Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution."
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 46 of 63 (301603)
04-06-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-05-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Hi, Faith. My work day got too hectic to reply this morning--I'll try to get back this evening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 63 (301660)
04-06-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Alasdair
04-05-2006 11:01 PM


Re: Time and Intent
But you aren't starting with pennies, you are starting with all the atoms in the universe from which you need to get very specific combinations. Calculate the probability of getting DNA from that.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-06-2006 03:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Alasdair, posted 04-05-2006 11:01 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 04-06-2006 3:47 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2006 3:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 51 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-06-2006 6:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 52 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 6:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 54 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-07-2006 12:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 04-08-2006 3:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 63 (301670)
04-06-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
04-06-2006 3:26 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Faith writes:
But you aren't starting with pennies, you are starting with all the atoms in the universe from which you need to get very specific combinations.
Alasdair was pointing out an error in the way you're including natural selection in your thinking about probability. The principle is the same whether the objects are pennies or atoms. I expect he and others are willing to explain it again.
Calculate the probability of getting DNA from that.
The topic is micro versus macro evolution, not the origin of life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 3:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 63 (301674)
04-06-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
04-06-2006 3:26 PM


Re: Time and Intent
This topic is about macroevolution and microevolution, not abiogenesis.
If you can work out the probabilities of RNA life evolving the use of DNA go ahead. Personally I doubt that even the experts have the knowledge needed to perorm a calcualtion that gives an answer that we could trust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 3:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 63 (301691)
04-06-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-05-2006 8:38 PM


cumulation of selection
Why does everything appear finished?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that evolution predicts that organisms would appear to be half finished at some point, and presumably some organsims would be half finished still?
Evolution predicts that populations will always be 'finished' or they will go extinct. 'Finished' in evolutionary terms means 'able to maintain population size through reproduction'.
The number of mistakes before you got a viable option would have to be beyond astronomical. It boggles the mind to think of blind evolution coming up with the most rudimentary organized creature
As has been pointed out, cumulative selection can have astonishing results, as Dawkins' biomorphs amply demonstrate. Evolution is blind, but there is an enormous amount of viable options all clustered around each other. As long as evolution procedes with small steps it gets to test many many many many different avenues. Most of the avenues will terminate, but some will continue.
If you want to analogize the term blind, consider a blind person who searches inch by inch the entire house for his lost keys. He will eventually find them. Compare this to the blind man that randomly picks somewhere to look in his house. Its going to take a very long time to find his keys. The analogy isn't perfect I know, but it at least gets things pointed in the right direction. It might make more sense if there was someone occasionally saying 'warmer, cooler, hotter' etc effectively selecting out non-viable search locations.
And all you guys can say back is, well, it doesn't boggle YOU, it just had to have happened.
Personally, I do consider it mind boggling. However, I don't consider something mind boggling as being indicative of it not happening. My brain is equipped to deal with things in terms of centimetres and seconds. At the very best it can comprehend processes that take a small number of decades to complete - after that the mind begins to boggle.
That said, cumulative selection combined with reproductive fecundity is a massively powerful designing mechanism as long as certain conditions are met (in the case of biology there is good evidence that those conditions have been met). Its totally elegant in its simplicity, but awe-inspiring in its scale.
And the genetic system itself from which all this develops would have had to have been formed by the same means. That alone would have had to take a few bazillion years of trial and error.
Can you honestly know how long? It is likely that a single step selection mechanism would mean that it would take longer than the universe will exist with workable energy in it before it becomes a remote possibility.
However, cumulative selection might provide the solution much much quicker.
But I know this is a familiar objection, and basically is the same question as How much time would it take a million monkeys to type the works of Shakespeare? Answer: It can't happen. And that will just be dismissed as "the argument from incredulity" as if that means anything
I'm not going to call this incredulity. I am going to call it an erroneous analogy. The million monkeys are assumed to be truly random, but each time they 'reproduce' (ie type another manuscript) it is from scratch with no regard to the previous thing that has been typed. This is single step selection. If the solution isn't right an entirely new solution is attempted.
In cumulative selection things work differently. If we take the first million manuscripts and select 25% of them that most closely resemble any work by Shakespeare, we then get the monkeys to each make a copy of these manuscripts, with inevitable mistakes being made - the selection and reproduction process is repeated. It will still take a long time to produce Shakespeare, but we'd very likely end up with a variety of different plays.
The analogy fails because English language is very specified. There are specific spelling and meanings to words and senteces have to follow strict grammar to make sense. Genetics is a less specific than this. You can change one letter and get an entirely different (but meaningful) word, on the other hand you can change maybe 60% of the letters and still have the same meaning. So we need to be careful when comparing random Shakespeare generation with random mutation of a genome.
Finally, it will take a long time because we were simulating asexual reproduction. I'd wager that if we created some kind of analogue to sexual reproduction (where sentences from one monkey's typings were recombined with another monkey's typings, half from one and half from the other) we'd probably find we arrive at solutions considerably faster.
Consider this an advanced version of the 'Methinks its like a weasel' discussion in 'The blind watchmaker'. I say advanced because instead of a single target sentence, I'm allowing for many different solutions (or targets) ie, all of Shakespeares works.

To tie this into the topic: Microevolution is a description of changes in a population of Hamlet plays versus the changes in a population of Tragedies. Once a play is looking like its going to be a tragedy, it is likely to remain in that category and never change. Thus: We'll never see macroevolution, it's more a concept than an event.
OK, tenuous at best, but I typed all the above out before realising its probably irrelevant to the topic at hand and needed some kind of justification for it
This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 06-April-2006 09:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 51 of 63 (301718)
04-06-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
04-06-2006 3:26 PM


Re: Time and Intent
But you aren't starting with pennies, you are starting with all the atoms in the universe from which you need to get very specific combinations. Calculate the probability of getting DNA from that.
That's a strawman that has nothing to do with evolution. You should know by now that no reasonable calculation of probability can be made because the starting conditions are not known. In any case you are back to abiogenesis... not evolution.
These macro- vs. micro- threads are just getting silly. Anyone who has a clue about evolution and biology knows that there is only one mechanism and that micro-/macro- arguments are worthless strawman arguments constructed by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
I've never seen a river carve a valley out... so I don't believe in "macro-erosion". I only believe in observable changes like mudslides "micro-erosion". that's how silly the argument is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 3:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 63 (301729)
04-06-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
04-06-2006 3:26 PM


Not exactly.
But you aren't starting with pennies, you are starting with all the atoms in the universe from which you need to get very specific combinations. Calculate the probability of getting DNA from that.
That's looking at it from the wrong perspective it seems. We are not trying to get DNA. Not really trying to get anything.
IMHO the more reasonable question is "Given all the atoms in the universe what is the possibility that some might combine in a way that leads to replication?"
DNA is just one combination that did happen to work, one of several that we know about so far. There may well be other posibilities, ones we haven't even dreamed of, and there may well be ones that developed but were not as successful as DNA and so fell by the wayside.
But even the revised question is beyond our ability to frame or calculate. We just don't know all of the possibilities, or even all of the conditions possible.
What we do know is that the probability of DNA existing is 1.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 3:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 53 of 63 (301774)
04-06-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-05-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Faith writes:
CAN, but excuse me if I have to say that I find the Flood sufficient explanation for the landscape changes you mention.
Yes, I know. But there is simply no evidence for a global flood ever occurring. Only the a priori demands of literalist Biblical faith can keep the idea alive at all.
And I have no problem at all explaining the fossils and the extinct species by the Flood, and the new "species" by microevolution.
I thought all creatures were aboard the Ark? Am I confused about that?
I see you are using quotes around "species"...do you not take the word to mean animals who only breed with others like them, and not with others?
There are many creatures in the fossil record that are not represented today: okay, they missed the boat. But when you say, 'and the new "species" by microevolution,' are you suggesting that microevolution produces change so great that the changed creatures cannot breed with their pre-change progenitors? If so, what is non-macro about that?
I know you guys think the evidence is there. I don't, and I didn't before I had a reason to "{reject} it out of hand for philosophical or theological reasons." Long answer but the point is no, I'm not dismissing it out of hand.
I understand what you say, but it seems to me that the correlation between your philosophical outlook, your prior doubts, and your present religious convictions remains clear.
Your skepticism is actually a radical skepticism of all science; no phenomena that require more than a human life span to transpire could ever meet your criteria. That you were the person who found the ToE incredible, and that you are the person who now finds a ~2000 year old book literally and perfectly true (even though you didn't before, and didn't witness the events it describes), are certainly connected.
Your current belief required a transcendent inner experience without external proofs; no external proof could ever persuade you otherwise, and no external proof will sway you with regard to the ToE.
But the connection between your early skepticism and your current frank disbelief in the ToE is not Christianity. It is you.
On another note, wondering if the experience of your mother's presence did anything to influence your ideas concerning the supernatural?
I remain agnostic about all things supernatural. I know what rich creations the mind is capable of under the influence of delirium, ascetic practices, drugs, etc. But the moment remains precious to me, whatever the source: she was a source of strength to me while she lived, and, whether because she lives on only in my heart or lives on elsewhere, she was again a source of strength to me after her death.
I suppose which is true matters, but the preciousness remains, whatever is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 8:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:53 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 60 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 7:53 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 54 of 63 (301810)
04-07-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
04-06-2006 3:26 PM


Faith writes:
But you aren't starting with pennies, you are starting with all the atoms in the universe from which you need to get very specific combinations. Calculate the probability of getting DNA from that.
You seem to be suffering from a common misconception: That in order for something to happen once, it must be somewhat likely for it to happen twice. Such is not the case, and can be easily demonstrated.
Say I roll a 6-sided die 1000 times. The specific sequence of rolls I'll get is only one out of 1.41e+778 possible sequences.
Now let's try to replicate that sequence of rolls -- the sequence that it only took me 1 try to get: Take 1 billion people each rolling a die per second, 24 hours per day, 365.25 days a year, for 1 billion years. Such is only 3.16e+22 sequences of 1000 rolls. So, even after a billion years, it's extraordinarily unlikely that anybody would replicate my feat.
Does that mean that I can't have rolled the sequence that I rolled? That X cannot equal X? It's basic logic that such cannot be the case.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-08-2006 06:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:55 PM DominionSeraph has replied
 Message 58 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-08-2006 2:57 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 63 (302241)
04-07-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Omnivorous
04-06-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Time and Intent
CAN, but excuse me if I have to say that I find the Flood sufficient explanation for the landscape changes you mention.
===============
Yes, I know. But there is simply no evidence for a global flood ever occurring. Only the a priori demands of literalist Biblical faith can keep the idea alive at all.
As I've said before, I see the evidence for the flood almost everywhere I look.
And I have no problem at all explaining the fossils and the extinct species by the Flood, and the new "species" by microevolution.
=====
I thought all creatures were aboard the Ark? Am I confused about that?
I guess I needed to specify that I was using the term "species" in the sense of "varieties" of a Kind. All the Kinds were represented on the ark, but many varieties that had microevolved to that point were drowned. So there would have been two cats on the ark but a whole bunch of types of cats would have perished -- sabre-toothed tiger for instance. Or if tiger is a Kind unto itself then the sabre-toothed variety of that Kind perished.
I see you are using quotes around "species"...do you not take the word to mean animals who only breed with others like them, and not with others?
The word is very problematic for a creationist. That definition doesn't define anything but a variety of a Kind to a creationist. We'd happily use the term for a Kind except the evolutionists are using it to mean something else.
There are many creatures in the fossil record that are not represented today: okay, they missed the boat. But when you say, 'and the new "species" by microevolution,' are you suggesting that microevolution produces change so great that the changed creatures cannot breed with their pre-change progenitors? If so, what is non-macro about that?
Yes I'm saying that and it's nonmacro because it's still the same Kind and will never lead to anything but that Kind. Also, the great change you are talking about is usually accompanied by a reduction in genetic possibilities which in some cases is what confines the creature to its own population. There is nothing "macro" about that condition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 04-06-2006 8:57 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 7:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 63 (302242)
04-07-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by DominionSeraph
04-07-2006 12:54 AM


If I'm following what you said, you just proved that abiogenesis is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-07-2006 12:54 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 04-07-2006 10:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 63 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-08-2006 7:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 63 (302244)
04-07-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
04-07-2006 9:55 PM


Following
You are not following what was said.
ABE
If you think it disproves abiogenesis then you think it proves that you can't get ANY series of dice rolls to occur.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-07-2006 10:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 58 of 63 (302277)
04-08-2006 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by DominionSeraph
04-07-2006 12:54 AM


Your message is a little muddled
I eventually did figure out what you're saying, but it was far from clearly stated. You might well restate and clarify your message's content.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-07-2006 12:54 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 59 of 63 (302280)
04-08-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
04-06-2006 3:26 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Faith
But you aren't starting with pennies, you are starting with all the atoms in the universe from which you need to get very specific combinations. Calculate the probability of getting DNA from that.
You are working from the wrong direction Faith. If we start with Atoms,{forces governing their interactions already in place for the purpose of this discussion} we imagine the odds of any combination occuring in the next moment. We find that initially the odds are equal{within the limits of constraint by fundamental forces} that any combination will occur.
Now we let the next moment of combinations occur. The number of possible combinations has now been constrained by the first combination since that has already occured.We run the process over and over through time to arrive at our present day and we look at a snapshot of the marvelous structure of the world and arrogantly assume this to be too intricate to occur by chance. This would be true if we were to have all this interaction occur at once.
But after vast stretches of time and umimaginably great numbers of interactions each contributing to a further refinment of the one that follows it we arrive at what seems to be a miraculous coincidence of innumerable supporting phenomena while blinding ourselves to the realization that each moment provides the structure for the next and this is what allows for even the wonderous organization of things like DNA.
I heard a story that illustrated the point well. Imagine you are on a golf course and I asked you to specify the exact location of where the golf ball will come to rest, and of course you would not think to imagine that you could. This represents the past moments each contributing to the final arbitrarilly chosen moment we title the present.
Now we walk up to where the ball comes to rest and we cannot find ourselves overcome with awe at the incalcuable number of factors that had to occur at just the right time in just the rght sequence for the golf ball to arrive at the precise point that we now can specify from our vantage point of the present moment.
The reason for this, of course, is that the incalcuable factors in right order and time had to arrive at that present moment somewhere. That it was that particular point on the course is not miraculous but a consequence of random factors producing some location which they could not help but perform as a result of interaction.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Sat, 2006-04-08 01:50 AM

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 3:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 60 of 63 (302304)
04-08-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Omnivorous
04-06-2006 8:57 PM


Topic Drift Alert
Hi Omni,
The topic is micro- versus macroevolution. Discussions about the flood and the ark probably belong in a different thread, except as they might bear directly on the topic. There's probably an open thread where such a discussion could resume.
Discussions about philosophical approaches to knowledge and understanding also belong elsewhere. Buzsaw has raised similar issues recently, maybe it's time for such a thread in [forum=-11].

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 04-06-2006 8:57 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024