|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: THE END OF EVOLUTION? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Are you saying that you have discovered other species that have come out of homo sapiens? Prepare you Nobel speech. I'm submitting your name.
That is most definitely notwhat I'm saying. What I'm saying is: How would you test a fossil that looks like modern H. sapiens for inter-fertility with modern H. sapiens? soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5464 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
Why do so many arguing against evolution seem not only to not understand evolution but also to not understand simple arguments, or even plain English. Who is arguing against evolution? Perhaps you have not been following the thread but the discussion is about whether homo sapiens are an evolutionary dead end or whether another species will come from the homo sapien line.
That is most definitely notwhat I'm saying. What I'm saying is: How would you test a fossil that looks like modern H. sapiens for inter-fertility with modern H. sapiens? I don't think you could. There is some work being done on replicating DNA from an extinct species using Polymerase Chain Reaction or splicing genes into the genome of another animal. This process is far from creating a replica of the extinct living thing. I maintain that it is highly unlikely that any species split from homo sapiens during the last 100 000 years and has not been discovered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
I don't think you could.
So you can't show that modern humans are the same species as humans of the relativly recent past. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I am not talking about micro or macro in general. I'm talking about a new species coming out of homo sapiens. Percy said in post 143 that for speciation to occur it is required that genes don't intermingle. How can that happen with homo sapiens in todays global village? What if there wasn't a global village? Would you then be okay with the idea that two human species could develop? Say, for instance, that we sent a population of humans to a distant planet where they became stranded for 10 million years. In this situation, are you saying that the resulting populations will be the same species no matter what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Granny Magda, Greetings to you too.
Granny Magda writes:
No, you put that incorrectly. But to be clear, you do believe that DNA cannot be formed naturally due to the 2nd Law. Isn't that the case?Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT. But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible. The 2nd LOT is not an active force or agent that prevents something from happening. It merely provides a reason why something is impossible.
Granny Magda writes:
I notice the qualification "...at its most basic..." You are nit-picking. Evolution, at its most basic, is simply change over time. You can describe it in any number of more descriptive and more sophisticated ways, but it remains, in essence, change over time.Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating. If evolution is merely "change over time", then the word evolution is quite redundant. Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ??
Granny Magda writes:
Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things.
Which is pretty much the same as what Percy was suggested you had said. You are nit-picking again when you suggest that Percy has misrepresented you. Granny Magda writes:
Yes, it's all HER fault. Actually, Lucy brought up the topic of the 2nd Law. This is Lucy's thread. That leaves the onus on Lucy and anyone else who wants to make the same argument. Seriously now... actually the onus is on anyone that makes a positive claim to provide an evidence. If you believe evolution positively leads to DNA structure formation then my friend, may you have the pleasure of presenting your evidence, and spare Lucy the agony.
Granny Magda writes:
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness. Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT, as well as a contradiction in terms.
The overwhelming majority of biologists and physicists see no reason why thermodynamics should present a problem for the ToE. If you disagree so strongly with the experts in these fields, the onus is on you to explain why. Otherwise, you will likely be dismissed as just another crank (sorry). Granny Magda writes:
I thought that was quite enlightening and I don't know why you got so excited. WTF? Why on Earth would you assume that? News flash; not every life form in the human evolutionary tree would have lived for 50 years. Most would have lived far, far shorter lives....you are creating bogus calculations. No-one is impressed.How about you provide a guess-estimate how many mutations will be needed for evolution to form a human from scratch? Granny Magda writes:
Think about your statement "the ability to metabolise citrate". I'm sorry, but this is utter crap. You are being lied to, hardly a surprise when you get your information about science from a website with "creation" in the title. Lenski's bacteria evolved a new ability, the ability to metabolise citrate. It was not an ability which they possessed before. It was a new ability. It emerged right there in the lab. If that is not an emergence of new function, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us precisely what would qualify as such...Now think harder... then tell me what constitute data and function in that statement? Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate. Guess what, if E.Coli can learn a new skill (a new function) that enables them to choose what to eat and to spit out what taste yucky, then I would be really impressed. May they also evolve taste bud and a smart brain to support that new skill/function.
Granny Magda writes:
May be I ought to tell you to mind your own business.
It's not relevant. Concentrate on what is being said, not who is saying it. Peepul writes:
You've said the smartest thing all day. This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen.Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT. Wounded King writes:
Like I implied above, the 2nd LOT is not a force or agent that takes action to prevent something from happening. The 2nd LOT only provides a reason why something is not possible.
In what way does the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibit an evolutionary origin for the cell? Wounded King writes:
I very much wish I can mathematically illustrate why 2nd LOT explains evolution by random chance is impossible. As others have pointed out, you and Lucy are both making a very specific claim that the 2LOT makes evolution by random mutation and natural selection producing cells or DNA or some other complex organismal system impossible. Yet neither of you can give any reason actually connected to thermodynamics why this should be the case.But as you might have figured out by now that I'm actually quite ignorant. 2nd LOT can also provides a reason why I'm entirely incapable of providing such a mathematical illustration. Percy writes:
I assume the word 'creation' implies a non-random process. In which case creation of a system may not violate 2LOT. So describe for us how creation of a new "structured information system" would violate 2LOT. I recall learning about a mathematical series deduction when in school, something that I can only vaguely describe this way:In a mathematical series, Element{N) is true. Element(N+1) is also true. Now if it is proven that Element(N+1) is true DUE TO THE FACT THAT Element(N) is true, then the series is infinitely true, meaning Element(N+2)...Element(N+x) are all true. Does anyone know about this? For quite some times I have day-dreamed that a proof or a disproof of evolution will require mathematical deduction of this nature... But it's been just a dream so far. (p/s. I talked too much and I've promised myself to take a break )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen. You've said the smartest thing all day.Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT. Very good - what I really meant was that the 2LOT does not apply in these circumstances. It only applies to closed systems and strictly it only applies to systems in equilibrium also. It is applied in practice to closed systems outside equilibrium, but this is an approximation. Are you also aware that 2LOT is also a statistical law rather than an absolute one? ie it is only the case that increase / no change in entropy is overwhelmingly more likely than decrease in entropy. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate". So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate. Are you a software engineer by any chance? It would be natural to take this view if you were - but metabolism isn't like that - there is no single function called 'metabolise' that can work on different inputs. Each pathway is different (up to the point where it feeds into the main metabolic processes that are always running). Plus I believe changes to allow transport of citrate into the cell are also part of the picture, but I could be wrong here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Thanks for your reply pcver,
quote: Oh well then, that's not a problem then. No-one is claiming that DNA formed by "random chance". No current theory of the origins of life base the origins of DNA on random chance. An unguided process acting under natural forces is not random, it is merely unguided.
quote: Don't be silly. Words have multiple levels of meaning.
quote: Most certainly not! That would be less correct. Evolution is not random, it is governed by natural selection.
quote: Then why not tell us all what you mean by "structured information system"? The term does not seem to be a biological one. You can't just use random terms and expect everyone to know what you mean.
quote: And claims have been made to the effect that the 2nd LoT poses a problem for the ToE. If this is your contention, then kindly provide some evidence to that effect. I am not going to hand-walk you through every single interaction between the theory of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics, demonstrating at each point that there is not a problem. That would take an infinity. If you think that there is a problem, point it out. Shit or get off the pot.
quote: Make up your mind. Is there a problem or not? Also, I must point out once again that evolution is not random. The mechanism you refer is well known and has been so for 150 years! It is called natural selection.
quote: Actually it can, it just can't do it forever and it can't do it for any length of time without additional information being added. But as we know, evolution isn't random and the sun adds new energy to the systems on the Earth, so that's cool eh?
quote: I am not excited. I have seen people get things wrong before.
quote: Why? What value would it have? Pointless and uninformed speculation isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
quote: Listen, however you choose to wriggle around it, the fact remains; Lenski's bacteria evolved a new trait. They did not "learn" to eat citrate, they evolved a new capacity, changing from non-citrate-eating bacteria to citrate-eating bacteria. If that is not an example of new information forming then whatever definition of "information" you are using is meaningless.
quote: Er... You do realise don't you, that if we were to observe that in a lab, it would completely blow the Theory of Evolution out of the water?
quote: Maybe not. It might sound a bit hypocritical coming from someone who is so keen to delve into other members personal details.
Forum Rule 10 Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person. My emphasis. In summary, you have provided no evidence that the 2nd LoT is even relevant to evolution. You haven't even made an argument. If this conversation is to have any value, you need to at least provide a detailed description of how the 2nd law effects evolution. Otherwise you're just whistling in the dark. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. Yes it does - it is called natural selection. There's plenty of evidence of this occurring in nature, ie alteration of allele frequencies in non-random ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
pcver writes: Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT.But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible. You keep saying things like this without providing any supporting evidence or argument. Instead of repeating unsupported assertions, please describe for us how the formation of DNA by random chance violates 2LOT. The reality is that it isn't impossible, and 2LOT doesn't say that it is. The probability of spontaneous formation of DNA is a function of the starting conditions. Are you starting with a simple mixture of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and potassium? Of the nucleic bases, cynine, adenine, guanine and thymine? Are sugars present in the mixture? Phosphates? But while the probability of spontaneous DNA formation is not zero, it must be extremely tiny, and scientists do not believe that this is how DNA first formed. They believe that it developed gradually over time from simpler predecessors via a process of imperfect replication and selection. In other words, you're not only wrong about what 2LOT says and doesn't say, you're arguing against a scenario that is a common layperson's misunderstanding of the origin of life and that is not something that scientists propose ever happened.
Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating. If evolution is merely "change over time", then the word evolution is quite redundant. Most words in most languages have more than one definition, so I hope that doesn't make you feel like you're being tricked, else you'll feel tricked much of the time. It also shouldn't surprise you that the deeper you delve into a topic that the more complexity emerges. That's why we have dictionaries for the simplest level of definitions, encyclopedias for more detail, and textbooks for more detail yet. That there is more to evolution than you originally suspected might come as a surprise to you, but no one's trying to pull a fast one on you.
Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ?? Evolution definitely does not mean *random* change over time. Selective forces guide evolution toward better adaptation to the environment. For example, that's why white fur evolves in the far north and not in jungles. If evolution were random change then white bears could emerge anywhere, but they don't.
Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things. No, they really aren't. Each requires the creation of new information, it's just that one requires more new information than the other. Your "structured information system" requires that information defining that system first be created before the information contained within that system is created. There is nothing in 2LOT that constrains the creation of new information. Billions and trillions and quadrillions of bits of information are being created in the universe every second.
The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness. Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT, as well as a contradiction in terms. It's becoming obvious that you're just invoking 2LOT for everything you don't like, and since you don't understand 2LOT, your claims never make any sense. 2LOT can be expressed in many different ways. You could say that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. You could say that heat can only travel toward lower heat. You could say that no process is reversible. You could say that the amount of energy available in a system to do work can never increase. But you definitely cannot claim that 2LOT says that, "Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction." I don't know what that even means in any scientific sense, and I'm very sure that you don't. Concerning Lenski's E. coli, you seem to concede that a new function evolved ("So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new..."), but then you say you're not impressed, and so your stance on this is unclear. Do you understand that Lenski's E. coli evolved a new function, and that this runs counter to your 2LOT claims of impossibility? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add emphasis to the word "random".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible. Does formation of water from its elements "by random chance" violate the 2LoT? You're talking nonsense, pcver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
This has turned into a very interesting debate.
I tried to move away from 2LTD. But it persists. Today is less ordered than yesterday. Yesterday is less ordered than the day before. Where did the order come from? There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3857 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Before moving the topic again, shouldn't you answer the other posts related to 2LOT?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Every few days you check in and attempt to reset the discussion to square one, forcing everyone to remake their arguments from scratch. Please go back and respond to the messages that have been posted to you. If you don't understand what was said then ask questions.
But more importantly, if you don't want to talk about 2LOT (you said you were trying "to move away from 2LTD") then you shouldn't be participating in this thread, and incredibly, you're the actual originator of this thread. Oh, the irony, the thread's originator doesn't want to talk about his own topic! Since you've obviously forgotten, you began this thread by saying it was about 2LOT. This is from your opening post, Message 1:
LucyTheApe in his opening post writes: The second law of thermodynamics in action. Convergence.My question is; does evolution comply? And to what end?. So if you don't want to talk about 2LOT, then I'm afraid you'll have to stop participating in your own thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Every few days you check in and attempt to reset the discussion to square one, forcing everyone to remake their arguments from scratch. Please go back and respond to the messages that have been posted to you. If you don't understand what was said then ask questions. Which messages do you want me to respond to Percy? Please be specific. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024