|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2002/gross1_aug02.htm
However, one should not be tempted to transfer these findings to the still largely mysterious field of the origin and pre-cellular evolution of life. Biological molecules do not actually replicate themselves, but rather replicate each other. Furthermore, most researchers see RNA as a more promising candidate for the principal role in the early molecular stages of evolution. Thus, self-replicating peptides may have little to teach us about the roots of the tree of life, but they do add some interesting new branches to the tree of chemistry Making things that self-replicate isn't that hard. Making useful self-replicators is another matter, I guess. My original point is that there's nothing inherent in self-replication that necessitates complexity.
Well, the example you gave me wasn't things that self-replicate. Although I still don't quite understand the process, according to the part I quoted, they replicated each other, not themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
As I've proven, it isn't "programmed." If it were programmed then all individuals would adapt.
What is programmed is not adaptability within the individual, but rather, the possability for variation in the offspring. For example, if two people have brown hair and brown eyes, they can have a child with blonde hair and blue eyes because of recessive genes which are programmed into their genetic makeup. The individual doesn't change, but the offspring can vary, allowing for some degree of natural selection. Darwin says that evolution happens on the basis of beneficial mutations. I disagree. I think that the variation we see is already allowable in our genetic makeup. Mutations can cause change, but they're more often harmful then beneficial.
We know that no individuals really adapt - only populations do. There's nothing a population possesses that could be said to be "programmed"; only individuals are programmed with a genetic code. Because only populations adapt, and because populations cannot be programmed, we know that your remarks are false. Adaptation is not programmed. It's simply a natural consequence of the laws of physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, the example you gave me wasn't things that self-replicate. Well, no, you read it wrong. Go back and read it again. It's talking about biological molecules not being self-replicating. The molecules in the example are self-replicating.
Although I still don't quite understand the process, according to the part I quoted, they replicated each other, not themselves. You read it wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What is programmed is not adaptability within the individual, but rather, the possability for variation in the offspring. But that's just ludicrous. The "variability" that you refer to is caused by chemical inaccuracies in the replication of DNA; its not caused by a program within the DNA itself. Organisms are not "programmed" to vary; in fact, the laws of physics make it impossible to prevent variation.
For example, if two people have brown hair and brown eyes, they can have a child with blonde hair and blue eyes because of recessive genes which are programmed into their genetic makeup. That's not variation. That's sexual recombination of genes. What we observe in populations is not simply the recombination of genes and the expression of recessive traits, but new traits arising through errors in gene replication. Since that observation is not consistent with your model, we know that your model is wrong.
I think that the variation we see is already allowable in our genetic makeup. We know from observation that it is not. A population of sufficient size will accrue new gene alleles that none of its members originally possessed. The source of these new alleles is known to be mutation.
Mutations can cause change, but they're more often harmful then beneficial. True, but hardly an obstacle to evolution. Natural selection provides a mechanism whereby detrimental mutations are eliminated and beneficial mutations are magnified. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-19-2005 06:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
What we observe in populations is not simply the recombination of genes and the expression of recessive traits, but new traits arising through errors in gene replication.
Maybe you could give me some example of these observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't believe that all life came from one self-replicating unit. I'm only saying that if it DID, then a creator would still be required for the self-replicating unit. If it did, the changes into the various species would also be miraculous, my point, however, was that the self-replicating unit is itself a work of increadible ingenuity. This amounts to nothing more than personal incredulity founded on lack of information and (thus groundless) speculation.
When time allows I will do my best to substantiate my belief that the world is not billions of years old In other words it is not important enought for you to substantiate your claims if you can continue to spout opinion and unsubstantiated speculation.
... so if we can just agree that the 99.999999% extinction is a theory based on the theory that the earth is old, rather than a fact based on actual fossils of extinct species Why would I want to agree to something that doesn't jibe with the facts? Just to have a polite pointless discussion? The age of the earth is based on much more than the fossil record, as is pointed out in the thread it seems you are afraid of tackling:Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. These are age dating methods that count actual annual cycles, in manners that also record climate patterns and that correlate those climate patterns with the annual cycles. The more pertinent question is that, now that we have established that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and that life on it is ~3.7 billion years old, and that the numbers of fossils that we have only come from a small segment of the different strata from the ages of the earth and life, what then does that tell us about the fecundity of life?
The reason I find this hard to believe is because according to von Neumann, in order for any machine to self-replicate, it must also be able to self-diagnose and self-repair, so this would be a very complex machine that people are not capable of making. Why does von Neuman's opinion (whether about machines or anything) have any effect on the behavior of molecules? Where are you getting this information from?
There's also the question of the environment which would allow amino acids to come together. Oxygen would've destroyed the amino acids. But if there were no oxygen, there would be no ozone to shield the earth and the sun's rays would've destroyed life. So? We pretty much know that there was no oxygen atmosphere during the early stages of life. Cloud cover takes care of the rest. Things were different.
Then there's the problem of handedness. Let me quote Walt Brown here. Walt has nothing to say that is of any value, imho, because he has willingly used and perpetuated distorted and wrong information. This speaks to his personal credibility. This is appeal to authority, at best (a logical fallacy), one that is a bad authority, and not any real information. The question of "handedness" is an interesting question, but let me ask: if all the molecules were left-handed would this be a problem? Would it be any different? What we see is a preference for single-handedness in the molecules made by the living processes, the same single-handedness that the cell molecules have. A flip of the coin makes it right-handed, while another would have been left-handed. That's a 50-50 chance eh? There also seems to be a preference for handedness in the molecules that come from space (the delayed post, which I need to do some edit work on yet), so if these were crucial to the formation of life on this planet then that explains the handedness, handily.
P.S. my kids think you're cute Thanks. I think. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Maybe you could give me some example of these observations. Sure. A commonly done experiment is to raise a population of bacteria, which are asexual, from a single individual. An individual bacterium is haploid, that is, it has only one copy of each gene (one allele). Sexual organisms like us are diploid, and have the two copies per gene (two alleles) you referred to in an earlier post. Anyway, in an environment suited for rapid bacterial growth, a population is raised from a single individual. Every individual is a direct decendant of that first single individual. After a certain period of time, a few of those individuals are collected, and their genes are examined. We invariably discover that the individuals differ amongst each other genetically; some of them have different alleles for each gene. Remember that the original population (of one individual) had only one allele per gene; thus, if any of its ancestors have alternate alleles - if the population has more than one allele per gene - then we know that those arose from mutation, because there's no other source of new alleles into the population. Clear enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Then there's the problem of handedness. Let me quote Walt Brown here. From what I've heard, there isn't a lot of respect on this site for Mr. Brown, but he seems to make a pretty good case here: One thing you may want to ask yourself Christian, is what does the opinion of a mechanical engineer have to do with biochemistry? Asgara "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" select * from USERS where CLUE > 0 http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
This is only a partial reply since I really should have gotten off the computer already. Not purposely avoiding anything. Just there's a lot to think about and digest. On evilbible they were always accusing me of avioding things I didn't have answers for. That couldn't be further from the truth. There are just so many things to respond to and each one takes time and thought, and I have a family. You're age of the earth thread is interesting, but just reading the first post will take awhile. You have to give me time. I'm not afraid of tackling anything. And I'll readily admit that I probably don't have good answers for everything.
Why does von Neuman's opinion (whether about machines or anything) have any effect on the behavior of molecules? Where are you getting this information from?
"The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory" by A.E. Wilder-Smith
Walt has nothing to say that is of any value, imho, because he has willingly used and perpetuated distorted and wrong information. This speaks to his personal credibility.
It most certainly would. Could you give me examples of this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You're age of the earth thread is interesting, but just reading the first post will take awhile. You have to give me time. I'm not afraid of tackling anything. And I'll readily admit that I probably don't have good answers for everything. Just remember that it is important to your position re fossil evidence, and that without addressing this issue your position is questionable at best.
"The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory" by A.E. Wilder-Smith Ah. Not from evolutionary theory then. You realize that von Neuman was a theoretical mathematician that worked on game theory, right? And that he was likely discussing the Theory of Self Reproducing Automata - a self replicating computer {algorithm\machine} - and not biological or chemical reproduction? John von Neumann - Wikipedia"The term "von Neumann machine" also refers to self-replicating machines." more at: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html This would amount to taking information out of context to apply it to areas where it does not apply, quote mining, and other distortions.
It most certainly would. Could you give me examples of this? The evidence is on other threads where Walt's ideas have been discussed. I belive one of the threads was {The predictions of Walt Brown}http://EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt Brown but I'll check further (while you work on the age of the earth). Take care of those {cute} kids eh? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Personally I think it is more intelligent to design things that can evolve. But I want to know your views".
Why? Why not design non evolvable things? What is the rationale?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
That was hard to follow. You have a closing quote, but no opening quote. That makes it hard to tell what are your words and what you are quoting.
Please use[qs]text to quote[/qs] when quoting. That makes the quoted text stand out. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why? Why not design non evolvable things? What is the rationale? The OP gives a rationale, so its probably a good idea to start there.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Why? Why not design non evolvable things? What is the rationale?""
The author wants to design only those that can evolve( change) and he considers this to be intelligent. My only question is does it take more intelligence or less intelligence to design NON EVOLVABLE things.What is the advantage of designing only evolvable things compared to non evolvables?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What is the advantage of designing only evolvable things compared to non evolvables? Sh*t happens. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024