Evolution

[Robert]

New scientist said:


''Varki thinks that early humans were confronted with a massive epidemic of bacterial infection. The two bacteria he studied are particularly dangerous to newborn babies, who often die after being infected. That could explain why the human population fell so precipitously, and why we got rid of the Siglec genes that made us so vulnerable.''


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-plagues.html


Note that they say--in the new-scientist of all places--that: ''why we got rid of the Siglec genes...''. Clearly 'we' did NOT do that, yet they word it that way, I guess from a human perspective. But how then should it be worded? Luck? These genes that were ''got rid of'' is answered how? If not luck, then what is the answer?


It also says:


''Consider any kind of creature that lives underwater and has to chase its prey, for instance. Random mutations will result in some offspring having variety of shapes. Those with shapes that allow them to move faster with less energy are much more like to survive and reproduce than those whose shapes slow them down. The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape, as we see in animals as diverse as squid, sharks and dolphins. It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of natural selection, which can be thought of as a rigorous real-world testing process for evaluating the effect of different mutations.''


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html


One point is ''The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape''. Yet there is no answer as to 'why' they would do this. I mean, why not a non streamlined shape. Again it appears to be random luck.


Another point: ''It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of natural selection, which can be thought of as a rigorous real-world testing process for evaluating the effect of different mutations''. A 'testing process'? for 'evaluating'? This seems to be in line with the human condition of seeing 'reason' and 'intelligence' for everything. Perhaps it should have been better worded:


''It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of luck and chance, which can be thought of as 'random events in the real-world', a testing process which has no intelligence and therefore can 'test' nothing, yet evaluating the effect of different mutations somehow''


What is wrong with that as a statement? After all, if there is no intelligence involved, then this is what happened. Period. Even NS which is supposed to be non random, comes from a random process for the simple reason that there is no intelligence involved.


It goes on to say:


''More controversially, a few biologists think some microbes may have evolved mechanisms for boosting the mutation rate in specific genes when they are struggling to cope with a changing environment, or for "storing up" variation for when it is needed. Even if such mechanisms do exist, however, all they do is produce random variation. Natural selection - the testing process - is what moves evolution in particular directions.''


My thoughts were that it might be possible for DNA to be there before it is needed and therefore like the craftsman with his tools--of which he takes many, not knowing which he will need. This of course requires aforethought, and that implies intelligence, or sheer luck. Now it seems that there are some biologists who think that way. As for saying that it is random variation, that would be only if one thought that there was no purpose in evolution in the first place, which is not suggested by the biologists who think 'storing up' info is a possibility.


Also on same site:
''"The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747," astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe told a court in Arkansas in 1981, according a report in New Scientist (21 January 1982, p 140). His colleague Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous - proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution.''


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html


I am not familiar with the origin of the quote or whether out of context, but it appears that the origin of ''life'' is the point not what happened when life appeared.


I have seen this phenomena many times over from scientists who explain things as if there is intelligence and then ignore it. Why do they do this?

[Jack]

One point is ''The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape''. Yet there is no answer as to 'why' they would do this. I mean, why not a non streamlined shape. Again it appears to be random luck.

The answer to this question is in the paragraph quoted, "Those with shapes that allow them to move faster with less energy are much more like to survive and reproduce than those whose shapes slow them down."

No one expects a popular science magazine to be rigorous in their use of scientific terminology. They are writing for laymen in order to popularize scientific concepts. In order to do that they use concepts and language familiar to the average person often at the expense of precise scientific explanations. Still, their summary answers your questions rather well...

Although evolution is not random in the sense described above, chance still plays a huge role. There are often numerous possible directions in which evolution can go. Take the finches Darwin collected from the Galapagos Islands, which had diverged into 13 separate species with beaks specialised for different foods. Why one group of birds took one route and not another probably depended entirely on chance mutations, in particular individuals, that affected beak size and shape.

What's more, some mutations spread through a population or die out because of random genetic drift rather than natural selection. And chance events play a huge part too: if a huge asteroid hadn't struck the Earth 60 million years ago, dinosaurs might still rule the Earth.

So, while it's wrong to think that evolutionary theory implies that structures such as the eye and wing arose by accident, chance does play a role in evolution.

[Robert]

...

Hello Jack,
one point they make is that ''chance still plays a huge role''. One might say it plays the only role. If everything comes from no intelligence, then is it indeed possible to have non randomness from randomness?

[Jack]

one point they make is that ''chance still plays a huge role''. One might say it plays the only role.

"Huge" does not equal "only". Intellectual honesty requires us to consider the words used, not replace them with words we choose to support our personal beliefs.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

New scientist said:


''Varki thinks that early humans were confronted with a massive epidemic of bacterial infection. The two bacteria he studied are particularly dangerous to newborn babies, who often die after being infected. That could explain why the human population fell so precipitously, and why we got rid of the Siglec genes that made us so vulnerable.''


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-plagues.html


Note that they say--in the new-scientist of all places--that: ''why we got rid of the Siglec genes...''. Clearly 'we' did NOT do that, yet they word it that way, I guess from a human perspective. But how then should it be worded? Luck? These genes that were ''got rid of'' is answered how? If not luck, then what is the answer?

Your argument is one of semantics. Natural selection, the process by which a more well adapted organism is more likely to survive to pass its genes on, is the mechanism that 'got rid of' the genes. Also, there is no better or worse mutation. There is only what is beneficial in a particular environment

It also says:


''Consider any kind of creature that lives underwater and has to chase its prey, for instance. Random mutations will result in some offspring having variety of shapes. Those with shapes that allow them to move faster with less energy are much more like to survive and reproduce than those whose shapes slow them down. The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape, as we see in animals as diverse as squid, sharks and dolphins. It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of natural selection, which can be thought of as a rigorous real-world testing process for evaluating the effect of different mutations.''


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html


One point is ''The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape''. Yet there is no answer as to 'why' they would do this. I mean, why not a non streamlined shape. Again it appears to be random luck.

Not random luck. Less streamlined shapes take more energy to propel through the water, which means either a slower creature or a creature with less ability to move at a faster speed. either way, its a less efficient shape. the more efficient shape gives rise to an advantage in the water, which allows the creature a better chance to survive and pass the genes for its shape along. Hence, the disposition toward more streamlined shapes for water dwellers.

The funny thing is that you obviously didnt read what you posted, because it pretty much answers your question in the very paragraph you posted here.

Another point: ''It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of natural selection, which can be thought of as a rigorous real-world testing process for evaluating the effect of different mutations''. A 'testing process'? for 'evaluating'? This seems to be in line with the human condition of seeing 'reason' and 'intelligence' for everything. Perhaps it should have been better worded:

its simply put into words that more people would understand. But the idea is somewhat accurate. the environment an organism is in constantly 'tests' the organism for its fitness. Those which are more fit (adapted to the environment) are more likely to stay alive and pass their genes on.

It should have been better worded, but your wording is also inaccurate:

''It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of luck and chance, which can be thought of as 'random events in the real-world', a testing process which has no intelligence and therefore can 'test' nothing, yet evaluating the effect of different mutations somehow''


What is wrong with that as a statement? After all, if there is no intelligence involved, then this is what happened. Period. Even NS which is supposed to be non random, comes from a random process for the simple reason that there is no intelligence involved.

The problem with your rewording is that it shows a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Its not random chance. Others here and I have already explained why numerous times (me twice in this post alone), and yet you continue to put forth this ridiculous notion that evolution implies or states that natural selection is random or luck or chance. Its not. Simply put: whatever is more adapted to an environment is more likely to survive. there is SOME luck, but its mainly a function of adaptation to an environment.

Example: back during the beginning of the industrial revolution in the US, there was a specific breed of moth that would live on a tree that has white bark. The moths were predominantly white. When a nearby coal power plant started burning coal, it produced soot that would stick to the trees and turn them black.

Now, the moths that were white would be more easily seen on the trees, since the trees were now black instead of white, and would be eaten at a higher rate, whereas the darker colored moths were less easily seen. After a while, the white moths became the rarer color, since their environment had changed and they no longer had the more fit characteristics.

It goes on to say:


''More controversially, a few biologists think some microbes may have evolved mechanisms for boosting the mutation rate in specific genes when they are struggling to cope with a changing environment, or for "storing up" variation for when it is needed. Even if such mechanisms do exist, however, all they do is produce random variation. Natural selection - the testing process - is what moves evolution in particular directions.''


My thoughts were that it might be possible for DNA to be there before it is needed and therefore like the craftsman with his tools--of which he takes many, not knowing which he will need. This of course requires aforethought, and that implies intelligence, or sheer luck. Now it seems that there are some biologists who think that way. As for saying that it is random variation, that would be only if one thought that there was no purpose in evolution in the first place, which is not suggested by the biologists who think 'storing up' info is a possibility.

boosting mutuation would increase the chances of getting a beneficial mutation. its like trying to roll a six on a die vs trying to roll a six on 3 dice.

And it doesnt require aforethought. It requires an organism which has adapted by increasing its mutation rate. While not sheer luck, its basically broadening the odds. Instead of trying to hit a six on 2 dice, its trying to hit a six on 5 dice. there is some chance INVOLVED, but the entire process isnt just chance.

Also on same site:
''"The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747," astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe told a court in Arkansas in 1981, according a report in New Scientist (21 January 1982, p 140). His colleague Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous - proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution.''


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html


I am not familiar with the origin of the quote or whether out of context, but it appears that the origin of ''life'' is the point not what happened when life appeared.

"Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous - proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution."

He misunderstood it for two reasons: one, as you said, this has nothing to do with evolution. This is contained within the subject of abiogenesis.

Two, the quote implies that there was a single instance of chemicals being in the right conditions only on one place on earth. Its likely that there were MANY places where the conditions were right, and that it actually worked in more than one of those places. Mitochondria have their own dna, for example, and its suggested that the mitochondria was once a seperate organism that essentially formed a symbiotic relationship with the early progenitors of our evolutionary line.

This is another point that many people misunderstand about evolution: that it only happens in one or two organisms. that there is only one 'roll of the die'. Thats not how it works.

You have a population of 1000 lets say. they get split up, and 500 end up in a swampy area, while 500 end up in a flatland area. after a period of time, the interbreeding and carrying over of various mutations leads to a population whose dna has changed to the point that they can no longer interbreed with the other population of 500, whose collective dna has also changed.

No one who actually understands evolution asks for a cat giving birth to a dog, or a crockoduck, or any of the other ridiculous examples I have heard. Im not accusing you of this, but the quote does kind of imply it based on the 'one shot'

I have seen this phenomena many times over from scientists who explain things as if there is intelligence and then ignore it. Why do they do this?

because you dont read the actual published papers. You read the news reports about the papers, and journalists are not scientists.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Hello Jack,
one point they make is that ''chance still plays a huge role''. One might say it plays the only role. If everything comes from no intelligence, then is it indeed possible to have non randomness from randomness?

why do you automatically equate non intelligence with random?

Gravity is not intelligent, yet it has organizational powers that span the entire universe. One needs nothing more than gravity to turn a giant cloud of gas into a star.

[Robert]

"Huge" does not equal "only". Intellectual honesty requires us to consider the words used, not replace them with words we choose to support our personal beliefs.

There are mutations and they are random. That is what I am saying. Natural selection which is said to be non random, comes from randomness--if we are saying that there is no intelligence. That is not being dishonest, I'm just facing the facts

[xx_mortekai_xx]

There are mutations and they are random. That is what I am saying. Natural selection which is said to be non random, comes from randomness--if we are saying that there is no intelligence. That is not being dishonest, I'm just facing the facts

yes, there is a COMPONENT of what could be described as chance, but even then its not chance as the layman understands chance. the general understanding of chance implies no specific pattern, where mutations must start from the ordered pattern of DNA.

And natural selection is not random, nor does it come from randomness. Again, its the process by which organisms in an environment are influenced by their environment and mutations which are advantageous are passed on to later generations due to those advantageous mutations giving the parent organism a greater chance for survival.

[Robert]

Your argument is one of semantics. Natural selection, the process by which a more well adapted organism is more likely to survive to pass its genes on, is the mechanism that 'got rid of' the genes. Also, there is no better or worse mutation. There is only what is beneficial in a particular environment

Semantics. really? I think people pretty much right what they think. Isn't that what your trying to pull me up on? Or is it just the way that I word it.
The point is, they don't seem to be able to write it in a way that is in my opinion truthful.

Not random luck. Less streamlined shapes take more energy to propel through the water, which means either a slower creature or a creature with less ability to move at a faster speed. either way, its a less efficient shape. the more efficient shape gives rise to an advantage in the water, which allows the creature a better chance to survive and pass the genes for its shape along. Hence, the disposition toward more streamlined shapes for water dwellers.

Yet there are creatures in the sea which are not streamlined

its simply put into words that more people would understand. But the idea is somewhat accurate. the environment an organism is in constantly 'tests' the organism for its fitness. Those which are more fit (adapted to the environment) are more likely to stay alive and pass their genes on.

It should have been better worded, but your wording is also inaccurate:

It can't test anything if it has no intelligence. That is my point. Use words which describe it accurately and not pleasing in grammar.

The problem with your rewording is that it shows a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Its not random chance. Others here and I have already explained why numerous times (me twice in this post alone), and yet you continue to put forth this ridiculous notion that evolution implies or states that natural selection is random or luck or chance. Its not. Simply put: whatever is more adapted to an environment is more likely to survive. there is SOME luck, but its mainly a function of adaptation to an environment.

I said that NS was a non random process. But it comes from randomness if you have no intelligence. If not, then how? I understand the process, but you seem to be ignoring the lack of intelligence in this to 'drive' the thing, and making up an idea to fit the lack or probability of anything closely resembling life coming about.

Example: back during the beginning of the industrial revolution in the US, there was a specific breed of moth.......

I am aware of this. This shows nothing. Proves nothing. The moth has to come from random mutations and those not suitable die. But all of this comes from non randomness. There is NO intelligence in evolution.

because you dont read the actual published papers. You read the news reports about the papers, and journalists are not scientists.

I have seen and heard scientists speak in this manner. One explained that we lost most of our body hair because we were to hot in the desert. This is wrong, as we did not know anything about it. Mutation again is the key. Genes have to mutate thus giving at least a few, the chance to have less hair. This is not something that 'we' decide. So then it is luck. How else can one see it--there is no intelligence

YOUR second post:

why do you automatically equate non intelligence with random?

Gravity is not intelligent, yet it has organizational powers that span the entire universe. One needs nothing more than gravity to turn a giant cloud of gas into a star.

Ok, I see your point, but where does gravity come from? If there is no intelligence, then it is sheer random luck that it came about, because without it, we are stuffed!

All in all, a good post from you.. which is rather shocking. Obviously its more in line with your thinking.

[Robert]

Take a look at this also:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Some 800 scientist who have problems with evolution, the quote is:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Download the list--it only takes a few seconds. There are many more open scientists than some, who see problems with evolution. I wish there were more people about who could 'openly' discuss it, without thinking the person in question has some hidden agenda.


From http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwi...o-strike-back/

Yes, that has always been the trouble with Darwinism. The OBSERVED effects of Darwinian evolution are trivial and the CLAIMED effects are stunning

They have no axe to grind, it is merely open debate on something which seems to be creaking at the seems with the job in hand.

[Thanatos]

I no longer understand any of the objections being voiced.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Take a look at this also:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Some 800 scientist who have problems with evolution, the quote is:



Download the list--it only takes a few seconds. There are many more open scientists than some, who see problems with evolution. I wish there were more people about who could 'openly' discuss it, without thinking the person in question has some hidden agenda.

THANK YOU for making this stupid fucking point, because it allows me the opportunity to bring up "project steve". Project steve is similar to your stupid list there, except it consists ONLY of scientists who are named steve or some variation of steve (steven, stephan, stephanie) who accept evolution. And you know what? There are more scientists who are only named steve who ACCEPT evolution than there are on your list of ALL names who reject it.

Project Steve

The count is over 1200 as of may 30th of this year.

From http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwi...o-strike-back/



They have no axe to grind, it is merely open debate on something which seems to be creaking at the seems with the job in hand.

Yeah, those OBSERVED things like speciation, and natural selection pressures actually driving species to adapt in certain ways, and the fossil record, and the MASSIVE amount of DNA evidence that even christians like Francis Collins say is more than enough evidence by itself to demonstrate common descent.