Intended mutations

Once again you're examining a specific outcome, and a specific trajectory to reach that specific outcome. You mentioned the lottery. It's the difference between the odds of someone, somewhere winning the lottery (very, very high, and 100% in some types of lotteries), versus the odds of you winning the lottery (1 out of millions and millions).There's another factor you're forgetting that isn't related to the probabilistic fallacy we've been discussing, and that's the number of multiple experiments that are being carried out simultaneously over long time periods by evolution. Evolution isn't like a single workbench with nature working on a single creature at a time. Evolution is taking place across all reproductive acts everywhere in the world and continuously across all time. And natural selection is always poised to deselect unsuited organisms everywhere in the world and continuously across all time.Populations of organisms benefit from the fact that every member of the population is in fact an evolutionary experiment whose degree of success is measured by the number of offspring it produces.--Percy

Silly Putty.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To all my scientific colleagues: please forgive the gross oversimplifications contained in the following post. IOW, I know this doesn’t cover the details, so bugger off. Hi Mike,Interesting thread. Others are addressing different aspects of your OP, but I’d like to single out this paragraph as a launching point for perhaps another way of looking at the question. One of the problems I see with the line of argument you are advancing in this paragraph is that you are looking at an end product, and speculating that the end product is what was intended all along. The difficulty with this conception is that all the organisms we see today, with all their wondrous variety and myriad fascinating adaptations, are not adapted to the environments they inhabit today - they are adapted to the environments in which their ancestors lived. The genetic makeup of populations today - including morphology and genotype with all the latter’s mutations - reflects the selection pressures that operated on their forefathers. Selection pressures operating on populations today - including on those mutations that arise today in a given population - will be reflected only in the phenotype/genotype of future generations. IF mutations become fixed in a population - perhaps increasing the member organisms’ relative fitness - changes in selection pressures in the future may actually reduce the fitness of a given population or even cause extinction, because they are adapted to the past, not the future.So how do we know this? One item of evidence is the existence today of ecological widows and orphans, especially striking among some plant lineages. For a very long time the existence of flowers that were wrongly-shaped for any existing pollinators, fruits and seeds that were either too large, too small or too toxic for any existing dispersers, extremely patchy distributions, and/or mechanical defenses that seemed to serve no useful function were a constant puzzle for ecologists. Scientists came up with a plethora of hypotheses to explain the observations, like “phylogenetic inertia” (which basically asserts a “time lag” in adaptive response to changing ecological conditions based on some kind of “in-born resistance” to change). None of these explanations were very satisfying. Enter Paul Martin (yeah, the same guy who “invented” the Pleistocene Overkill hypothesis) and Dan Janzen and the “Anachronism Hypothesis”. (see Janzen DH, Martin PS, 1982, Neotropical Anachronisms: The Fruit the Gompotheres Ate, Science 215:19-27). In a nutshell, this theory states that the maladaptive fruits etc represent adaptations for an environment that no longer pertains. Well worth the read, whether you agree with the article or not (and many ecologists, myself included, find aspects of the idea as originally presented is missing some bits). In other words, the idea that mutations are directed toward variations that serve some “future” function is falsified by the lack of such “goal-oriented” adaptations in multiple species from guanacaste (Enterolobium cyclocarpum - Janzen’s “flagship” species in his article) to jicaro (Crescentia alata) to honey locust ( Gleditsia triacanthos) in North America and a myriad of others.Conclusion: IF the idea that future-related mutations exist is correct, why do these species show adaptations geared toward a vanished past, rather than a forthcoming future (which in the past when these organisms evolved is equivalent to today’s present)?

quote:

---

according to the equilibrium of advantages and disadvantages, is that evolution must have some foresight if the morphology is to be brilliant like this. So allow me to have the musing that an intended mutation is a good explanation for an excellent tool, rather than a random one. for time and time again, I am amazed by the perfection of the trait.

---

For us to glance over the harmony and duality in nature is for us to close our eyes, IMO. At the end of the day, when all things are said and done, there are only two viable hypotheses concerning life, whether we maintain a theistic or atheistic view. Life is either intentional or unintentional; there is nothing beyond that and there is nothing in-between. I've philosophized and toiled over that question. And if anyone of you can conceptualize anything beyond or in between the two, I'd love to hear about it. The atheistic view posits that the universe in its totality is self-existing and self-sustaining. They believe that it is a purposeless and directionless display of capricious disorder. From these alleged fortuitous happenstances, all life came to be. The theory suggests that even a nominal amount of change can cause enormous, altering effects, i.e. the butterfly effect/chaos theory. But even for us to believe that a modicum of change precipitates a chain reaction of events that ultimately lead to a much greater event, leaves me undesired. The reason for this is because life teeters on the edge of a knife. How is it that life manages stave off complete annihilation in 4.5 billion years of time? You might say, "Well, there have been a number of catastrophic events in the distant past," but I'm speaking about complete and toatl annihilation. The premise is partially philosophical and partially biological. As it relates to biology, the premise suggests that from an unknown energy source, arose the basic building blocks for life. Adherents to the claim have deduced that simple chemicals formed randomly in a sort of ”ambiotic soup.’ From these chemicals, they again by chance formed twenty different amino acids. Again, in another amazing anomalous occurrence these amino’s formed four different proteins. These proteins’s just so happened to turn themselves into complicated DNA/RNA molecules. From these molecules, they spontaneously and unintentionally became a nucleus, surrounded by cytoplasm. Apparently, all of these actions were completely arbitrary. But to produce life and sustain life, all of these occurrences must take place in sequential order just to produce one cell. If any of the events described are missing, or in the wrong order, then life cannot happen or continue to happen.“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate . Such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” -Fred HoyleI just don't understand how anyone can miss the intent when looking at nature holistically. Looking at creatures that employ camouflage as a defense or offense cannot see the intent behind it. Creatures, such as the praying mantis, chameleon or the octopus each have some sort of camouflage ability. Looking at these creatures, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of unguided happenstance, especially when these mechanisms had to have formed or evolved long in advance from any conceivable relevance to its survival? You would either have to figure out a way that any creature could develop this or concede that either the mantis, octopus, or chameleon willed itself genetically, or that nature has a mind. What I mean to say is, nature exhibits intent; and intent is highly indicative of cognizance; and cognizance is indicative of a mind on even the most minute level.

quote:

---

The atheistic view posits that the universe in its totality is self-existing and self-sustaining. They believe that it is a purposeless and directionless display of capricious disorder.

---

Hello, nemesis. I always find it amusing to read what non-atheists have to say about the beliefs of atheists. For instance, most atheists, like myself, recognize a large degree of order in the universe.Perhaps you would like to start a new topic to discuss what atheists believe? I did start a topic for non-atheists to discuss the motivations for their non-belief; if you think that thread would be an apprpriate place for the discussion, then you could bring it there.Also, I made a response to your initial reply in the Evolution Simplified thread; I would like to respond to the rest of your comments, but I've been waiting to see if you would respond to my reply first.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

Creatures, such as the praying mantis, chameleon or the octopus each have some sort of camouflage ability. Looking at these creatures, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of unguided happenstance, especially when these mechanisms had to have formed or evolved long in advance from any conceivable relevance to its survival?

---

Are you sure that your claim that those mechanisms had to have evolved long in advance of any relevance to the species' survival is accurate?I should think that those mechanisms evolve, little by little for the most part, each step along the way confering some reproductive advantage....which is how they get fixed in the population in the first place.Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking of evolution to be goal-oriented, or having a beginning, middle, and end?Evolution is not goal-oriented, and is constant.

The intent you think you see in nature is actually just the environment pruning evolutionary experiments through natural selection. Camouflage evolves becauses reproductive mixing of genes combined with mutations produce a lot of variation within a population, and those members of the population with genes that provide a survival benefit, such as improved camouflage, are more likely to survive and pass their improved genes on to the next generation.Naturally, those unlucky members of the population who inherited poor genes and/or bad mutations that cause worse camouflage are less likely to survive and reproduce, and their genes cease to be represented in the population.Thus does evolution produce adaptive change over time.--Percy

The red, white & blue ones got et.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking of evolution to be goal-oriented, or having a beginning, middle, and end?

​

Evolution is not goal-oriented, and is constant

---

That's the oft-repeated cry I hear over and over, but I really think it still glosses over some observations. The plain fact about macroevolutionary theory is that it does suggest a beginning, middle, and perhaps and end. There was a definite beginning. That much you can't wish away. And the fact that it suggests that life is progressing in an ever-increasing complexity, suggests an intent-driven mechanism. The smoke and mirrors of the theory is to percieve it as being directional, yet directionless w/o the necessity of anything guiding it. The smoke and mirrors of the theory is to have it going wherever it may go and to have it all work out its own kinks inexplicably.

quote:

---

And the fact that it suggests that life is progressing in an ever-increasing complexity...

---

Actually, most species have notbecome any more complex -- most bacteria for example (so-called "complex" multi-cellular species are a minority both in numbers of species, number of individual organisms, and total biomass). And there are examples where species have evolved to become less complex.-

quote:

---

...suggests an intent-driven mechanism.

---

Even if life has become more complex, this doesn't suggest to me an "intent-driven mechanism". Why do you feel differently?-

quote:

---

The smoke and mirrors of the theory is to have it going wherever it may go and to have it all work out its own kinks inexplicably.

---

What "kinks" do you feel need to be inexplicably worked out?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

Actually, most species have notbecome any more complex -- most bacteria for example (so-called "complex" multi-cellular species are a minority both in numbers of species, number of individual organisms, and total biomass). And there are examples where species have evolved to become less complex.

---

For starters, I don't believe that anything becomes more complex over time. But this ignores the normative biological theory of evolution. Bacteria not becoming more complex, and yet, had to at some point become more complex in order to evolve into a more highly complex organism, suggests all the more that it never happened to begin with.

quote:

---

Even if life has become more complex, this doesn't suggest to me an "intent-driven mechanism". Why do you feel differently?

---

If life is becoming more complex as it goes, according to the evolutionary model, then that is clearly mapping out intent. And why shouldn't it ever go backwards? You might say, "Natural selection removes those from the population," but if there are proteans which exist already, then why not go backwards if evolution is unguided?

quote:

---

What "kinks" do you feel need to be inexplicably worked out?

---

Anything that might adversely react to any given specimen. Why is it that 'chaos' always seems to get it right?

quote:

---

That's the oft-repeated cry I hear over and over, but I really think it still glosses over some observations. The plain fact about macroevolutionary theory is that it does suggest a beginning, middle, and perhaps and end. There was a definite beginning. That much you can't wish away.

---

Inasmuch as there was a first life form when previously there was not, then yes, there was a begining.That's when evolution began, it's true.However, I'd be very interested to learn what you believe is the end of evolution of a species, other than extinction of course.

quote:

---

And the fact that it suggests that life is progressing in an ever-increasing complexity,

---

In general, yes, but not always.Horses used to have multiple toes, for example, but now only have one toe on each leg and vestigial remnants of the tarsal bones from the other digits.

quote:

---

suggests an intent-driven mechanism.

---

Why does it suggest that?

quote:

---

The smoke and mirrors of the theory is to percieve it as being directional, yet directionless w/o the necessity of anything guiding it.

---

The environmental conditions that each population exists within guides evolution.It is guided, but it just doesn't appear to be guided by an intelligent entity.

quote:

---

The smoke and mirrors of the theory is to have it going wherever it may go and to have it all work out its own kinks inexplicably.

---

Not "inexplicably".

quote:

---

For starters, I don't believe that anything becomes more complex over time.

---

Well, then right about now I think that you should define "complexity" in the context you are using the word.

quote:

---

But this ignores the normative biological theory of evolution.

---

Perhaps you might also explain what you believe to be the "normative biological theory of evolution."

quote:

---

Bacteria not becoming more complex, and yet, had to at some point become more complex in order to evolve into a more highly complex organism, suggests all the more that it never happened to begin with.

---

So, what you are saying is that because you don't believe that complexity can increase evolution never happened?Is that accurate?

quote:

---

If life is becoming more complex as it goes, according to the evolutionary model, then that is clearly mapping out intent.

---

Again, can you be more specific as to exactly why you believe that increasing complexity is impossible and why it couln't have evolved?

quote:

---

And why shouldn't it ever go backwards? You might say, "Natural selection removes those from the population," but if there are proteans which exist already, then why not go backwards if evolution is unguided?

---

It does sometimes go backwards, if I understand your statement.They are called "vestigials".

quote:

---

Bacteria not becoming more complex, and yet, had to at some point become more complex in order to evolve into a more highly complex organism

---

Most populations of bacteria have not become more complex; a very few populations evolved some slight complexity that, in those particular populations living in those particular niches, this added complexity increased the organisms chances of survival.--

quote:

---

And why shouldn't it ever go backwards?

---

It does sometimes "go backwards", if by "backwards" you mean evolving to become simpler. Most obligate parasites, for example. All that needs to happen is that some offspring are ever so slightly different than the other members of the species, and this difference increases its chances for survival and/or reproductive success.-

quote:

---

Anything that might adversely react to any given specimen. Why is it that 'chaos' always seems to get it right?

---

I don't know what you mean here.-I still don't understand some of the difficulties you are experiencing with the theory of evolution; maybe things will become more clear as we take things a slowly in the Evolution Simplified thread. Which isn't to say that these issues can't be brought up here (or on other threads) when they become appropriate.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

The above quoted is your entire content in those messages. In my opinion (IMO) that is not content, it's just random insertions of noise. I feel that these are mighty poor examples of messages, especially coming from someone who is a long time member and who also has admin status.Post quality messages of real content, or don't post the messages at all.Any reply to this message should go to the "General..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---