Life, The Universe, And Everything

[freeman]

Buddy,

 

How about limbs growing into wings?

Think, bats!

 

How about limbs growing into flippers?

Think, whales and porpoises!

[Grandpa Harley]

that's a point... cetaceans have finger bones... but no fingers

 

But then its scarecrow building the our Buddy is interested in...

[freeman]

This is what happens when you put two staw-people together!

 

Click on image and see what happens!

 

[Grandpa Harley]

since buddy wants thumbs where they don't belong...

 

[Ouroboros]

If you'd like to correct my math, feel free; math isn't my field. The cited numbers are probably correct from the sources we've discussed; it's names I can't remember well.

I think that you still make mistakes in there, but it's mostly by my intuition. And since I'm not doing much math anymore I'm afraid even to try to make more arguments unless I had more time to make sure it's easy to understand and follow. Maybe it will help if I tell you that the human genome is not the product of a singular sequence of mutations. For instance the ERV are insertions by retro viruses and not mutations by themselves. So those are results of parallel mutations, outside the host and lineage. Secondly, the mDNA is also a result of a separate evolution, where the regulard DNA already have a system for handling energy, but the mDNA improved it when the first cells (by accident) got infected by the the early mDNA. So stop looking at it as one chain of mutations, and start to look at it as thousands of separate chains that eventually merged to one entity. Does that help?

[Ouroboros]

Same here; 0445 and no coffee made yet.

Ouch, that's early. It happens to me too that I get up that early. But I need my coffee!!!

 

Hadn't looked at the ERV question; interesting stuff. What are the chances? If I understand it correctly, maybe pretty good.

Correct me if I'm wrong here: In the evolutionary science claims, we have:

- random mutation (from a genetics point of view, that's a replication error; substitution, duplication, insertion, etc.)

- natural selection (survival long enough to replicate for the ones that die least easily)

- and common descent (all life descended from a single or minimal original form)

... being the major identifiable components, I think. Overly simplified, I'm sure.

Correct. And yes, it's simplified, but that's the basic functionality of the genetic algorithm. (One important thing is missing for higher organisms, like sexual reproduction where genetic code is interchanged, and the new individual get a mix of the two parents - that is very important to understand that the probability isn't so bad after all - I have one set of mutated genes, and my wife has another, my kid gets the results of two separate mutations at once.)

 

Although none of the three are contested (by me at least), our statistical discussion has been regarding whether the random mutation process as described in the literature could produce the physical changes observed. From the simple problem I posed, it appears inadequate.

Because (as I stated before) is that you line the mutations up on a string, instead of cutting the sequence up in thousands of separate strings that eventually merged to one strong.

 

It strikes me that shared ERV would serve to support common descent, but poses less of a problem statistically than evolving a thumb; my brain is a bit recalcitrant this morning; I'll think again later.

My point was that chimps and humans share several identical ERVs. Statistically for this to happen by random chance is a lot less probable than the examples you've used. It not only means that chimps and humans had mutations happening in the same genes, but the exact same mutations. And it is confirmed that these chances are not mutations, but ERV insertions. And even so, ERV insertions like these to happen in the same gene at the same spot and the same way, is very improbable. And the only other way to share these insertions is by reproduction, which means that we share an ancestor with the chimps. So you see that "statistical probability" is a two edged sword. If it's used as an argument against evolution, than this example show you how the alternative (no evolution) is even less probable. And to use Occam's Razor here, evolution is more probable true, than the alternative of not being true.

 

We're wearing out the subject due to my apparent inability to grasp somebody's higher math. I could use a subject change.

Me too. My head is hurting.

 

While you're at it, look into Ring Species. That's a very fascinating subject. It shows the problem of classification of species. There is not perfect way of classifying species, and that subject will show you why.

[Evolution_beyond]

Buddy,

 

are you aware that bacteria, unlike more complex cells, can actually swap genetic code?

Yep. As soon as a paramecium swaps code and grows a thumb, that will help the discussion.

Buddy

 

a paramecium is not a bacteria, it is a protist.

 

Or do you mean that more complex cells still have the problem of not being able to evolve fast enough?

 

Do you know that most of the DNA code is concerned with fairly fundamental issues of cell structure and chemistry? 65% of our genetic code is the same as that of a cabbage.

 

This means that most of the changes necessary must have taken place at the micro-organism level. Luckily micro-organisms reproduce a lot faster, and in the case of bacteria they can actually swap genetic code with each other. At least that is what I have read.

[Ouroboros]

Buddy,

 

are you aware that bacteria, unlike more complex cells, can actually swap genetic code?

Yep. As soon as a paramecium swaps code and grows a thumb, that will help the discussion.

Buddy

EBs argument is that two independent sequences of mutations eventually can merge into one. (ERVs are the perfect example of this) Your statistics is based on one singular sequence, but if you break that sequence up on two, now the probability have increased dramatically. If you do it some thousands of times, you'll end up with probabilities that are close to 1. It is like I said before, use 1,000,000 dice to roll 100 "1"-s, and not 100 dice only.

 

You know, this is how Microsoft developers their software and Windows. They have parallel teams working on different modules at the same time. When they think they're done, they make a build, which is where you take all the teams code and put it into one big merged pile of code and compile the whole system. Then you test, and the parts the work, they keep, but the parts that don't go back to fix. That's how Microsoft manage to get in millions lines of code into Vista, and millions hours of work. If I would do it on my own, it would take me thousands of life times to get there, but if you break the job up into separate parts, and work on it simultaneous, then you get there faster. The rule of teamwork and cooperation.

[freeman]

You know, this is how Microsoft developes their software and Windows. They have parallel teams working on different modules at the same time. When they think they're done, they make a build, which is where you take all the teams code and put it into one big merged pile of code and compile the whole system. Then you test, and the parts the work, they keep, but the parts that don't go back to fix. That's how Microsoft manage to get in millions lines of code into Vista, and millions hours of work. If I would do it on my own, it would take me thousands of life times to get there, but if you break the job up into separate parts, and work on it simultaneous, then you get there faster. The rule of teamwork and cooperation.

 

This is what Buddy is not comprehending!

 

Okay Buddy, you are an engineer. If you are going to build a bridge, how long will it take you to build it by yourself?

 

Now I am going to build the same bridge, but with one major exception. I am going to have two crews working on the structure from oposite sides with two cement crews working rigtht behind them. Also, I am also going to have three shifts of workers.

 

Who finishes first and by how much time?

 

Bats did develope wings from limbs!

Whales and porpoises did modify limbs into flippers!

These are evolutionary facts!

[BuddyFerris]

This is what happens when you put two staw-people together!

 

Click on image and see what happens!

 

Priceless! BF

[dano]

Since you wish to change the subject, you must answer a very simple question.

Did man appear out of mud in he present day form?

 

Dano answers:

Depends who you ask. Some say he did, others say that God wanted to play plink plink with creation and scheduled 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, variations before he made us out of mud. When he got the right one, he demanded that we love him or else we will be very sorry.

 

Can you blame him?

 

Teaching your children Christianity, or any Mythology as truth, is child abuse, pure and simple, and like all child abuse the victims usually perpetrate it upon THEIR offspring.

Dan Agnostic

[freeman]

Teaching your children Christianity, or any Mythology as truth, is child abuse, pure and simple, and like all child abuse the victims usually perpetrate it upon THEIR offspring.

Dan Agnostic

 

I was with some friends and a few family members on Saturday. The family members know about me, but some how don't believe it, while the friends (not real close friends) had no idea that I am not a christian! Then they asked, "What do you tell your children"? My eldest daughter (13yrs old) was sitting at the table and in full hearing of all I asked her is jesus walked on water? She giggled and replied NO! I am so proud!

[BuddyFerris]

You know, this is how Microsoft developes their software and Windows. They have parallel teams working on different modules at the same time. When they think they're done, they make a build, which is where you take all the teams code and put it into one big merged pile of code and compile the whole system. Then you test, and the parts the work, they keep, but the parts that don't go back to fix. That's how Microsoft manage to get in millions lines of code into Vista, and millions hours of work. If I would do it on my own, it would take me thousands of life times to get there, but if you break the job up into separate parts, and work on it simultaneous, then you get there faster. The rule of teamwork and cooperation.

 

This is what Buddy is not comprehending!

 

Okay Buddy, you are an engineer. If you are going to build a bridge, how long will it take you to build it by yourself?

 

Now I am going to build the same bridge, but with one major exception. I am going to have two crews working on the structure from oposite sides with two cement crews working rigtht behind them. Also, I am also going to have three shifts of workers.

 

Who finishes first and by how much time?

 

Bats did develope wings from limbs!

Whales and porpoises did modify limbs into flippers!

These are evolutionary facts!

You're absolutely correct, and the bridge building analogy is useful.

Keep in mind that the component requirements implied in a bridge are unique and non-selectable by themselves; e.g., the materials will have to be stockpiled in advance and sequenced for construction uses but will serve no immediate purpose; constructing the shore pilings and piers must come next but will serve no immediate purpose; the girders and suspension elements will of necessity come next but will serve no purpose; the road surface comes last but is dependent on the predecessors for support. Cement and sand and rebar will have to be apportioned and distributed to the points of use as will connectors and cables. In the absence of a predetermined control sequence (design), the bridge cannot be built.

 

There's no argument that the evolutionary bridge gets built; the mystery is how a random mutation process might be involved.

 

Someone here has said that evolution doesn't have a random element, but the supporting literature leans heavily on gene replication errors or anomalies being the source of evolutionary adaptation. Completely without pre-plan, a gene mutates and subsequently discovers that it has created something worth select status.

 

In the bridge example (as in the 300 vision genes supporting just the retina's cells), many of the required mutations are control sequences with several variables, such as (1) collect these 25 proteins in the following ratios and stage for use in the following sequence, then and only then (2) transport these materials for assembly into structural components on the following schedule at the specified locations, and then (3) provide power and waste management services at the following points in the following quantities. None of the above are selectable until the entire project is complete and the aggregate proves useful.

 

No one actually begins to build a bridge without an engineering architectural and logistical plan in place... except evolution, apparently.

 

Buddy

 

It asks a lot of truly random mutation to arrive at such an effective solution.

[Ouroboros]

Aaah, now I get it. You're using the incomplete-mouse-trap argument. That's what you were getting at. Okay. I'll get back to it later today, after work.

[freeman]

It asks a lot of truly random mutation to arrive at such an effective solution.

 

How many truly random mutations to arrive at such an effective solution did it take for a rodent to decide that it would be better off flying?

How many truly random mutations to arrive at such an effective solution did it take for a mammal to decide that flippers were better than limbs when swimming?

[BuddyFerris]

You know, this is how Microsoft developers ... The rule of teamwork and cooperation.

Good afternoon, HanS. Here's a thought in passing at the water cooler.

 

The Microsoft teams are working on specific components whose functions and interfaces are detailed in a master design. At compile time, you find out how good you've done by measuring against the design. Are we suggesting there might be a design(er) involved? No, of course not. Therefore, the teams must be working without a plan; oops, no teams or individual choices, just individual switches switching at random without direction or goal, when suddenly XPPro squirts out of the hopper followed quickly by Vista! And we thought the Santa Clause story was silly.

 

To be fair, we're approaching this quite simplistically; we haven't brought in statistical means and variations yet because I don't understand what's required well enough. Optimization holds some promise if I understand it well enough to say, but as a single beneficial solution provider rather than a multiple non-beneficial solution aggregator. I'll consult a pro or a math book on the subject eventually, if our conversation lasts that long.

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

You know, this is how Microsoft developers ... The rule of teamwork and cooperation.

Good afternoon, HanS. Here's a thought in passing at the water cooler.

 

The Microsoft teams are working on specific components whose functions and interfaces are detailed in a master design. At compile time, you find out how good you've done by measuring against the design. Are we suggesting there might be a design(er) involved? No, of course not. Therefore, the teams must be working without a plan; oops, no teams or individual choices, just individual switches switching at random without direction or goal, when suddenly XPPro squirts out of the hopper followed quickly by Vista! And we thought the Santa Clause story was silly.

You truly disappoint me. I started to see some level of intelligent discussion with you and you had to step down to the apologist level again. *sigh* Of course not the illustration intends to imply intelligence behind the construction, but just simple how co-operation, teamwork, i.e. parallelism can make things faster than just putting them on one single string.

 

Is the Dual Core Intel Chip faster than the Single Core? Is the Quad Core chip faster the the Dual Core? The answer is yes, and the quad core is a MACHINE, not an intelligent human, but yet Quad Core 1.6 GHz is faster than the Dual Core 2.33 GHz. Why? Because of parallellism.

 

Let me put it this way instead:

 

R1 = random chain of mutations

R2 = random chain of mutations

...

Rn = random chain of mutations

 

S1 = sum of random set of R1..Rn

S2 = sum of random set of R1..Rn

...

Sn

 

T1 = sum of random set of R1..Rn and S1..Sn

T2

...

 

etc.

 

What will be the outcome of the Z1 which is the random set of R/1..Y/n?

 

The answer is almost anything. And the permutation statistics for this is extremely complex, but for each random set, it doesn't increase the improbability, but rather increase the probability

 

My illustration was to be interpreted like this: the humans in the teams are the actors of the natural selection. Nature is not random, but very organized and somewhat deterministic. The programmers and the builds and tests are the natural selection. The co-operation means that multiple processes, like in a work-flow, or a project building a house, take separate tours and eventually merge to one event.

 

Have you even built a dog house? How long did it take?

 

Now, how long did it take to build the tall building in Dubai? Years, but in man hours we're talking about millions of house.

 

If you only take the time you spent on your doghouse, and them multiply it with the size of the tower in Dubai, then you'll end up with a timeline that is so incredible long that you'd say it is impossible to build such a big tower. But the fact is, it was built, and in just a few years. How was that accomplished? By -again- multiple threads of separate projects, at the end finally meet together.

 

I just don't understand why that is so incredible hard to understand?

 

The plan you're talking about is "natural selection", survival, fitness, environment. In an environment of salt water, mutations that make the individual better fitted for survival and procreation will follow the "plan" of nature. That's how it works. And the agents and worker bees are proteins (built by particles). The laws of physics and nature are the driving force behind the process.

 

To be fair, we're approaching this quite simplistically; we haven't brought in statistical means and variations yet because I don't understand what's required well enough. Optimization holds some promise if I understand it well enough to say, but as a single beneficial solution provider rather than a multiple non-beneficial solution aggregator. I'll consult a pro or a math book on the subject eventually, if our conversation lasts that long.

 

Buddy

It's not multiple non-beneficial aggregations, but multiple semi- to full-beneficial processes aggregation.

 

A worm that can sense light have a better chance of knowing if its above ground or under it. If it's above ground it has a chance of getting picked and eaten by a bird.

 

A bee have multiple and independent eye cells that doesn't give a full picture, but it can give the bee enough information to find the flowers and find food, compared the the blind bee that can't find one single flower.

 

And so on. Later in the process you have an animal with an eyelid to protect it from sand and dust, and they can see better in an dry and dusty environment, while the animals without it gets their primitive eyes destroyed.

 

etc.etc..

 

It's not difficult at all. But you can only get to the point of understanding it when you take of your religious blindfolding.

[freeman]

Hans you put it as simply as possible. I was going to use similar analogies, but alas I am no teacher! If you are not on my level, I have a difficult time communicating. I am very good at math and my wife sucks at it so it is up to me to tuitor our daughters. Sometimes it is not a pleasant sight! I just have to walk away, cool down and try another approach! Kinda like what we are doing with Buddy.

[BuddyFerris]

Do you know that most of the DNA code is concerned with fairly fundamental issues of cell structure and chemistry? 65% of our genetic code is the same as that of a cabbage.

 

This means that most of the changes necessary must have taken place at the micro-organism level. Luckily micro-organisms reproduce a lot faster, and in the case of bacteria they can actually swap genetic code with each other. At least that is what I have read.

The proximity to a cabbage provides a better explaination for a lot of the people I have known than does my butthead theory.

 

I'm inclined to agree that we are descended from a common life beginning. From our studies, we find we have much in common with every living thing. Perhaps much of the baseline for life was accomplished at the microbial level. It's still a long way from the early multi-cellular creatures to you and me, and most of the structural and chemical process changes that differentiate the two extremes occurred in populations smaller than what seems to be required for a truly random process.

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Since you wish to change the subject, you must answer a very simple question.

Did man appear out of mud in he present day form?

No problem, Freeman. No, I don't think mankind appeared in present form from out of the mud. Could have, I suppose, but that seems inconsistent with the life processes we see at work, doesn't it. Does that provide conclusive proof that man appeared on the scene in the absence of a specific design? No, but it does leave room for more than one interpretation of the data.

Buddy

[freeman]

Buddy,

So we evolved(?) from what form?

 

I want your honest opinion on our origins as a species? It is the least you can do!

[Grandpa Harley]

What do you mean by 'truely random'?

 

Evolution isn't a random system in terms of true random noise at every level, more like dynamical system... positive feedback is something engineers pretty well fear, since it's ordered but unstable. Biological systems operate as positive feedback systems. Tiny differences in start conditions make huge differences down the line, and it's self selecting. So 'noise' becomes order... One has to treat the organism as a part of the great environmental system it's in. I'd refer you to Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science' for one view, James Gleick's 'Chaos' and Dawkin's 'The Blind Watch Maker' to allow you the chance to prove you're not the moron I believe you to be

 

BTW are you positing that Malaria was redesigned by God to become resistant to Quinine? Or Rats became resistant to Warferin?

 

I asked this before, but you decided to be 'humorous', which you've said is as good as your maths (not very good at all) I'd advise you avoiding flipancy and hyperbole... try being straight...

 

One other question I've asked before... why are you on Ex-C's?

[BuddyFerris]

It's not difficult at all. But you can only get to the point of understanding it when you take of your religious blindfolding.

HanS,

You mistake me for an anti-evolutionist. I've stipulated common descent, random mutation, and natural selection. Survival of the fittest is a well established mechanism; the arrival thereof is less well established.

 

 

Buddy,

So we evolved(?) from what form?

 

I want your honest opinion on our origins as a species? It is the least you can do!

 

Freeman,

Well, friend, since you asked for it, here's my current thought on the subject. GOD DID IT! Dang, couldn't help myself, being a religiously blindfolded, fundy-mental-less, ignorant and unquestioning faith-for-brains, moronic child-abuser (since I taught my daughter how to both think and pray), intellectually challenged, parochially minded, evan-jelly-ist. ... who sees things.

 

Good for a laugh, I hope, although the name calling bothers me not at all. I was in the Navy; this is light-weight.

 

You know I'm a Christian, so that part won't be a surprise; my general impression includes, as I've said, common descent from a life-beginning point. I suspect the evolution from the very beginning to modern man has followed a design inherent from the beginning. To make matters worse, I'm fairly convinced that this bio-realm (or creation or universe) isn't the first, and it might not be the last. If I were to attempt to visualize the point of beginning (bang), it would include the causal component. Here it comes... and God said, let there be... bang, and there it was. Science carries us confidently back to the first instant after the cause and is helpless to go back further, lacking the language and breadth of thought required.

 

You probably know me well enough to understand that this is not a 'must win' point of philosophy. It's just my current and honest thought on the subject. While I do genuinely enjoy both the science study and the discussion the subject matter provokes, I'm not persuaded that the mind of man is actually the measure of all things; it may be awhile before we understand the things we propound with such confidence. To properly establish the subject's precedence, it is listed under general interests along with emerging technologies, cultural transformation, and small group interactions within large corporate bodies. I spend time variously on all of them; none are life-forming issues.

 

Does that answer the question adequately?

 

Buddy

[freeman]

Ok, so you are an ID'ist. You think your god created the Big Bang with a predetermined path. Am I correct?

 

I just take it a step further. The creator was the Big Bang with no predetermined path.

 

"Evolution isn't a random system in terms of true random noise at every level, more like dynamical system... positive feedback is something engineers pretty well fear, since it's ordered but unstable. Biological systems operate as positive feedback systems. Tiny differences in start conditions make huge differences down the line, and it's self selecting. So 'noise' becomes order... One has to treat the organism as a part of the great environmental system it's in." Gramps

 

Exactly, positive feedback pushed evolution forward with ever increasing speed!

 

"I'm fairly convinced that this bio-realm (or creation or universe) isn't the first, and it might not be the last. " Buddy

 

Sometimes the chances are meet sooner rather than later. For instance, if a mutaion has a 1:1,000,000 chance of happen (I'm talking about 1 generation to 1,000,000 generation) what if it happens in the first generation and not in the millionth? Sometimes the system favors the organism and not the statistics!

 

Think about it, I'm going home!

[BuddyFerris]

... Evolution isn't a random system in terms of true random noise at every level, more like dynamical system... positive feedback is something engineers pretty well fear, since it's ordered but unstable. Biological systems operate as positive feedback systems. Tiny differences in start conditions make huge differences down the line, and it's self selecting. So 'noise' becomes order... One has to treat the organism as a part of the great environmental system it's in. I'd refer you to Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science' for one view, James Gleick's 'Chaos' and Dawkin's 'The Blind Watch Maker' to allow you the chance to prove you're not the moron I believe you to be.

 

... are you positing that Malaria was redesigned by God to become resistant to Quinine? Or Rats became resistant to Warferin? ...

One other question I've asked before... why are you on Ex-C's?

Grandpa,

 

Far be it from me to disabuse you in your estimation of me as a moron, but I'll be glad to take a look at Wolfram, Gleick and Dawkins.

 

On the 'God did it' question, not at all. I don't think a natural selection for environmental tolerance needs divine permission or direction; it's appropriate and perhaps even to be expected that most organisms will have a measure of adaptability. I would expect mammals to tend toward fat storage and thicker coats as local temperatures declined; I would expect sea life near thermal vents to adapt to high-sulfur; an so on.

 

And why am I here on Ex-C? People who think like I do are easy to find. It is with some difficulty that I'm able to persuade the team I work with to disagree with me. My wife is both capable and willing to tell me I'm being an ass when I am, but on most subjects we agree in depth. The church I attend is a varied bunch, racially, culturally, professionally, but few are far removed from me philosophically. I enjoy people who make me think. Actually, I enjoy people in general. It's been a long time since I met someone who was unlikable.

 

A couple of illustrations might help: I spoke to an older fellow at the gas station Saturday, commenting on the days when gas was 10 cents a gallon. We laughed together, and while reminiscing, became buddies, introduced each other to our wives, commented on family issues, age, health concerns, and hopes. We shook hands warmly; I said a blessing over him and his family, he thanked me and we parted. It took all of 7 or 8 minutes, and we were both refreshed by the positive and affirming exchange; I can still see his weathered smile.

 

I was walking down the pier at a Navy base two weeks ago, and noticed a sailor's name stenciled over the pocket of her dungarees. I didn't know the name so I asked her how to pronounce it; she spoke it for me and told me it was from Western Africa; I told her I had just returned from Western Africa and we struck up a conversation. Her family is from Ghana; my almost brother is Ghanaian. I'm retired Navy, she's going on her first deployment and is nervous over several things. We talked shop and career for a few minutes while we walked the half-mile to our cars. At her car, she didn't want to part, so I offered to pray with her; she took my hand while I did and wouldn't turn loose when I'd finished, tears in her eyes. For a moment, I was her father, encouraging her to fight her way through. She asked me to visit her again. I will later this year on my next installation trip, perhaps.

 

You may glean from that what you will.

 

Buddy