|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An accurate analogy of Evolution by Natural selection | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I've been thinking about this for quite some time, what would be a correct analogy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution (Mutations+natural selection) ?
Its seems you always see the same analogies in creationist litterature: Tornado in your backyard would produce a boeing 747, mistakes in a blueprint of a house, etc. I know Berlinski had an interesting analogy in his Don Quichote 'origins of all novels', which although very different, still doesn't represent evolution and natural selection perfectly. There is also Sanford's analogy (in Genetic entropy) of an instruction manual to build wagon's, with blind robots etc. That was one of the most accurate I've seen since natural selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype, etc. So I thought it would be great to see what analogy you could come up with that would represent the most accurately evolution. I'll give it a shot, I know it isn't complete, but here's mine: ___________________________________________________________________ I videotape my friends wedding on DVD. So I have one original of the event, and I decide to copy one hundred copies of it. I then watch all the copies and pick out the best one out of them all, and throw away all the other copies. I then take this copy, and copy it again a hundred times. Once again, out of all these copies of the copy, I pick out the best one and throw out all the others. At the end of my very exhausting day, having repeated this manoeuvre over a thousand times, I realize that the quality of video that I have is no longer the same as the original, but it is in fact much ____ (worse, better ?) ____________________________________________________________________ Now obviously, this is not a very 'natural' selection. It is truncation selection which doesn't happen in nature. The fertility rate is also very high, at 99% (which can happen in the case of plants). Also, the poucentage of people available for selection is one hundred percent, which, once again, does not happen in nature. My example would also represent a static environment. This can happen in nature, and is in fact the reason invoked to explain animals alive today that are the same as their fossil ancestors. Any comments on how to upgrade my analogy is appreciated (although I want to keep it as simple as possible). If you have any analogy of your own, please post it here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
There's a fundamental flaw in your analogy; in tape copying the best end point is defined as the starting point. The end point could be better then the starting point I would think. I mean, the quality, definition etc. of the image could be better at the end than at the beginning. Sort of like going from a DVD quality image to an HD quality image. (I'm referring only to image quality, not necessarily all the technology behind it of course) So I don't think the starting point in my analogy is the best it could be, it still could go up or down. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Your videotape analogy, besides using artificial selection Well it represents a truncation selection, which is much more efficient than natural selection.
has the disadvantage that there is no room in it for the sort of beneficial mutations that we observe in nature. I can't see how the process you propose could lead to anything other than degradation of the image. As I've said in the previous reply, the initial image quality isn't the best it could be, so it does leave room for beneficial errors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
In my analogy, I would think there is a feedback mechanism (If I understand correctly what you mean by this), since I copy the video 100 times, and then make a selection of the best video at of them all to copy again 100 hundred times, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Your "100 videos" simply have no relation to descent with modification and natural selection. Well, each copied video is different from the previous one (modification) and I select the best one out of them (selection). So it must have some relation to an extent.
To be closer, you would have to run millions of copies and then keep all videos which appeared better while discarding all videos which appeared worse. Rinse and repeat Are you saing that in nature, natural selection keeps all the better phenotypes, and flushes out all the bad phenotypes in a population, every generation ? Also, I took 100 copies because it is the fertility rate of plants, where evolution is advantageous because if a plant has 100 offsprings, you can discard 99 and still maintain population size. Of course I can decide to keep 2 copies each generation, instead of 1, but then it would represent a growing population size. Saying that I would need to do millions of copies is analogous to saying that a specie has individuals that could have millions of offsprings. I don't know if any species has this fertility rate (maybe in the insects like ants ... even then millions seems like a lot) Of course my analogy was representing a population size of 1 individual (for simplification). If I wanted to represent a population size of, let's say, 1000 in my example, then I would have to take 1000 original videos of the same event (from the same viewpoint, as a camera who could record on multiple films at a time). Then I would make 100 copies of each video (meaning a total of 100 000 new individuals per generation) and flushing 99 000 each time, meaning 1000 get to 'reproduce' as to keep the population size stable. Obviously, representing sexual recombination would be more difficult. Perhaps make 500 pairs of videos, and then combining the images (they are all from the same viewpoint)? hhmmmm ... I don't think this would represent it well enough, thus why I didn't include sexual recombination in my original analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Does everyone around here agree with you ???
I sincerely doubt it, and if it is so, then would like them to say it as openly as you did. I'll just answer one thing you said:
Sometimes the most different form the previous generation will be more prone to survive. I think I very CLEARLY said that my analogy represented a static environment. In a static environment, the species is already fine-tuned to that environment, and so if it doesn't change, then the next generations should be very similar to the original, since they are in the same environment. Even then, in my analogy, I didn't put an initial video that was already perfectly fine-tuned, leaving space for beneficial and deleterious errors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So your analogy isn't really an analogy, because there is a caveat that it is nothing like the reality of evolution. Tell me where a static environment exists The creationist coelacanth 'living fossil' argument is answered by evolutionist by stating that it was in a static environment, and so that this is why it has remained unchanged for 65 million years.
and how would we determine that a species is fine tuned for this static environment? That in itself destroys your whole premise that this is a good analogy. The beneficial-to-deleterious ratio of mutations in a populations in a given environment could indicate the fine-tuning of the population to that environment, since when it would be ''perfectly'' fine-tuned then there would be 0 beneficial mutations. Edited by slevesque, : quote error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Or any living fossil, if you wish, it doesn't change the point that static environments can exist in nature ...
There are many species that we find in the fossil record and alive today, meaning that that the environment was static, which was my point. This pretty much the argument used for all living fossils. Just look at point 1 on the talkorigins.org page on living fossils.(CB930: Living fossils) I do not know the coelacanth case enough to argument for it as a living fossil, so that if you claim it, then I'll just believe you. I have never read any scientific paper on the classification of the modern-day coelacanth compared to the fossil one. All I know is that it is still described as a living fossil by journals intended for the general reader. Like in this exampleAncient coelacanth caught in Indonesia - USATODAY.com) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
This says nothing about not changing? Says largely unchanged but nothing about the ideal or no change. What about superficial changes? Also, from same source quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So your point was??? Not exactly unchanging would you say? Wow, this debate is not going to 'evolve' if I have to say everything twice. I never said no change, In fact I had accounted for superficial change in my previous post ...
I think I very CLEARLY said that my analogy represented a static environment. In a static environment, the species is already fine-tuned to that environment, and so if it doesn't change, then the next generations should be very similar to the original, since they are in the same environment So I did in fact say very similar to the original, not EXACTLY similar ...
Then why make arguments that you don't even understand. You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you try to make a point. The major point was living fossils, which I used coelacanth as simply an example. You called on my example saying that modern coelacanth was not the same as the fossil one. I responded that I had not enough knowledge of the coelacanth to make a case for it being a living fossil, so accepted your claim that it was a bad example of a living fossil. It turns out that, according to Percy, I was not so wrong since it is still considered a living fossil, making it relevant as an example in my initial argument for static environments. and so although what you said was right (fossil and modern coelacanth are different) my argument was still valid since I stated it as simply an example of a living fossil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'm going to do as Theodoric wished and 'get to the point'.
Doing this post, I hoped someone would have realized what my analogy was really representing. I said it was evolution, and of course everyone was thinking I was trying to represent an analogy of how, for example, dinosaurs could become birds with time, mutations and natural selection. As you all correctly pointed out, my analogy fails to validly represent a mechanism that could accomplished such feat. So did I lie when I said my analogy represented evolution ? No I didn't, because it DID describe a situation of 'descent with modification'. This was the first objective of this post: show the communication problem of using an example of simple descent with modification and applying it as an argument for Evolution (with a big E). But does my analogy represent accurately a situation that could happen in nature ? Yes. In fact, I was hoping someone would have figured what situation I was referring to. It represents an asexual population of bacteria. The 'fitness' characteristic of the population is represented by the image quality, and so the eventual decrease of the image quality as generations of copies go on actually represents something well known and that we have discussed: Muller's ratchet. As mutations accumulate in an asexual population, so do the copying errors accumulate in my analogy, causing an overall diminution of 'image quality' and 'fitness'. But can I use this example of 'descent with modification' in which the actual fitness declines with generations to invalidate Evolution, where the trend should be upward ? Of course I can't, because even thow we popularly use the same word for both, we need to realize that there is a gap between the two. So in fact, my post had a double objective: first, show that saying that dinosaur-to-bird is evolution, and saying that evolution is simply 'descend with modification' will lead to communication problems when someone will show an example of descent with modification to prove that it is theoretically possible that dinosaurs eventually can become birds. Second, It helps identify who on here think before they write, because, even though some may think that my 'analogy sucks', it was in fact a great example of descent with modification and Muller's ratchet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I am aware that there are some questions that come up so often from creationists and who are very easy to answer for evolutionary theory that they strike an immediate automatic response.
The one you mentioned; ''If things evolve, then how come there ceolocanth hasn't evolved?'', is obviously one of them. As all the others, the answer from evolutionist is easy: in a static environment, evolution could keep species largely unchanged. Not only did I support this answer as being 100% valid, but it was the point I was trying to make, since someone objected that static environments don't exist in nature! from theodoric, message no17:
So your analogy isn't really an analogy, because there is a caveat that it is nothing like the reality of evolution. Tell me where a static environment exists Anyhow, note that some living fossils are almost (if not totally) identical to the fossil record, such as Wollemia Nobilis. Of course, I'm not claiming they all do since even from a creationist point of view you would not expect them to. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I have to say, I'm stunned lol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
OMG, just take the Wollemi Pine as an example of a living fossil which didn't change. The point is simply that static environments can exist in nature ...
In any case, as someone said earlier, Coelacanth refers to the order ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yeah I remember it, never came back on it though.
I also remember that your source was pretty old, and that the more recent research on the mutation was that it was not a 'by chance' simple frame shift mutation. Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:3780—3784, 1992 quote from Yomo:
‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes. ‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation. ‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’ If it is indeed a preexisting mechanism that was responsible for this mutation, then it was not random as Ohmo had suggested back in 1984. You also had used Shannon's information theory and applied it to genetics, something shannon himself warned not to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'll check for the source, but it probably won't be 'genetics' but rather 'biological systems'.
A mutation is totally random because it is based on the random movements of the atoms-electrons in a molecule. If a mutation turns out to be non-random, then it means that there is an underlying mechanism making it non-random. (such as transposase genes)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024