction, such a problem won't arise.
Alen
Kevin Wayne Williams
I think you need to ponder exponentiation. Let's take a very simple
example: three kinds of bacteria, with a variation on only 1 gene. That
variation makes bacteria type A reproduce, on the average, .9999
descendants in one generation, bacteria type B reproduce, on the
average, 1.0000 per descendants per generation, and type C produce
1.0001 descendants per generation.
Start with a million bacteria of each type. In 100 generations, you have
990,050 of type A, 1,000,000 of type B, and 1,010,050 of type C. In 1000
generations, you have 904,833 of type A, still 1,000,000 of type B, and
1,105,165 of type C. In ten thousand generations, C has dwindled to
367,861 individuals, while A has grown to 2,718,145 individuals. That
trival reproduction difference has allowed C to grow to 8 times the
population of A. You don't need guidance to allow beneficial mutations
to dominate a population ... you just need time.
That was for trivial differences. If it was more significant, i.e., A's
chances for reproduction are .99 instead of .9999, then the population
shift is even more dramatic: A would have dwindled to 366,000 members in
only 100 generations. At .9, 100 generations would result in extinction.
Your general fear of degradation isn't silly. Reducing this kind of
problem is one of the advantages of sexual reproduction. It's a fair bet
that nobody has a perfectly clean genetic bill of health: somewhere in
each of us is a gene that is either lethal or has a negative impact on
our reproductive capability. If we had only one copy of our genes and
reproduced asexually, those errors would cause problems. Sexual
reproduction compensates: as long as you get one decent copy of the
gene, you are a healthy organism. Sexual reproduction tends to slow the
spread of beneficial mutations, but compensates by mitigating the
effects of deleterious mutation.
I don't know how to model it, but I would be willing to bet that there
is some level of "complexity" in a genetic structure where asexual
reproduction does result in the systematic degradation of the organism
over time. If someone can point me at a good paper on the topic, I would
appreciate it.
KWW
Jim Willemin
news:1125238739.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Jim Willemin wrote:
---[snip]
>> The overwhelming numbers of individuals with destructive mutations
>> die before or just after birth. That leaves a surviving population
>> of infants with neutral or positive mutations. (This is one reason
>> critters tend to have *lots* of babies - those critters whose
>> reproductive rate is unable to support the culling of destructive
>> mutations disappear pretty quickly). Anyhow, miscarriage,
>> stillbirth, and infant mortality result in a population in which the
>> surviving mutations are non-lethal to beneficial. It seems to me
>> that natural selection has already changed the original random
>> distribution significantly, before we even really get started on the
>> road to differential reproductive success. Do you have a problem
>> with this so far? Or is the non-lethal to beneficial variation among
>> the surviving infants the "initially non-random variation" you were
>> postulating?
>
> I agree that many destructive mutations will not survive,
> but that leaves an alternative other than only 'neutral
> or positive' mutations. In my view, there would also be
> slightly negative mutations that would be able to survive,
> along with those too poorly adapted to survive. The intrinsic
> nature of a random principle, which always works to degrade
> any structure, would ensure that the number of slightly
> negative mutations would always be far more numerous than
> the positive ones, which would hardly ever appear, if at
> all.
It seems to me that no individual is perfectly adapted to its
environment, especially since environmental change (which is pretty
constant) keeps moving the goalposts of perfection. Given this, and
given that there can be quite a bit of variation between individuals that
get by just fine, it seems to me that in this context your claim that
minor random change degrades fitness is spurious. There is a LOT of room
in the acceptable range of variation, and I don't see anything in that
range as being 'degraded'. I think you are making a false dichotomy
between 'positive' and 'negative': once you get rid of the lethal
mutations, you have a pretty big set of neutral mutations - ones that
neither aid nor hinder one's becoming an ancestor. My own bent little
fingers and webbed middle toes are mutations which certainly do not
affect my ability to be an ancestor - while the purist may consider them
defects and negative departures from the human ideal,the fact is that my
family life is quite fine, thanks. These mutations are reproductively
neutral until a change in environment gives bent little fingers some
advantage. It isn't easy to see how bent little fingers could be
strongly negative reproductive traits. Anyhow, besides, one
envirionment's degradation is another environment's positive mutation
(consider differences in skin melanin content in humans, for example).
The point is, I just don't buy your assertion that random mutation always
degrades the genome in the sense of making individuals measurably less
apt to be ancestors. There is just too much room in the acceptable
variation bin.
>Thus a whole species would become progressively
> degraded towards extinction by the progressive appearance of
> all sorts of slightly less well adapted mutations, with
> the relative absence of positive ones. I think that
> something like this would happen, but the fundamental
> argument is that a random principle is always overwhelmingly
> biased in a destructive direction.
From what ideal would a whole species be progressively degraded? A
parent species which was ill-adapted to thrive in a changed environment?
It seems to me such 'degradation' leads to adaptive variation. Remember,
a species is not formed from nothing, springing perfectly formed from the
dust of the earth. Rather, a species springs from another species
through adaptation to meet changing environmental conditions - the
existing genome is not optimal for new conditions. Changes which may be
negative in one context may be positive in another (consider the famous
peppered moth, or the Galapagos finches). Sorry, Alen, it has taken
some writing for me to clarify my thoughts here, but I really just don't
buy your premises - I think your model is way too dichotomous, and I
don't think you appreciate or account for acceptable variation or
concurrent environmental change.
>
>
>> > I say that the conflict between a fundamentally
>> > anti-asymmetric random principle and the asymmetry
>> > intrinsic to 'design' is fundamental and independent
>> > of all other considerations, and can be regarded as
>> > having the quality of a theorem.
>> >
>> > Alen
>> >
>>
>> OK. You are claiming that selection is unable to generate asymmetry
>> from a population showing random variation. You claim this as a
>> theorem. Theorems demand rigorous proof. Can you prove it rigorously?
>> It seems to me that you are presently arguing from incredulity.
>> Alternatively, what would you accept as a valid counterexample?
>
> No, I can't prove it rigorously, which is why I said
> no more than that it has the 'quality' of a theorem,
> which I think it has. I don't know whether or not it
> could be made into an actual theorem.
>
OK, what would you accept as a valid counterexample? One powerful method
of proof in mathematics is to assume one's assertion is false, then argue
to a contradiction - the reducito ad absurdum. What absurdities are we
forced to accept if we assume that natural selection is able to generate
arbitrary complexity from random variation acting on a population through
many generations? Can you demonstrate any without invoking incredulity?
Ross Langerak
>
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
> > When a mutation occurs, it will produce either a decrease in complexity,
an
> > increase in complexity, or no change in complexity. No particular
random
> > mutation is going to be any more or less likely than any other. So why
are
> > you ruling out just the increases in complexity as random?
>
> I think a decrease in complexity is always more
> likely because the number of negative possibilities
> is so much larger.
If you look at some of my previous posts, you will see that I repeatedly
stress that natural selection favors advantageous mutations. Complexity is
irrelevant. An mutation could produce and increase or a decrease or no
change in the complexity of the organism, but the complexity could have
nothing to do with the utility of the mutation. So, even if the number of
negative possibilities is much larger, that doesn't necessarily mean that
those mutations decrease complexity.
Obviously, there are different levels of deleterious mutations. I assume
you would agree that any mutation that immediately kills an organism will be
immediately removed from the population. The same is true for any mutation
that keeps an organism from reproducing.
Mutations that result in a significant disadvantage will also soon
disappear. If an organism has difficulty competing for food, it will not be
able to feed itself, let alone provide for offspring. Members of the
population that are better adapted will crowd it out of existence.
But what of a mutation that is only slightly deleterious? It is always
possible that a slightly bad mutation might manage to hold on. It could get
paired with an advantageous mutation and survive for a while. However, even
a slightly deleterious mutation won't spread significantly through a
population, whereas beneficial mutations will. There is a possibility that
a few slightly deleterious mutations may persist, but as the number of
advantageous mutations increases, most slightly deleterious mutations will
become significant, and will be removed from the population.
> because there will be so many of them,
> of so many different kinds.
What percentage of a population, in each generation, will have a significant
mutation, either good or bad? 50%? 10%? 1%? If most mutations are bad,
then I suspect any species would have a hard time replacing half of its
population every generation. However, it would not be so difficult to
replace 1-in-10 if they were removed by natural selection, and it might even
be easy to replace 1-in-100. As long as the rate of significant mutations
is not too high, then natural selection can remove the deleterious ones.
Even if most of the mutations are bad, natural selection will still be
effective.
> And I think that these
> would then gradually create a progressive decline,
> because they will be overwhelmingly more numerous
> than beneficial mutations.
As we've seen above, it isn't the ratio of good to bad mutations that is
critical, but the percentage of bad mutations in each generation that might
be a problem for natural selection. As long as they aren't too numerous,
natural selection can remove them while still preserving advantageous
mutations.
> However, if mutations
> themselves are already biased in a beneficial
> direction, such a problem won't arise.
This problem also won't arise if the percentage of deleterious mutations in
each generation is not too high.
Longfellow
I suggest that there is a fundamental fallacy in your argument. You're
talking about probabilities, and what actually happens is only a
function of the local forces in each case. The considerations you cite
are observed and apparent, but they're the result of an aggregate of
events, not the events themselves. How likely a given event is may be
determined, but not whether or not it can take place at all.
What happens is that chaos determines that the parameters that guide any
discernable aggregate will change in ultimately unpredictable ways.
Part of the forces of that change arise from within the aggregate, and
part of them arise from the external environment.
What you deem a factor of intelligence in design is, I think, the basic
principle of the stable/unstable state. A state is stable if it takes
more energy to disrupt it than it does to sustain it. Vice versa for
the unstable state. Nothing is said about scale. Consider this:
Simplicity/complexity is a judgment that arises from our own modular.
What we deem simple is complex from other views, and vice versa.
An intelligent design is one that has the quality of integrity, such
that it transduces relatively less energy into low grade heat. And that
is simply a stable state.
Does this make sense?
Longfellow
alen
Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Start with a million bacteria of each type. In 100 generations, you have
> 990,050 of type A, 1,000,000 of type B, and 1,010,050 of type C. In 1000
> generations, you have 904,833 of type A, still 1,000,000 of type B, and
> 1,105,165 of type C. In ten thousand generations, C has dwindled to
> 367,861 individuals, while A has grown to 2,718,145 individuals. That
> trival reproduction difference has allowed C to grow to 8 times the
> population of A. You don't need guidance to allow beneficial mutations
> to dominate a population ... you just need time.
>
> That was for trivial differences. If it was more significant, i.e., A's
> chances for reproduction are .99 instead of .9999, then the population
> shift is even more dramatic: A would have dwindled to 366,000 members in
> only 100 generations. At .9, 100 generations would result in extinction.
One has to say that, in practice, there is selection
that works since, otherwise, evolution would not exist.
The question is: what kind of selection? External only,
or internal also, within the genome itself? I think
that it must be both, whereas others think it can be
external only. The evidence doesn't give a definite
answer to this question.
Alen
alen
Ross Langerak wrote:
> But what of a mutation that is only slightly deleterious? It is always
> possible that a slightly bad mutation might manage to hold on. It could get
> paired with an advantageous mutation and survive for a while. However, even
> a slightly deleterious mutation won't spread significantly through a
> population, whereas beneficial mutations will. There is a possibility that
> a few slightly deleterious mutations may persist, but as the number of
> advantageous mutations increases, most slightly deleterious mutations will
> become significant, and will be removed from the population.
There are different scenarios like this that
one can try to envisage, and different people will
therefore come up with different scenarios they
think are most probable. I think that random
mutations would provide far fewer advantageous
variations than many other people do, and that,
therefore, there must already be a selection
effect programmed into the genome itself.
>
> > because there will be so many of them,
> > of so many different kinds.
>
> What percentage of a population, in each generation, will have a significant
> mutation, either good or bad? 50%? 10%? 1%? If most mutations are bad,
> then I suspect any species would have a hard time replacing half of its
> population every generation. However, it would not be so difficult to
> replace 1-in-10 if they were removed by natural selection, and it might even
> be easy to replace 1-in-100. As long as the rate of significant mutations
> is not too high, then natural selection can remove the deleterious ones.
> Even if most of the mutations are bad, natural selection will still be
> effective.
I have the view that a random principle is
so 'poisonous' that natural selection is far
too crude to control it.
> > And I think that these
> > would then gradually create a progressive decline,
> > because they will be overwhelmingly more numerous
> > than beneficial mutations.
>
> As we've seen above, it isn't the ratio of good to bad mutations that is
> critical, but the percentage of bad mutations in each generation that might
> be a problem for natural selection. As long as they aren't too numerous,
> natural selection can remove them while still preserving advantageous
> mutations.
Yes, and will they be too numerous, or not? That is
the question. Obviously, in reality, they are not,
but why? Because of external selection only, or is
there also an selection property acting on the process
of mutation itself?
Alen
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Agreed. My very nearsighted eyes are an example of deleterious genes (a
mutation at some point) which would not affect my gestation or birth at
all, nor infancy. But as a toddler and older hunter-gatherer, I would
have had a very dangerous time.
> The intrinsic
> nature of a random principle, which always works to degrade
> any structure, would ensure that the number of slightly
> negative mutations would always be far more numerous than
> the positive ones, which would hardly ever appear, if at
> all.
I suspect you're right, altho I'm not sure how to confirm this. Maybe
merely taking a survey of identifiable mutations in a known species.
There is danger, though, in assuming a certain mutation is destructive.
I can imagine circumstances in which the sickle-cell trait or white
skin could be seen as destructive, without understanding the advantages
they might have in other environments.
> Thus a whole species would become progressively
> degraded towards extinction by the progressive appearance of
> all sorts of slightly less well adapted mutations, with
> the relative absence of positive ones. I think that
> something like this would happen, but the fundamental
> argument is that a random principle is always overwhelmingly
> biased in a destructive direction.
Um, no. You've apparently forgotten a pseudomechanism called Natural
Selection. As my daughter pointed out to me and her mom, she would not
have been born a nearsighted hunter-gatherer, because her mom and I
would never have reached reproductive age. Destructive mutations, even
if born and healthy, would have a lower reproductive success rate, and
never spread through the genepool.
>
>
> > > I say that the conflict between a fundamentally
> > > anti-asymmetric random principle and the asymmetry
> > > intrinsic to 'design' is fundamental and independent
> > > of all other considerations, and can be regarded as
> > > having the quality of a theorem.
> > >
> > > Alen
> > >
> >
> > OK. You are claiming that selection is unable to generate asymmetry from
> > a population showing random variation. You claim this as a theorem.
> > Theorems demand rigorous proof. Can you prove it rigorously? It seems to
> > me that you are presently arguing from incredulity. Alternatively, what
> > would you accept as a valid counterexample?
>
> No, I can't prove it rigorously, which is why I said
> no more than that it has the 'quality' of a theorem,
> which I think it has. I don't know whether or not it
> could be made into an actual theorem.
>
> Alen
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
alen wrote:
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
> > When a mutation occurs, it will produce either a decrease in complexity, an
> > increase in complexity, or no change in complexity. No particular random
> > mutation is going to be any more or less likely than any other. So why are
> > you ruling out just the increases in complexity as random?
>
> I think a decrease in complexity is always more
> likely because the number of negative possibilities
> is so much larger.
Does it take less information (however you measure it) to grow my
nearsighted eyes?
And have you heard of the German superbaby? He's a toddler now, very
strong. He has a double dose of a mutant gene which normally produces a
substance called myostatin. Myostatin limits the growth of our skeletal
muscles. He is very strong, because his muscles grow without chemical
inhibition. There seem to be no ill effects from this. His mother is a
sprinter, and his grandfather was a laborer reknown for his strength.
There are a couple of strength athletes, unrelated, who also have a
single dose of this mutant gene. This may be a case of a beneficial
effect resulting from *less information in the DNA. I don't like to
talk about "information" in genes, because I suspect there is no simple
metric possible, with which to measure it. I am guessing that the
reason this particular mutation didn't spread throughout the species
long ago is because it requires more resources (i.e. food). Now that we
middle class apes have plenty of food, it may turn out to be a slight
advantage. "Hercules" may not have the reproductive advantage he might
have had a thousand or more years ago, however.
While I agree that most mutations would be destructive (most typos in a
newsgroup post do not improve readability), it is not clear that they
involve less information.
It seems obvious that I am more complex than a bacterium. It is not
obvious that I am more complex than lizard. Oh, my *brain is more
complicated. But a lizard has several sets of enzymes, each most
efficeinct at a narrow range of temperature. We endothermic critters
can get by with simpler biochemistry.
>
> > > Only if the variation is not random, but
> > > itself operates in a substantially selective manner,
> > > can the mechanism evolve.
> >
> > The mutations are random. Natural selection is selective. If an increase
> > in complexity is advantageous, then natural selection will favor it.
> >
> > > The external selection
> > > plays a part, but cannot be sufficient of itself
> > > in the face of a random principle, which must always
> > > be overwhelmingly destructive.
> >
> > Natural selection deletes the destructive mutations. When they are gone,
> > the population will be the same as it was before the mutation occurred.
> > However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, natural selection will favor it,
> > and it will spread through the population. If an increase in complexity is
> > advantageous, then natural selection will favor it and it will spread
> > through the population. The only time the population will change, is when a
> > beneficial mutation occurs.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> I say that the idea that natural selection deletes
> all the destructive mutations is too perfect to be
> real.
[...]
You find it unlikely that critters with inheritable disadvantages will
not reproduce as often?
> Natural selection will be unable to eliminate
> especially all the only slightly disadvantageous
> mutations, because there will be so many of them,
> of so many different kinds.
What would the variety matter? It's not like the environment gets
better with practice in deleting one particular delterious mutation.
And if the disadvantage is minor enough, we're talking about genetic
drift, not degeneration of some kind.
> And I think that these
> would then gradually create a progressive decline,
> because they will be overwhelmingly more numerous
> than beneficial mutations.
This is why most species have more babies than the environment can
support. These slightly deleterious mutations get weeded out. there
don't have to be more beneficial mutations. It need only be true that
the slightly disadvantageous mutations do not spread, because they do
not reproduce as successfully as normal genes for that trait. Remember,
the *normal genes for that trait will always greatly outnumber any
mutation for it. Only the beficial mutations would reproduce faster,
which would result in a spreading though the genepool.
> However, if mutations
> themselves are already biased in a beneficial
> direction, such a problem won't arise.
There is neither observed instances of this, nor any proposed mechanism
for it.
>
> Alen
Kermit
Kevin Wayne Williams
> I have the view that a random principle is
> so 'poisonous' that natural selection is far
> too crude to control it.
>
KWW\
Kevin Wayne Williams
> As my daughter pointed out to me and her mom, she would not
> have been born a nearsighted hunter-gatherer, because her mom and I
> would never have reached reproductive age.
I think you have this wrong. There really isn't a strong selection
pressure for 20/20 eyesight in a hunter/gatherer environment. It wasn't
until freeways invented that the ability to read signs at a great
distance was important.
It seems more a case of there not being a strong selection pressure for
quality vision, just for vision. If 20/20 vision had been extremely
important since the dawn of man, then we would probably have it.
KWW
alen
Jim Willemin wrote:
OK - I don't say that every deleterious mutation must
have a measurable effect. You could, for example,
randomly interchange the letters in the text of a book
for quite some time before it became unreadable, but
virtually every change would nevertheless be a degradation.
The word degradation, for example, could become degrzdation
or degradatizn, etc. without the word becoming meaningless
to a reader. But the degradation would be cumulative,
and eventually significantly harm the text. Likewise, you
could randomly move the positions of the molecules in a
mechanism before its operation began to be measurably
degraded by increases in friction or fracturing of small
parts of its components. If all components in the
biosphere were being constantly undermined by any such
random principle, the whole biosphere must eventually
be degraded and destroyed.
[...]
> >> OK. You are claiming that selection is unable to generate asymmetry
> >> from a population showing random variation. You claim this as a
> >> theorem. Theorems demand rigorous proof. Can you prove it rigorously?
> >> It seems to me that you are presently arguing from incredulity.
> >> Alternatively, what would you accept as a valid counterexample?
> >
> > No, I can't prove it rigorously, which is why I said
> > no more than that it has the 'quality' of a theorem,
> > which I think it has. I don't know whether or not it
> > could be made into an actual theorem.
> >
>
> OK, what would you accept as a valid counterexample? One powerful method
> of proof in mathematics is to assume one's assertion is false, then argue
> to a contradiction - the reducito ad absurdum. What absurdities are we
> forced to accept if we assume that natural selection is able to generate
> arbitrary complexity from random variation acting on a population through
> many generations? Can you demonstrate any without invoking incredulity?
Reducito ad absurdum is not so easy in arguments
involving improbability. When does an improbability
become an absurdity? Different people will judge
differently as to when to say:'that is too improbable
to be regarded as credible'
I have the view that there is a direct proportion,
as it were, between the degree of randomness and the
power of a selection principle needed to control it.
What is the most powerful selection principle we
have evidence of, by which I mean a principle with the
greatest ability to produce multi-faceted asymmetry?
Clearly, the deliberate choice of an intelligent
human being. No selection principle in nature comes
anywhere near it. I think that such a power of
selection is the only kind that can hope to control
the working of a fully random principle. Any natural
selection is, I would say, inferior in the extreme,
even qualitatively so, leading to the view that
mutation successfully controlled by natural
selection cannot be held to operate in a random manner.
Is this any kind of proof? No - more like a postulate.
I don't accept that this argument is merely invoking
incredulity. If this accusation can be made, then the
other view can equally be accused of invoking credulity.
Alen
Martin Hutton
On 30-Aug-2005, unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> alen wrote:
> > Jim Willemin wrote:
> > > "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in
> > > news:1125203368....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > >
[snip]
>
> Agreed. My very nearsighted eyes are an example of deleterious genes (a
> mutation at some point) which would not affect my gestation or birth at
> all, nor infancy. But as a toddler and older hunter-gatherer, I would
> have had a very dangerous time.
>
Myopia gives one the ability to work up close and personal. The tribe
would need some able to make the fine tools (needles, piercers) and
weapons (arrow and spears). Hence myopic kids, if they survived their
childhood, might have been trained to be the tribe's stay at home
craftsmen and be protected. Maybe they'd be given women just
so the weapons and tools would keep rolling.
[snip]
--
Martin Hutton
"The truths of religion are never so well understood as
by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
...Voltaire, "Philosophical Dictionary" 1764
John Wilkins
> On 30-Aug-2005, unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>alen wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Willemin wrote:
>>>
>>>>"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in
>>>>news:1125203368....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Agreed. My very nearsighted eyes are an example of deleterious genes (a
>>mutation at some point) which would not affect my gestation or birth at
>>all, nor infancy. But as a toddler and older hunter-gatherer, I would
>>have had a very dangerous time.
>>
>
>
> Myopia gives one the ability to work up close and personal. The tribe
> would need some able to make the fine tools (needles, piercers) and
> weapons (arrow and spears). Hence myopic kids, if they survived their
> childhood, might have been trained to be the tribe's stay at home
> craftsmen and be protected. Maybe they'd be given women just
> so the weapons and tools would keep rolling.
>
> [snip]
>
10cm cluster using a CZ 9mm (somewhat less accurate with my mate's Luger). I
reckon I could do all right with a bow and arrow, too, once I learned how to
use it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <df20aa$24m3$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Martin Hutton wrote:
>> On 30-Aug-2005, unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>alen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Willemin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in
>>>>>news:1125203368....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>Agreed. My very nearsighted eyes are an example of deleterious genes (a
>>>mutation at some point) which would not affect my gestation or birth at
>>>all, nor infancy. But as a toddler and older hunter-gatherer, I would
>>>have had a very dangerous time.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Myopia gives one the ability to work up close and personal. The tribe
>> would need some able to make the fine tools (needles, piercers) and
>> weapons (arrow and spears). Hence myopic kids, if they survived their
>> childhood, might have been trained to be the tribe's stay at home
>> craftsmen and be protected. Maybe they'd be given women just
>> so the weapons and tools would keep rolling.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>I am myopic. And without glasses, I was able to hit a target at 20m with a
>10cm cluster using a CZ 9mm (somewhat less accurate with my mate's Luger). I
>reckon I could do all right with a bow and arrow, too, once I learned how to
>use it.
You never told us you like to play with guns. We could have had a lot
more fun. Oh well, maybe next time.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
John Wilkins
alen
I am not going to be the only one to carry the can.
Can you provide one piece of evidence in support of
the hypothesis that mutation itself is random only,
and does not occur selectively?
If not, both hypotheses have a right to be considered.
Alen
Ross Langerak
>
> Ross Langerak wrote:
>
> > But what of a mutation that is only slightly deleterious? It is always
> > possible that a slightly bad mutation might manage to hold on. It could
get
> > paired with an advantageous mutation and survive for a while. However,
even
> > a slightly deleterious mutation won't spread significantly through a
> > population, whereas beneficial mutations will. There is a possibility
that
> > a few slightly deleterious mutations may persist, but as the number of
> > advantageous mutations increases, most slightly deleterious mutations
will
> > become significant, and will be removed from the population.
>
> There are different scenarios like this that
> one can try to envisage, and different people will
> therefore come up with different scenarios they
> think are most probable. I think that random
> mutations would provide far fewer advantageous
> variations than many other people do, and that,
> therefore, there must already be a selection
> effect programmed into the genome itself.
You have provided no evidence to support your position. What is the ratio
of good to bad mutations? How does that change if a species is introduced
to a different environment? What calculations are you making to produce
these numbers? What is your evidence? So far, all you have given us is
your opinion.
We do know that beneficial mutations occur. There are probably many more
that we are not aware of. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
You might want to spend some time browsing the archive as there are several
other pages dealing with mutation and evolution. Given the available
evidence, your assumption doesn't seem to be necessary.
> > > because there will be so many of them,
> > > of so many different kinds.
> >
> > What percentage of a population, in each generation, will have a
significant
> > mutation, either good or bad? 50%? 10%? 1%? If most mutations are
bad,
> > then I suspect any species would have a hard time replacing half of its
> > population every generation. However, it would not be so difficult to
> > replace 1-in-10 if they were removed by natural selection, and it might
even
> > be easy to replace 1-in-100. As long as the rate of significant
mutations
> > is not too high, then natural selection can remove the deleterious ones.
> > Even if most of the mutations are bad, natural selection will still be
> > effective.
>
> I have the view that a random principle is
> so 'poisonous' that natural selection is far
> too crude to control it.
Why? We already know that DNA duplication is reliable enough to keep
natural selection from being overwhelmed with mutations. Our biochemistry
differs from the rest of the apes by only about 1 or 2 percent. Since we
are about 10 million years removed from those apes, that small change
doesn't seem to support your position.
Your view depends heavily upon the ratio of good to bad mutations. Again,
how do you calculate that? What is your evidence?
> > > And I think that these
> > > would then gradually create a progressive decline,
> > > because they will be overwhelmingly more numerous
> > > than beneficial mutations.
> >
> > As we've seen above, it isn't the ratio of good to bad mutations that is
> > critical, but the percentage of bad mutations in each generation that
might
> > be a problem for natural selection. As long as they aren't too
numerous,
> > natural selection can remove them while still preserving advantageous
> > mutations.
>
> Yes, and will they be too numerous, or not? That is
> the question. Obviously, in reality, they are not,
> but why? Because of external selection only, or is
> there also an selection property acting on the process
> of mutation itself?
Since there is no evidence and no need for your proposed "selection
property", I would go with natural selection. The evidence suggests that
natural selection is not overwhelmed by bad mutations, and there seem to be
sufficient good mutations for evolution to take place. So unless you have
some compelling evidence for your "selection property", then I see no reason
to give it undue consideration.
Ross Langerak
Or, we could have ten books with "degradation" spelled incorrectly on one of
the books. So we toss that one book in the trash and replace it with one
that has "degradation" spelled correctly. That is natural selection at
work. The biosphere isn't degraded or destroyed, it is maintained.
Random mutations provide a number of small changes to a population. Natural
selection keeps most of the ones that work and gets rid of most of the ones
that don't. Then it all happens again, year after year, generation after
generation.
Human engineers are satisfied with the first design that works.
Some human engineers are using evolutionary algorithms to produce designs
that no one had previously considered. It seems to me that random mutation
and a selection mechanism might be the most powerful method of design.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>
>>alen wrote:
>>
>>>I have the view that a random principle is
>>>so 'poisonous' that natural selection is far
>>>too crude to control it.
>>>
>>
>>Can you please provide one piece of evidence in support of your hypothesis?
>
> Can you provide one piece of evidence in support of
> the hypothesis that mutation itself is random only,
> and does not occur selectively?
>
> If not, both hypotheses have a right to be considered.
I think you have things a little backwards. Many people have "carried
the can", so to speak. The conclusion is that mutations are random in
original occurence, and repair mechanisms are biased in a fashion that
repairs certain locations more reliably than others. The only bias that
anyone has detected is based on the position of the error in the
replicated DNA, not based on the effect of the mutation.
Is there something you have noticed that would tend to indicate some
mutations being preferred?
KWW
Phil Osopher
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Noone Inparticular wrote:
>>
>> The diversity of life is not driven by mutation. Mutation is the raw
>> material used by several mechanisms to derive the diversity we see. One
>> of these mechanisms is called natural selection. Natural selection is a
>> phrase which describes a non-random process. This is why the word
>> "selection" appears in it.
>
>The word selection implies intent or consciousness. I prefer natural
>filtering/sorting. A potatoe grading machine sorts/filters out potatoes
>by size without a scintilla of conciousness.
>
Except the one that designed the filters...
david ford
> alen wrote:
> > Noone Inparticular wrote:
> >
> > > > to complex, functioning organisms, it cannot really
> > > > be random in nature.
> > >
> > > The diversity of life is not driven by mutation. Mutation is the raw
> > > material used by several mechanisms to derive the diversity we see.
mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
Simpson and Dobzhansky on the need for a mechanism,
Dawkins on mutation, Gordon Rattray Taylor and David Raup on
explosive radiations, Arthur Koestler on testing Darwinian and
Lamarckian theory by experiment
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
> > > One
> > > of these mechanisms is called natural selection.
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
> > > Natural selection is a
> > > phrase which describes a non-random process. This is why the word
> > > "selection" appears in it.
> >
> > Yes, and if such selection is so sophisticated
> > that it can produce a complex, functioning mechanism,
> > it has to be the work of the equivalent of some kind
> > of design engineer, or it would produce only a
> > most crude and minimally asymmetrical, non-mechanistic
> > primitive 'diversity'.
"sophisticated"
1985 Cairns-Smith: "Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of
'high technology', and what is more seem to be necessarily so."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123558517.582123.223890%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
> Good grief Alen, this makes no sense at all. You're just making this
> shit up, man. I know I am not alone (I couldn't care less even if I
> was), but I am sick and tired of know nothings claiming that the
> knowledge I have gained through years of close study and long hours of
> hard and often unsuccessful work can be so blithely dismissed.
>
> Personally, I think you're a troll. Few creationists are able to post
> more than two or three posts before condemning us heathens to the fires
> of hell.
Should a person fear being judged by a holy Judge for his or her
actions?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
the Koran on hell; link to
"Christianity" is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3720ncF56q00hU1%40individual.net
> You have not yet done it, so I figure you are just rattling
> our cages.
>
> I'm not impressed.
maff
david ford wrote:
[...]
David Ford isn't a scientist. He's a scientifically illiterate
Christian fascist terrorist.
David Ford
http://snipurl.com/d6r4
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance
with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.