Captain Mutation and Evolution

[Robert]

Hello,
Firstly, the basic idea of evolution I accept though I do have problems with it having no intelligence; that said, we proceed:


Mutating genes, so it goes, change the species in some way which is beneficial to it, and so it moves on with the benefits; the instructions written in the DNA. It means there has to be 'difference' other wise 'choice' cannot act on what it sees, and also their must be 'parameters' to decided what is 'in' and what is 'not' otherwise how does choice work?


It appears that the 'parameters of choice' in this sense, is something already established, even if the parameters of this 'choice' can change with time: such as the weather or land etc. There has to be some sort of parameters or how does it initially choose.


At some point life must have come out of the sea, and become land based. Why?


Lungs would be required, and for no apparent reason, they, with time, appear. This enables the life form to move onto the land, which for some reason it now wants to do. Why?


These life forms then lose the ability to breathe in water so stay on the land. So were they in fact forced onto the land, or was it something they decided to do when they realised the vehicle they were in could turn left and right, in other words, land and sea? As I could live on a mountain and choose not to, it suggests to me that they did not choose as such, but rather their hand was forced. For whatever reason, after moving onto the land, they could not return.


How ever they were mating before and bringing up there young, must surely now change. They were after all, in water.


Some take to the trees, some stay on land. Why?


The idea of tree life is protection from predators and perhaps seeking food. That makes sense I guess, once you assume that the species in question knows what 'up' is, otherwise, why climb? This might not be so strange though when one considers if they were in water, they would know full well what 'up' was- though probably not involving trees!


Of course it would have to know also how to climb, and have sufficient grip to do so. This seems to have happened in the nick of time, otherwise a lot of life would have been wiped out.


But I guess that if one moves fins, one would move--the now usurper--limbs. So perhaps it is not so strange again. Yet it seems rather convenient that they developed the right limbs with claws etc.


So this takes it back to the DNA instruction level and to 'why' it moves its fins/limbs in the first place (Just because one has limbs, does not mean one will move them. There has to be a nervous system to connect it) And the answer to that is supposed to be: 'There is no reason'.
It is beneficial, but only through the random chance of mutation. This is said to be 'cancelled out' through the 'non randomness' of 'choice' which in turn must come about through randomness (otherwise you need intelligence) so how then is it 'non' random?


In fact one might even ask, is it indeed possible to have anything that is 'non random' from 'randomness'.


We might well design a machine of some sort, say trays with various levels and various sized holes, which allow certain balls to drop through but not others. We might well envisage, that we could end up with only the balls that we wanted after it had been through the various stages. So we would have non randomness brought about through randomness. We would have a certain size ball left at the end with others excluded. Natural selection reigns supreme! But the problem with that is, the machine in question was designed! So then is it possible have non randomness from randomness? To say yes would be to say one does not believe in intelligence in evolution. The question to that is, why?


Some of those in trees, (birds from reptiles- after all, birds can't live in water all the time, so this makes sense) began to grow--for some reason best known to mutation--skin flaps which allow them to glide. This they find out jumping from branch to branch. This they seem to have sufficient intelligence for, but not to design a BMW.


So this gliding animal, now develops over time, proper wings, with feathers, and those all important, flight feathers, for without which they cannot fly. Somehow also, they change the bones from solid to hollow to save weight. Captain mutation strikes again, just in time. After all, what is the point of wings if one is too heavy to fly.




If we take it back far enough, with by rudimentary knowledge of evolution, then there has to be a life-form which can reproduce from itself, which for some reason changes into two, male and female. The reason for this is just randomness doing its thing, apparently. Yet is this a reasonable answer? Why should it mutate anything which is favourable in the first place?


(Common sense would say that intelligence was needed, and yet common sense does not seem to be a requirement in evolution. Having said this, common sense can be wrong)


Nevertheless, it does, and so, somehow, we see life understand, that, as soon as they were 'two', they needed to mate in order to bring about life, and as soon as this happens, they have to look after in some way, their offspring. How did this happen? It seems to bring with it a whole bag of necessities which must be there. As soon as the division has taken place, there must be in place a desire to reproduce, in other words to join what has just been broken! a desire to look after the young, protect, feed etc, and then more than likely, drive them off so they don't eat food from your own patch. This also helps to prevent inbreeding. Does that show intelligence? I guess if that is what we thought brought it all about it would.
But if we don't then it just luck. Favourable luck, which we seem to get plenty of if there is no intelligence. But can we really say that in this scenario, there is actually such a thing as 'luck'? (Does it really have a real true meaning?) This implies, does it not, that we are thinking of an end product which is beneficial to life, to indeed us, in order that it was 'lucky' in the first place. And this 'idea' of luck has to be invented to 'cover' the absence of intelligence.


So if not luck, it just happened that way.


So we then see that there is a complicated development of the universe, our planet, and life on this planet, as just happening the way it did, and just blindly accepting it. Is this a reasonable answer?


The ridiculous odds of the universe and everything in it, developing as it did, just, 'happened that way'. It does not really sound like science in action. It sounds more like a fear of the unknown.


Or, we might ask, is it possible that DNA could at one time have been changed by the input from us, from our own experiences? Now that would be fascinating.


If not, then everything is just luck, tidied up with 'choice' which seems to know what to choose and what not to choose. This choice is of course natural selection. This brings with it a question of just what exactly is 'natural'? Presumably most people think in this case: 'Devoid of God'. But that is surely a presupposition on the part of the person in question. What if we called 'natural' by the title 'intelligence'. What would we then think?


On a science program on TV, they said that Man came out of the jungle and that we grew a cartilage at the back of our neck which stops the head throwing forward when we are running (something one would need if one were to leave the safety of the trees) and also our hair fell out. The hair is said to have fallen out because we were too hot in the desert. How did it know that it had to do that?


Our we saying that some hair fell out of some, they lived, but those who kept their hair, overheated and died? If so, then it seems again, captain mutation came to the rescue and started our hair falling out. In that sense, 'choice' seems an after thought, when compared with the responsibility put on the shoulders of 'captain mutation'.


Of course, he did not get rid of the hair on our head or eyebrows, as this was beneficial. One it protects the head, and eyebrows stop sweat going into the eyes. So we must assume then that a lot of people died not seeing the lion coming towards them because their eyes were 'stinging' or, perhaps they fell off a cliff!


It appears that there almost seems to be a hidden, dare I say it, intelligence, which is like an undercurrent changing, much like people do, to the times.


I could go on, but the general idea, if one is not clear on what I am asking, is, How is that captain mutation seems to know what to send down the evolutionary conveyor belt, and when, so that lazy old captain selection, can merely pick the ones he wants. And why is it they work so well together anyway? No good sending car parts to someone wanting a patio!


Do we ignore the 'design' that we see around us? For me, Creationists take that design idea to far, and evolutionists, don't take it far enough.

Yes, I do believe in God, however, I want answers to this from people who can openly argue it, without thinking that I am trying to push God down their throat just because I mention intelligence

comments?

[Thanatos]

It appears that the 'parameters of choice' in this sense, is something already established, even if the parameters of this 'choice' can change with time: such as the weather or land etc. There has to be some sort of parameters or how does it initially choose.

They come directly from the shape of the environment.

At some point life must have come out of the sea, and become land based. Why?

This would have provided a way to avoid predators, survive being stuck in a tide pool or a drying river, and munch on infinite fields of relatively helpless primitive moss relatives. Yummy.

How ever they were mating before and bringing up there young, must surely now change. They were after all, in water.

It took a while. The amphibians still need to return to the water to breed.

The idea of tree life is protection from predators and perhaps seeking food. That makes sense I guess, once you assume that the species in question knows what 'up' is, otherwise, why climb?

Animals aren't completely dumb, and you don't technically have to know what up is so long as you can understand it as the direction without a leopard in it and that any direction without a leopard is actually pretty tempting.

Of course it would have to know also how to climb, and have sufficient grip to do so. This seems to have happened in the nick of time,

You don't have to climb well. You just have to climb better than the predator. Over time it turns into an evolutionary arms race to see who is better at escaping from predators. This bear will survive to hunt another day solely because it is a better climber than the deadly and vicious common housecat that pursued it up the tree.

http://www.blogiseverything.com/imag...ses_20bear.jpg

So this takes it back to the DNA instruction level and to 'why' it moves its fins/limbs in the first place (Just because one has limbs, does not mean one will move them. There has to be a nervous system to connect it) And the answer to that is supposed to be: 'There is no reason'.

Fins are handy for steering and pumping water over your gills. The only other option is to be a jellyfish and just sort of randomly pulsate to maintain depth.

In fact one might even ask, is it indeed possible to have anything that is 'non random' from 'randomness'.

Possible if something ate all the machines that were too useless to reproduce effectively.


Some of those in trees, (birds from reptiles- after all, birds can't live in water all the time, so this makes sense) began to grow--for some reason best known to mutation--skin flaps which allow them to glide. This they find out jumping from branch to branch. This they seem to have sufficient intelligence for, but not to design a BMW.

So this gliding animal, now develops over time, proper wings, with feathers, and those all important, flight feathers, for without which they cannot fly. Somehow also, they change the bones from solid to hollow to save weight. Captain mutation strikes again, just in time. After all, what is the point of wings if one is too heavy to fly.

Being lighter but just as strong is useful. Feathers are insulation, or possibly just sexy. Many dinosaurs that demonstrably did not fly and were not related to anything that did had feathers and hollow bones.

I could go on, but the general idea, if one is not clear on what I am asking, is, How is that captain mutation seems to know what to send down the evolutionary conveyor belt, and when, so that lazy old captain selection, can merely pick the ones he wants. And why is it they work so well together anyway? No good sending car parts to someone wanting a patio!

Nope, no good at all. Most mutations are useless or worse. It takes time to get things right.

[gallo]

Hello,
Firstly, the basic idea of evolution I accept though I do have problems with it having no intelligence; that said, we proceed:

I see. You are saying that you accept some idea of evolution but reject the scientific theories of evolution because they do not admit mythology.

Mutating genes, so it goes, change the species in some way which is beneficial to it, and so it moves on with the benefits; the instructions written in the DNA.

Essentially correct. In the parlance of evolutionary biology, a new gene or allele of a gene that lends differential reproductive success in a given environment has a greater chance to be passed to following generations.

It means there has to be 'difference' other wise 'choice' cannot act on what it sees, and also their must be 'parameters' to decided what is 'in' and what is 'not' otherwise how does choice work?

I'm sorry. Wrong choice of word. Darwin used the word "selection," which is still the word used by anyone versed in evolutionary theory today. I understand that you wish to imply that there is somehow a "chooser" that guides evolution, but you are wrong.

It appears that the 'parameters of choice' in this sense, is something already established, even if the parameters of this 'choice' can change with time: such as the weather or land etc. There has to be some sort of parameters or how does it initially choose.

It isn't a choice. Darwin called it natural selection. It's like a competition - those individuals that better compete move on. Like the Olympic trials: the fastest runners are selected for the team, the highest jumpers are selected for the team, etc. There isn't any choosing. Those who are best in their event are selected for the Olympic team. In the case of living organisms, it is the best reproducer that moves on. There is no choosing, nor any evidence of such choosing, going on.

At some point life must have come out of the sea, and become land based. Why?

Because land was a new and untapped environment that offered resources for which there was little competition.

Lungs would be required, and for no apparent reason, they, with time, appear.

Actually, research has shown that there were some very apparent reasons for lungs. You see, terrestrial bodies of water sometimes are cut off and become stagnate. As a result, the level of oxygen drops below that necessary to sustain the life. Even fish without lungs come to the surface and gulp air in stagnate water with a low oxygen content. So I guess there were reasons for the development of lungs.

This enables the life form to move onto the land, which for some reason it now wants to do. Why?

There isn't any "want" in this equation. What an organism wants is food, and if that organism has been adapted to life in drying ponds with low oxygen, and if there is food on land, which it was already able to traverse, why wouldn't it move onto land?

These life forms then lose the ability to breathe in water so stay on the land. So were they in fact forced onto the land, or was it something they decided to do when they realised the vehicle they were in could turn left and right, in other words, land and sea?

Give me a break. Do you actually think that a frog makes a decision to live in the water as a juvenile and out of the water as an adult? Have you actually put any thought into what you are saying?

As I could live on a mountain and choose not to, it suggests to me that they did not choose as such, but rather their hand was forced. For whatever reason, after moving onto the land, they could not return.

It's called evolution. They could not return to the water because they became adapted to a terrestrial environment. Through mutation, they acquired traits that allowed them to survive better on land than organisms that moved between land and water.

How ever they were mating before and bringing up there young, must surely now change. They were after all, in water.

I'm not sure what that bit of non-sequitur means.

Some take to the trees, some stay on land. Why?

What is that supposed to mean?

The idea of tree life is protection from predators and perhaps seeking food. That makes sense I guess, once you assume that the species in question knows what 'up' is, otherwise, why climb?

Simply because climbing somehow offered a better chance to survive to reproduce. There was no decision on the part of any organism. Some did, some didn't. If a behavior (like climbing) offered a differential reproductive success, then it passed its genes along to subsequent generations in greater numbers.

This might not be so strange though when one considers if they were in water, they would know full well what 'up' was- though probably not involving trees!

Give me a break. Do you actually believe that algae, mold, snails and slugs, etc. are rational, rather than just sentient?

Of course it would have to know also how to climb, and have sufficient grip to do so. This seems to have happened in the nick of time, otherwise a lot of life would have been wiped out.

I have no idea what that bit of nonsense has to do with reality.

But I guess that if one moves fins, one would move--the now usurper--limbs. So perhaps it is not so strange again. Yet it seems rather convenient that they developed the right limbs with claws etc.

I'm going to give up on trying to respond to this ignorant claptrap. There isn't any point in continuing. You don't make any valid point that would support intelligent design. In fact, you reveal how weak the ID argument really is.

If you "accept the basic idea of evolution," then why on earth wouldn't you make some sort of effort to educate yourself about the basic idea of evolution before you spoke. You are actually quite ignorant of evolutionary biology (evident from your questions) in particular, and science in general. You don't seem to know what science is or how it works.

Your questions aren't really an attempt to seek information. You think that you know the answers because your preacher told you so. You have arrived at the answers before any questions were asked. Your answer is the magic and mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. If you wish to believe that, then feel free. That is your right. But please stop pretending that such belief is rational and, somehow, scientific.

deleted further claptrap

If you want to learn, then by all means, ask questions. If you want to argue that the nonsense of creationism is somehow scientific, the learn what science is and how it works.

[minorwork]

It appears that the 'parameters of choice' in this sense, is something already established, even if the parameters of this 'choice' can change with time: such as the weather or land etc. There has to be some sort of parameters or how does it initially choose.

Reproductive success is the filter. A mutation not replicated is not "chosen."

At some point life must have come out of the sea, and become land based. Why?

Reproduction was achieved more on land than water. Predation pressures.

Lungs would be required, and for no apparent reason, they, with time, appear. This enables the life form to move onto the land, which for some reason it now wants to do. Why?

Predation pressures on reproductive success.

These life forms then lose the ability to breathe in water so stay on the land. So were they in fact forced onto the land, or was it something they decided to do when they realized the vehicle they were in could turn left and right, in other words, land and sea? As I could live on a mountain and choose not to, it suggests to me that they did not choose as such, but rather their hand was forced. For whatever reason, after moving onto the land, they could not return.

Whales returned to the sea. Turtles returned to the sea, then came back, then returned.

Some take to the trees, some stay on land. Why?

Reproductive advantage was found up a tree.

Of course it would have to know also how to climb, and have sufficient grip to do so. This seems to have happened in the nick of time, otherwise a lot of life would have been wiped out.

There are more extinct species than living, though we are still finding more. A species is a group of animals and plants that normally breed amongst themselves.

But I guess that if one moves fins, one would move--the now usurper--limbs. So perhaps it is not so strange again. Yet it seems rather convenient that they developed the right limbs with claws etc.

Given a predator type, there exists multiple avoidances of that predator. The predator must adapt to preys avoidance or it will be extincted.

So this takes it back to the DNA instruction level and to 'why' it moves its fins/limbs in the first place (Just because one has limbs, does not mean one will move them. There has to be a nervous system to connect it) And the answer to that is supposed to be: 'There is no reason'.
It is beneficial, but only through the random chance of mutation. This is said to be 'canceled out' through the 'non randomness' of 'choice' which in turn must come about through randomness (otherwise you need intelligence) so how then is it 'non' random?

In a sufficiently complex dynamic system that operates by cause and effect determinism, a single event repeated can have highly diverse results. This is Chaos Theory. The diverse results of a small change have the APPEARANCE of randomness.

In fact one might even ask, is it indeed possible to have anything that is 'non random' from 'randomness'.

Better understanding of the particulars of systems within systems have yielded order out of chaos. Probability, Bayesian in particular, with recognizing the limits of what can be known have yielded quantum mechanics which is the most reliable model of the world known.

We might well design a machine of some sort, say trays with various levels and various sized holes, which allow certain balls to drop through but not others. We might well envisage, that we could end up with only the balls that we wanted after it had been through the various stages. So we would have non randomness brought about through randomness. We would have a certain size ball left at the end with others excluded. Natural selection reigns supreme! But the problem with that is, the machine in question was designed! So then is it possible have non randomness from randomness? To say yes would be to say one does not believe in intelligence in evolution. The question to that is, why?

Evolution proceeds at such a pace in thought experiments of the mind that you've mistakenly separated our environmental niche and its sub-niche, thought, away from that of the much more sedate evolution of species. A single mind evolves a mutation as a random thought and it is shown beneficial or detrimental by its relationship with that minds models of the world. A particular device can be tested in the mind and extincted there. Or it can be brought into reality in what you call design but I liken to reproduction, where if it functions to use of its parent it will continue and perhaps be replicated. The Space Shuttle and SR71 Blackbird spyplane are both now extinct, but the lowly DC-3 of the '40s still is delivering cargo and skydivers to heights for safe jumping.

My point is that intelligence is but accelerated evolution and is no different in characteristics and means but in the speed of its operations from its functioning in the Pre-Cambrian body type experiments performed over billions of years.

Some of those in trees, (birds from reptiles- after all, birds can't live in water all the time, so this makes sense) began to grow--for some reason best known to mutation--skin flaps which allow them to glide. This they find out jumping from branch to branch. This they seem to have sufficient intelligence for, but not to design a BMW.

They do NOT find out. There is reproduction of the those so mutated to a numbers advantage, is neutral to reproductive value, or is detrimental to reproductive value.

So this gliding animal, now develops over time, proper wings, with feathers, and those all important, flight feathers, for without which they cannot fly. Somehow also, they change the bones from solid to hollow to save weight. Captain mutation strikes again, just in time. After all, what is the point of wings if one is too heavy to fly.

None of your caricatures of animals reasoning so embrace the reproductive advantage that is at the heart of evolutions mechanism. The process is mindless to flying advantage but attentive to reproductive advantage.

If we take it back far enough, with by rudimentary knowledge of evolution, then there has to be a life-form which can reproduce from itself, which for some reason changes into two, male and female. The reason for this is just randomness doing its thing, apparently. Yet is this a reasonable answer? Why should it mutate anything which is favorable in the first place?

Chaotic systems appear random. Without reproductive success of a long line of ancestors none of us would be here. They were all survivors. There are many more NOT here because of the extinctions.

(Common sense would say that intelligence was needed, and yet common sense does not seem to be a requirement in evolution. Having said this, common sense can be wrong)

Common sense? A horny teen? What???? What DO you see in the horny teens?"It's never the right time to have kids, but it's always the right time for screwing. God's not a dumbshit. He knows how it works."

Nevertheless, it does, and so, somehow, we see life understand, that, as soon as they were 'two', they needed to mate in order to bring about life, and as soon as this happens, they have to look after in some way, their offspring. How did this happen? It seems to bring with it a whole bag of necessities which must be there. As soon as the division has taken place, there must be in place a desire to reproduce, in other words to join what has just been broken! a desire to look after the young, protect, feed etc, and then more than likely, drive them off so they don't eat food from your own patch. This also helps to prevent inbreeding. Does that show intelligence? I guess if that is what we thought brought it all about it would.

A female Komodo Dragon can swim to an island where she can birth male and females and where it is possible for her to mate with those males and they with there sisters to start a new colony of dragons.

The two distinctive sexes is but another way that life has found to sustain itself thru reproduction. Not necessary to and may not even be an advantage to life if reproduction would guarantee death. Such as in this case. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...and-death.html

But if we don't then it just luck. Favorable luck, which we seem to get plenty of if there is no intelligence. But can we really say that in this scenario, there is actually such a thing as 'luck'? (Does it really have a real true meaning?) This implies, does it not, that we are thinking of an end product which is beneficial to life, to indeed us, in order that it was 'lucky' in the first place. And this 'idea' of luck has to be invented to 'cover' the absence of intelligence.

Not back in the day though. Today for you to understand, sure. Back then it was an enormously complex dynamic earth that ran myriads of survival experiments. More did not survive than did.

So if not luck, it just happened that way.

Sufficiently complex systems have the appearance of randomness or, as you say, luck. The basic mechanism is cause and effect and reproductive success.

So we then see that there is a complicated development of the universe, our planet, and life on this planet, as just happening the way it did, and just blindly accepting it. Is this a reasonable answer?

What mean "blindly?"

The ridiculous odds of the universe and everything in it, developing as it did, just, 'happened that way'. It does not really sound like science in action. It sounds more like a fear of the unknown.

Are complex systems, chaotic systems sufficiently understood by you that you can with confidence say of it that the odds of what the universe obviously is rates the term ridiculous? There's a reason it doesn't sound like science. It's NOT. Nor is your strawman rendition of odds the descriptive case at all.

Or, we might ask, is it possible that DNA could at one time have been changed by the input from us, from our own experiences? Now that would be fascinating.

With our intention? Surely this occurs without guidance and from ignorance of effects. We have, with PGD, (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis) but only begun to proceed in the direction you suggest. In the past? Evidence for such? I've heard of none.

On a science program on TV, they said that Man came out of the jungle and that we grew a cartilage at the back of our neck which stops the head throwing forward when we are running (something one would need if one were to leave the safety of the trees) and also our hair fell out. The hair is said to have fallen out because we were too hot in the desert. How did it know that it had to do that?

Not necessary to know to do it. Do you know the enzymes to produce to digest complex carbs versus fats?

Our we saying that some hair fell out of some, they lived, but those who kept their hair, overheated and died? If so, then it seems again, captain mutation came to the rescue and started our hair falling out. In that sense, 'choice' seems an after thought, when compared with the responsibility put on the shoulders of 'captain mutation'.

Started??? No. Could have been falling out all along but was neutral reproductively. Then conditions changed such that there was reproductive advantage to those who lost hair which proliferated while those that didn't died off. Or conditions of those forced north by drought resulted in those who lost hair dying out.

Of course, he did not get rid of the hair on our head or eyebrows, as this was beneficial. One it protects the head, and eyebrows stop sweat going into the eyes. So we must assume then that a lot of people died not seeing the lion coming towards them because their eyes were 'stinging' or, perhaps they fell off a cliff!

Reproductive success is not known for its perfection of design, just enough to get by and show reproductive success.

It appears that there almost seems to be a hidden, dare I say it, intelligence, which is like an undercurrent changing, much like people do, to the times.

Change is the name of the game. Environments that don't change spawn large diversity of species. Changing environments extinct variations.

I could go on, but the general idea, if one is not clear on what I am asking, is, How is that captain mutation seems to know what to send down the evolutionary conveyor belt, and when, so that lazy old captain selection, can merely pick the ones he wants. And why is it they work so well together anyway? No good sending car parts to someone wanting a patio!

The Captain seems to know because that is what YOU notice as an attribute of mutation. The Captain doesn't know and has no ability to care. Environment doesn't care either and doesn't know. Replication is all that occurs and it only continues by genetic pattern replications of a stable base thru existence within chaos.

Do we ignore the 'design' that we see around us? For me, Creationists take that design idea to far, and evolutionists, don't take it far enough.

Creationists take something too far that they don't know enough about to justify where they use it. Evolutionists have a broader view of design that includes the creationists model.

[Robert]

Minorwork:


Thanks for the effort without the sarcasm which is normally given by some. For some reason, there are people who have problems discussing evolution. The link led me to this--which is a short quote:

''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? Everything seems to be luck, or random, and it is this which I have difficulty with.

[Jack]

But how then should it be worded?

Something like, "Those born without the Siglec genes survived while those with the Siglec genes did not, thus ridding the human species of these detrimental genes."

[minorwork]

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.

A human perspective, sure. Writers won't be read if they're not understood. Some of the articles from SCIENCE are out of my pay grade, but they are in the language of the particular discipline being studied. NewScientist bridges my layman's grasp by providing a satisfying medium between the necessary technical jargon and my level of education by sacrificing rigorous distinctions of details necessary to advance knowledge of a particular discipline. In rigor's place is a translation in terms of human experience to aid understanding. Most human experience deals with decisions about what is known, when, how, and why to apply that knowledge. Our queries take that form, though, from expediency and necessity of immediate applications in life and not soundness of procedure in investigative disciplines.

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? Everything seems to be luck, or random, and it is this which I have difficulty with.

Interpreters and translators struggle daily with the issues you've proposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[grandpa]

A human perspective, sure.
Writers won't be read if they're not understood.

Not all would have the same perspective. I think some styles are deliberately perplexing.

Grandpa h.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Minorwork:


Thanks for the effort without the sarcasm which is normally given by some. For some reason, there are people who have problems discussing evolution. The link led me to this--which is a short quote:

''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? Everything seems to be luck, or random, and it is this which I have difficulty with.

The new scientist is still a journalistic enterprise. They have no scientific creditability because they are not doing science. They do journalism ON science.

your arguments are tired and barely lucid. You show a lack of understanding about evolution that, while common amongst believers, is staggering to me. You continue to show this massive lack of understanding and seem to ignore all attempts to correct your misinformation, preferring instead to continue with the uncorrected misinformation.

I contend that you have a preconceived notion about the subject, and this is based on my observation. To test this, I request that you explain your current understanding of evolution:

What is evolution (both the theory and the observed fact)?

What is the mechanism for evolution that the theory of evolution puts forward to explain the diversity of life on this planet?

how does it operate?

On what scale can it operate and on what scale can it not?

Is there such a thing as a good or bad mutation?

on what timescale does this process take place?

Why is the idea of a crockoduck ridiculous (this should be easy if you have even a basic understanding of evolution)?

[Peter]

Hello,
Firstly, the basic idea of evolution I accept though I do have problems with it having no intelligence; that said, we proceed:


Mutating genes, so it goes, change the species in some way which is beneficial to it, and so it moves on with the benefits; the instructions written in the DNA. It means there has to be 'difference' other wise 'choice' cannot act on what it sees, and also their must be 'parameters' to decided what is 'in' and what is 'not' otherwise how does choice work?

Differential survival rates.

It appears that the 'parameters of choice' in this sense, is something already established, even if the parameters of this 'choice' can change with time: such as the weather or land etc. There has to be some sort of parameters or how does it initially choose.

See above. Natural selection "selects" for survival and against death. Survival = pass on genes and death = no genes passed on.

At some point life must have come out of the sea, and become land based. Why?

Crowded sea, empty land with no competition and lots of resources. Remember, the only purpose of life is to make more life. Life is not unlike a bacteria that will work it's way into every nook and cranny that has something the bacteria can eat. Does the bacteria decide to spread? No. It simply follows the resources.

Lungs would be required, and for no apparent reason, they, with time, appear. This enables the life form to move onto the land, which for some reason it now wants to do. Why?

First water creatures started moving into the shallows for the resources there and lack of competition. The ones that could breath air better and better were able to move slowly from the water to the land which was covered by plants(food) at that point and had no competition. Is this really so hard to understand??

These life forms then lose the ability to breathe in water so stay on the land. So were they in fact forced onto the land, or was it something they decided to do when they realised the vehicle they were in could turn left and right, in other words, land and sea? As I could live on a mountain and choose not to, it suggests to me that they did not choose as such, but rather their hand was forced. For whatever reason, after moving onto the land, they could not return.

They didn't decide to occupy the land any more than the mold decides to spread over the cheese.

How ever they were mating before and bringing up there young, must surely now change. They were after all, in water.

It's called an egg. A little water environment for the young.

Some take to the trees, some stay on land. Why?

Survival? Food? Remember, life spreads to occupy all niches. Conversely, why would life never change or spread?

The idea of tree life is protection from predators and perhaps seeking food. That makes sense I guess, once you assume that the species in question knows what 'up' is, otherwise, why climb? This might not be so strange though when one considers if they were in water, they would know full well what 'up' was- though probably not involving trees!

Of course it would have to know also how to climb, and have sufficient grip to do so. This seems to have happened in the nick of time, otherwise a lot of life would have been wiped out.

Huh? Know how to climb? You must realize that behavior evolves too. In any population there will be a variety of behaviors and the behavior that increases survival will be selected for.

But I guess that if one moves fins, one would move--the now usurper--limbs. So perhaps it is not so strange again. Yet it seems rather convenient that they developed the right limbs with claws etc.

Convenient? You seem to have no idea of the time scale involved. Can you grasp four thousand million years? I can just barely grasp it when I'm slightly drunk and concentrate very hard.

So this takes it back to the DNA instruction level and to 'why' it moves its fins/limbs in the first place (Just because one has limbs, does not mean one will move them. There has to be a nervous system to connect it) And the answer to that is supposed to be: 'There is no reason'.
It is beneficial, but only through the random chance of mutation. This is said to be 'cancelled out' through the 'non randomness' of 'choice' which in turn must come about through randomness (otherwise you need intelligence) so how then is it 'non' random?

Your questions seem to be running together here with only minor variations. Variation is random, natural selection is non-random.

In fact one might even ask, is it indeed possible to have anything that is 'non random' from 'randomness'.


We might well design a machine of some sort, say trays with various levels and various sized holes, which allow certain balls to drop through but not others. We might well envisage, that we could end up with only the balls that we wanted after it had been through the various stages. So we would have non randomness brought about through randomness. We would have a certain size ball left at the end with others excluded. Natural selection reigns supreme! But the problem with that is, the machine in question was designed! So then is it possible have non randomness from randomness? To say yes would be to say one does not believe in intelligence in evolution. The question to that is, why?


Some of those in trees, (birds from reptiles- after all, birds can't live in water all the time, so this makes sense) began to grow--for some reason best known to mutation--skin flaps which allow them to glide. This they find out jumping from branch to branch. This they seem to have sufficient intelligence for, but not to design a BMW.


So this gliding animal, now develops over time, proper wings, with feathers, and those all important, flight feathers, for without which they cannot fly. Somehow also, they change the bones from solid to hollow to save weight. Captain mutation strikes again, just in time. After all, what is the point of wings if one is too heavy to fly.

Just in time? Again, you give me the impression you think this happened over a weekend or something.

If we take it back far enough, with by rudimentary knowledge of evolution, then there has to be a life-form which can reproduce from itself, which for some reason changes into two, male and female. The reason for this is just randomness doing its thing, apparently. Yet is this a reasonable answer? Why should it mutate anything which is favourable in the first place?


(Common sense would say that intelligence was needed, and yet common sense does not seem to be a requirement in evolution. Having said this, common sense can be wrong)


Nevertheless, it does, and so, somehow, we see life understand, that, as soon as they were 'two', they needed to mate in order to bring about life, and as soon as this happens, they have to look after in some way, their offspring. How did this happen? It seems to bring with it a whole bag of necessities which must be there. As soon as the division has taken place, there must be in place a desire to reproduce, in other words to join what has just been broken! a desire to look after the young, protect, feed etc, and then more than likely, drive them off so they don't eat food from your own patch. This also helps to prevent inbreeding. Does that show intelligence? I guess if that is what we thought brought it all about it would.
But if we don't then it just luck. Favourable luck, which we seem to get plenty of if there is no intelligence. But can we really say that in this scenario, there is actually such a thing as 'luck'? (Does it really have a real true meaning?) This implies, does it not, that we are thinking of an end product which is beneficial to life, to indeed us, in order that it was 'lucky' in the first place. And this 'idea' of luck has to be invented to 'cover' the absence of intelligence.


So if not luck, it just happened that way.


So we then see that there is a complicated development of the universe, our planet, and life on this planet, as just happening the way it did, and just blindly accepting it. Is this a reasonable answer?


The ridiculous odds of the universe and everything in it, developing as it did, just, 'happened that way'. It does not really sound like science in action. It sounds more like a fear of the unknown.


Or, we might ask, is it possible that DNA could at one time have been changed by the input from us, from our own experiences? Now that would be fascinating.


If not, then everything is just luck, tidied up with 'choice' which seems to know what to choose and what not to choose. This choice is of course natural selection. This brings with it a question of just what exactly is 'natural'? Presumably most people think in this case: 'Devoid of God'. But that is surely a presupposition on the part of the person in question. What if we called 'natural' by the title 'intelligence'. What would we then think?


On a science program on TV, they said that Man came out of the jungle and that we grew a cartilage at the back of our neck which stops the head throwing forward when we are running (something one would need if one were to leave the safety of the trees) and also our hair fell out. The hair is said to have fallen out because we were too hot in the desert. How did it know that it had to do that?


Our we saying that some hair fell out of some, they lived, but those who kept their hair, overheated and died? If so, then it seems again, captain mutation came to the rescue and started our hair falling out. In that sense, 'choice' seems an after thought, when compared with the responsibility put on the shoulders of 'captain mutation'.


Of course, he did not get rid of the hair on our head or eyebrows, as this was beneficial. One it protects the head, and eyebrows stop sweat going into the eyes. So we must assume then that a lot of people died not seeing the lion coming towards them because their eyes were 'stinging' or, perhaps they fell off a cliff!


It appears that there almost seems to be a hidden, dare I say it, intelligence, which is like an undercurrent changing, much like people do, to the times.


I could go on, but the general idea, if one is not clear on what I am asking, is, How is that captain mutation seems to know what to send down the evolutionary conveyor belt, and when, so that lazy old captain selection, can merely pick the ones he wants. And why is it they work so well together anyway? No good sending car parts to someone wanting a patio!


Do we ignore the 'design' that we see around us? For me, Creationists take that design idea to far, and evolutionists, don't take it far enough.

Yes, I do believe in God, however, I want answers to this from people who can openly argue it, without thinking that I am trying to push God down their throat just because I mention intelligence

comments?

Comments? Well, for starters you don't seem to understand at all how slow a process Evolution is. Slow and painful with many false starts and dead ends but always tending to fix into the gene pool improvements and in so doing, complexity. Modern humans occupy the "intelligence" nich on this planet. We probably drove all other contenders for our nich into extinction directly or indirectly by simply being better at adapting.

The really fascinating thing is that we're still evolving. Artificially evolving. Our technology has made natural selection almost impotent since there is very little of nature that affects us. I think that since behaviors can evolve much more quickly than morphology we're already seeing technology affect human behavior. Can you think of any behavior that has changed radically in the past 40 years? How about the last 100 years?

[Jack]

Lungs would be required, and for no apparent reason, they, with time, appear. This enables the life form to move onto the land, which for some reason it now wants to do. Why?

Did you ever wonder why it is that for the better part of the first nine months of our lives we breathe liquid in the form of amniotic fluid? Why do we develop lungs when it would appear gills would be of more use? Why do we go from liquid breathing creatures to air breathing, in fact become so adapted to breathing air that after birth we can drown in liquid?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Just to add a bit to your point, Peter:

There were multiple species under the genus homo. We are the only species of the genus homo that still exists.

Homo sapiens - still extant, all others extinct.
Homo gautengensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis