Proof by Probability

[Bill]

A question occurs: At the beginning of an evolutionary
sequence, the numbers of possible genetic combinations are,
effectively, infinite. As time passes the actual
combinations realize some possibilities and, in so doing,
reduce the total number of possibilities.

As more combinations are realized, the number of
possibilities shrinks in a kind of inverse proportion. What
can possibly be a next step in an evolutionary sequence is
dependent on the steps already realized. There can be no
evolutionary do-overs making the whole process one way only.

While there was a time and an environment where anything was
possible, it is long gone and everything now is fixed in its
probable outcomes. At some point genetic entropy takes over
and evolution can only rearrange things and novelty becomes
impossible. See:

http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html

Bill

[joecumm...@gmail.com]

It's obvious that the writer of this nonsense is severely challenged grammatically and factually.

As an example:".....after the development by (Saint) Cryl of an essentially cryptic alphabet."

The CYRILLIC alphabet was invented by Saint CYRIL.

I really wonder if Bill is serious.

Joe

[Ymir]

In article <7f7a0e18-551b-43c1...@googlegroups.com>,

What's particularly odd is that the web page linked to above actually
makes more sense than Bill's post (if one is willing to overlook the
fact that they don't know that it was St. Crypt who invented the Cryptic
alphabet).

Andre

[chris thompson]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 3:29:05 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> A question occurs: At the beginning of an evolutionary
> sequence, the numbers of possible genetic combinations are,
> effectively, infinite.

Ridiculous. You are constrained by a multitude of factors, such as the length of your piece of genetic material, the fact that you've only got 4 nucleotides to work with, and most important, not all combinations work.

> As time passes the actual
> combinations realize some possibilities and, in so doing,
> reduce the total number of possibilities.
>

As time passes and the length of, say, a prokaryotic chromosome increases, the number of possibilities increases.

> As more combinations are realized, the number of
> possibilities shrinks in a kind of inverse proportion. What
> can possibly be a next step in an evolutionary sequence is
> dependent on the steps already realized. There can be no
> evolutionary do-overs making the whole process one way only.

The odds of going backward are quite slim, but not insurmountable. Have you ever heard of a back-mutation? When dealing with complex characters, I will grant the chances of going backwards are so infintesimal they are not worth considering.

>
> While there was a time and an environment where anything was
> possible, it is long gone and everything now is fixed in its
> probable outcomes. At some point genetic entropy takes over
> and evolution can only rearrange things and novelty becomes
> impossible. See:
>

Except for when novelty is possible. Ever hear of mutation? Gene duplication?

Chris

> http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html
>
> Bill

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 21:29:05 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
>
> While there was a time and an environment where anything was
> possible, it is long gone and everything now is fixed in its
> probable outcomes. At some point genetic entropy takes over
> and evolution can only rearrange things and novelty becomes
> impossible. See:
>
> http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html

That linked writing did seemingly contain something totally
different than you wrote. Only the fallacy in logic felt
somehow similar. IOW both said that by advancing and gaining
abilities and capabilities a system becomes more limited
and rigid.

[Bill]

This newsgroup proves the point. Once an idée fixe condenses
in the mind, it replaces the mind and no further thought is
necessary. The content of an idea becomes less important
than the existence of the idea. This leads to a pathological
desire for certainty. Proof will follow ...

Bill

[Inez]

Like when someone says life on Earth is unique despite not knowing if it's unique?

[Inez]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:29:05 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> A question occurs: At the beginning of an evolutionary
> sequence, the numbers of possible genetic combinations are,
> effectively, infinite. As time passes the actual
> combinations realize some possibilities and, in so doing,
> reduce the total number of possibilities.

It isn't clear to me what this means. The possibilities are only infinite if you assume that infinite lengths of DNA are possible. Why does "realizing" possibilities reduce the total number of possibilities? It seems to me that it only moves them from the set of unrealized possibilities to the set of realized possibilities with the overall number remaining the same.

> As more combinations are realized, the number of
> possibilities shrinks in a kind of inverse proportion. What
> can possibly be a next step in an evolutionary sequence is
> dependent on the steps already realized. There can be no
> evolutionary do-overs making the whole process one way only.
>


> While there was a time and an environment where anything was
> possible, it is long gone and everything now is fixed in its
> probable outcomes. At some point genetic entropy takes over
> and evolution can only rearrange things and novelty becomes
> impossible. See:

I'm afraid I'm not really getting your point. Are you saying that the first bacteria could have evolved into a flying tyrannosaur with a rainbow mohawk, but now those days are over?
>
> http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html
>
> Bill

[erik simpson]

Note: Bill's reference is to a site that advertises itself as
"Stuff you should know to sidetrack any conversation". In other words, troll bait.

[Roger Shrubber]

Inez wrote:

> flying tyrannosaur with a rainbow mohawk

dibs on the band name

[Bill]

I like it.

Bill

[Bill]

That sounds good. Obviously whatever genetic circumstances
allowed the emergence of dinosaurs no longer exist. That
particular possibility found expression for a while.
Dinosaurs disappeared along with the possibility of their
existence.

It may be that life on Earth started with a fixed number of
possible expressions. After a couple of billion years there
are fewer possible ways for life to develop. We will hit a
dead end of possibilities eventually but not until we're too
stupid to realize it.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

How would you get evidence for that claim?

>After a couple of billion years there
> are fewer possible ways for life to develop.

What makes you think so? Some doors close, others open.

>We will hit a
> dead end of possibilities eventually but not until we're too
> stupid to realize it.

A fairly confident prediction, considering there's no particular reason to think it's correct.

>
> Bill

[Pete K.]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:03:43 -0700 (PDT), joecumm...@gmail.com
wrote:

I think many of us stopped wondering that long ago.

[Öö Tiib]

What has condensed? Ability to write logically unsound texts
is not gift. It takes vocabulary and simple grammar and hour
or two of tinkering and a program that does it is ready. The
implausible information of such texts produced does not
indicate mind. Producing meaningful texts that contain
plausible information indicates aware mind. You may
think that it is innovative idea to contradict with
mathematics but actually ignorance and stupidity are normal
and common default states. Awareness and wisdom are rare and
special and hard to reach.

[Bill]

As I said, "Proof will follow" and, by golly here it is.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

I think we're starting to zero in on your problem (well, it's been
coming clear for a while, actually). You find it reasonable, and
rhetorically valid, to gush airily about a subject regardless of being
utterly ungrounded in anything resembling informed understanding.

"This is your brain on nihilism, or it would be if brains were, you
know, real."

[SortingItOut]

Yes, those conditions don't currently exist, but there's nothing preventing them from occurring again in the future.

> That
> particular possibility found expression for a while.
> Dinosaurs disappeared along with the possibility of their
> existence.

Why do you think that the appearance of a genetic combination causes it to be "used up"? Or is it that you think it's not the combination itself but the conditions that led to it? Do you think there's only one pathway from one genetic combination to another? Why wouldn't there be infinite pathways?

When you think of the landscape of possible genetic combinations that might be present one billion years from now, are previously-existing combinations the only ones you think wouldn't be possible? Why couldn't dinosaurs or trilobites (or whatever) appear again?

[J. J. Lodder]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Proof by Probability is a contradiction in terms,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

You aren't sufficient unto yourself?

Jan

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 26 March 2015 03:44:02 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
>
> As I said, "Proof will follow" and, by golly here it is.

Yes, but notice that humor is better when the comedian
does not explain constantly what is fun abut it in detail
but lets the audience to discover some too.

[Inez]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:34:03 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

> Inez wrote:

> >
> >> While there was a time and an environment where anything
> >> was possible, it is long gone and everything now is fixed
> >> in its probable outcomes. At some point genetic entropy
> >> takes over and evolution can only rearrange things and
> >> novelty becomes impossible. See:
> >
> > I'm afraid I'm not really getting your point. Are you
> > saying that the first bacteria could have evolved into a
> > flying tyrannosaur with a rainbow mohawk, but now those
> > days are over?
> >>
>
> That sounds good. Obviously whatever genetic circumstances
> allowed the emergence of dinosaurs no longer exist. That
> particular possibility found expression for a while.
> Dinosaurs disappeared along with the possibility of their
> existence.
>
> It may be that life on Earth started with a fixed number of
> possible expressions. After a couple of billion years there
> are fewer possible ways for life to develop. We will hit a
> dead end of possibilities eventually but not until we're too
> stupid to realize it.
>
> Bill

I still don't see your reasoning. Why can't today's bacteria, unlike the bacteria of yesteryear, evolve into a flying tyrannosaur with a rainbow mohawk? What specifically has changed to make that impossible?

[Paul J Gans]

My fav has always been "Digital Slime"

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Bill]

No, slime is the essence of something analog, a continuous
ooze that stick to things. A digital slime would only be
slime at very large scales, like gravity maybe.

Bill

[chris thompson]

"Sister chromatid"

Chris

[Paul J Gans]

You've never heard them play.

[Paul J Gans]

That works too.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1dbcbb78-7a3b-448e...@googlegroups.com>,

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The odds of going backward are quite slim, but not insurmountable. Have you
> ever heard of a back-mutation? When dealing with complex characters, I will
> grant the chances of going backwards are so infintesimal they are not worth
> considering.

IIUC, there are insect lineages that gained wings, lost wings,
regained wings etcetera.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[J. J. Lodder]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <1dbcbb78-7a3b-448e...@googlegroups.com>,
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The odds of going backward are quite slim, but not insurmountable. Have you
> > ever heard of a back-mutation? When dealing with complex characters, I will
> > grant the chances of going backwards are so infintesimal they are not worth
> > considering.
>
> IIUC, there are insect lineages that gained wings, lost wings,
> regained wings etcetera.

And turles that went to sea, came back, and went to sea again,

Jan

[Ernest Major]

On 29/03/2015 12:50, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1dbcbb78-7a3b-448e...@googlegroups.com>,
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The odds of going backward are quite slim, but not insurmountable. Have you
>> ever heard of a back-mutation? When dealing with complex characters, I will
>> grant the chances of going backwards are so infintesimal they are not worth
>> considering.
>
> IIUC, there are insect lineages that gained wings, lost wings,
> regained wings etcetera.
>

If this is the study that I think it is ...

If you assume that gain and loss of wings are equally like, then the
most parsimonius mapping of traits to a tree has the above; but if you
assume (as seems more reasonable) that loss of wings is more likely than
gain of wings then the most parsimonious mapping has loss of wings in
several more branches of the tree, rather than loss and reaquisation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Paul J Gans]

Human fishermen (for example) do the same thing...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:27:46 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

I seem to recall a claim made here regarding the famous
dark/light moths, that the mutations causing the color shift
repeated regularly, with the favored shade being determined
by the environment. IOW, not a repeated selection between
shades present in all moths and selected accordingly based
on the tree color, but an actual repeated mutation. Or am I
misremembering?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Earle Jones27]

*
Great band name (found on a sign in the Civic Center BART Station, San
Francisco):

Third Rail Power Trip

earle
*