Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


(2)
Message 251 of 527 (581613)
09-16-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ICdesign
09-04-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
New guy here, so be gentles. Let me address these comments:
quote:
I don't care how gradual the change is, eventually you reach a line that has to be crossed where one kind becomes another kind. Its not MY law that says that line cannot be crossed, but never the less THE law says that line cannot be crossed.
This is only true if you view "kinds", whatever they are, as an immovable window, with solid defined edges. While they may seem logical to you, it's not how nature works. Species represent a window defined and applied by humans. I think it's safe to say that the offspring is always the same "kind" as the parent, but over time, what defines that "kind" slowly changes. In fact, every generation is subtly different from the one before, which I am sure you accept. I don't know of ANYTHING in "THE law" that demands that "kinds" are firm and immovable and that such changes cannot occur.
quote:
If we had such a smooth blend from one kind to another that this law was not violated then we wouldn't even be able to tell one kind from another.
Well, what about languages? Italian, Spanish, and French are descended from Latin, I think you'd admit. There is NO DOUBT this is the case. There logically, then, MUST have been some point at which the languages were more similar to each other. At what point did French become French? Was there a single day when it was Latin (or Italian) and then the next day it was French? No.... it was likey fuzzier than that... it was Italo-Frech. Or Frankish. These delineations aren't so stark.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ICdesign, posted 09-04-2010 10:47 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 269 of 527 (581646)
09-16-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 5:34 PM


Re: moving along
quote:
I am curious about this statement. Isn't a fish a complex creature? Wasn't the Ape already complex when we evolved from it?
What new body parts did we eveolve from the other apes? Our morphology is very similar indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 5:34 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 5:48 PM Strongbow has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 272 of 527 (581649)
09-16-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 5:48 PM


Re: moving along
I'm not sure I accept the initial claim. You can't say that something doesn't have a competitive advantage without knowing the selection pressure.
Having said that we have the same basic body plan as lobefin fish. We don't have any body "parts" (based, at least, on my definition of such a vague word) that can't be traced directly to an analogous structure in fish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 5:48 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 6:13 PM Strongbow has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 278 of 527 (581685)
09-16-2010 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 6:13 PM


Re: moving along
quote:
No you misunderstand the question. Please revisit Message 265
No.... I don't think so..... The quote you posted said no "new body parts" would evolve on complex creatures since they wouldn't offer a competitive advantage. You doubted such a claim since fish and apes are complex creatures, and yet they have descendant species. I gather that you are implying that "new body parts" HAVE evolved.
First off, I find the original post troublesome for three reasons. 1) What constitutes a "new body part?" Does an extra digit count? 2) What constitutes a "complex" creature? and 3) How can anyone say anything doesn't offer a competitive if one does not know the selective pressures?
You make the error, I think, of assuming he was saying body parts wouldn't evolve. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify, as that's all I can imagine you were asserting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 6:13 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 328 of 527 (586137)
10-11-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by barbara
10-11-2010 9:50 AM


Re: Entropy
Entropy increases with diversity and complexity.
A completely uniform system has low entropy. A very complex and diverse system has higher entropy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by barbara, posted 10-11-2010 9:50 AM barbara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2010 1:49 PM Strongbow has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 344 of 527 (586305)
10-12-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by barbara
10-11-2010 6:23 PM


Re: Entropy
quote:
Yes, you are correct in that it is what I meant to say. The environment does not decay DNA to a less organized level as a function of time. Correct?
Careful there.... If DNA were NOT subject to selection, then you'd be correct.... DNA would accumulate mutations over time and the organism would "degrade" from generation to generation. But, and this is an EXTREMELY important point, Organisms ARE subject to selection. Some mutations can be beneficial and result in INCREASED level of "organization." Mutations can bcome incorporated, or alter a gene function and improve an organism's chances to reproduce as compared to its peers. THAT'S HOW EVOLUTION WORKS!!!! But the increased function still reflects an INCREASE in entropy. It's counter-intiuitive if you think of entropy as a measure of "disorder" in a layman's sense, but that's how it works.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by barbara, posted 10-11-2010 6:23 PM barbara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Percy, posted 10-12-2010 1:35 PM Strongbow has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 345 of 527 (586306)
10-12-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by NoNukes
10-11-2010 1:49 PM


Re: Entropy
quote:
Really? Would you say that a system of objects at complete thermal equiibrium (no thermal diversity) has low entropy, while a system of objects at diverse temperatures but containing the same total amount of thermal energy has comparatively higher entropy?
I would suggest the exact opposite.
Entropy does not equal diversity or complexity
Strongbow writes:
Entropy increases with diversity and complexity.
A completely uniform system has low entropy. A very complex and diverse system has higher entropy.
Really? Would you say that a system of objects at complete thermal equiibrium (no thermal diversity) has low entropy, while a system of objects at diverse temperatures but containing the same total amount of thermal energy has comparatively higher entropy?
I would suggest the exact opposite.
Entropy does not equal diversity or complexity
As the possible states of a system increase, so does the entropy. Let's look at some examples.
a: 000
b: 0000000
Item b in the above example has more entropy.
next example:
a: 0000000 (can ONLY be 0)
b: 0000000 (each digit can only be 0 or 1)
Again, b has the greater entropy
Now the last one
a: 0000000
b: 1011001
Again, B has the greater entropy. B is clearly more complex as well.
Is that clearer? Still disagree?
As for your example, I would agree that you're correct, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as more complex. Though it is more diverse... I have to scratch my head... it's been YEARS since Thermo class.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2010 1:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:42 PM Strongbow has replied
 Message 356 by NoNukes, posted 10-13-2010 4:10 PM Strongbow has not replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 347 of 527 (586332)
10-12-2010 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Percy
10-12-2010 1:35 PM


Re: Entropy
Percy writes:
Whether or not any particular mutation increased or decreased entropy would be difficult to say. Probably any string of N random nucleotides has about the same entropy. In other words, a single nucleotide substitution wouldn't be expected to have much effect on entropy. On the other hand, additions and deletions probably do result in meaningful entropy changes.
OK, last aside.... but I think that a substitution type mutation WOULD increase entropy on a species wide perspective since it would increase variation of the gene within the space under consideration. But I'm a little out of my lane here, so I'll let the entropy experts chime in.
To relate this to the topic....
I've noticed that a lot of these threads tend to degenerate into the basic arguments about whether the selection of mutations that are beneficial to the organism is even possible... and the 2nd Law of Thermo is one of the oldest anti-evolution red herrings in the book. In order to discuss what mutations allow the musculoskeletal system to arise, and how they could be selected for, you have to accept the basic principal of mutation and selection. Many cdesign proponentists can't accept that premise, even to discuss the details of a specific issue. Thus ENTROPY.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Percy, posted 10-12-2010 1:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Nij, posted 10-12-2010 11:00 PM Strongbow has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 351 of 527 (586414)
10-13-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Dr Adequate
10-12-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Entropy
quote:
Yes, I disagree. Because this has damn-all to do with thermodynamics.
Well, it IS related to thermodynamics, if only through the concept of Entropy.... in this case, the so-called "Shannon Entropy" which the ID pronents are always trying to reference.
I could be wrong (like I said, it's been years), but I believe Shannon thought his expression of "information" Entropy was merely another expression of Statistical Thermodynaic Entropy. That's why he used the term "entropy" to beguin with.
Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 352 of 527 (586415)
10-13-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Nij
10-12-2010 11:00 PM


Re: Entropy
Nij writes:
It would not increase the entropy.
Entropy is an energy-related property. Variation is not.
The amount of entropy in a system has absolutely nothing to do with the variation in a particular species (i.e. the number of different base pairs at a particular locus).
It really does not require an expert understanding. It's as simple as the fact that one does not affect the other at all.
I think it's m ore complicated than that... what about Shannon Entropy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Nij, posted 10-12-2010 11:00 PM Nij has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 10-13-2010 8:12 AM Strongbow has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 355 of 527 (586427)
10-13-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
10-13-2010 8:12 AM


Re: Entropy
Yes, I mean at the nucleotide level. I'm not even close to following things at the atomic and molecular level.... I've always had to work hard at chemistry!
Thanks for the link.... yes your post ther is along the lines of what I was getting at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 10-13-2010 8:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Taq, posted 10-13-2010 4:24 PM Strongbow 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