Chance and evolution

[Fishteacher73]

This idea also assumes that only one mutatiion could occur at a time. If you have a large population, multiple mutations could be popping up, and each's advantage allows them to exist and pass it on, possiblly with a yet other mutant to have offspring with both adaptions. It is essentaially like folding a page of paper in half successive times. You have geometric expansion of traits.

 

Another issue to ponder is that early life did not have as much other biological pressure upon it. Odd mutations that would not be viable today had a niche to go into at that time period. (just look at some of the Burgess Shale fossils).

[TeleMad]

Many people also think about evolution of new species only in terms of the accumulation of point mutations in structural genes. Probably much more important are changes in regulatory genes (a mutation in one itself, causing it to bind as a transcription factor for longer or shorter of a time than originally, or some change in their cascades, where one regulatory gene controls another, which controls another), especially during embryological development.

 

We should see the transition from one thing to another not as their fully living, adult form, but as their embryological forms. How can a two-way reptile respiratory system transition into a one-way avian respiratory system, considering that respiration is absolutely essential to both reptiles and birds and loss of function leads to certain death? It could happen embryologically, before a functioning respiratory system is required for life.

[Tormod]

Well, as quantum mechanics suggests, all Newtonian causation just could be a fallacy. The very observations/attention of the observer creates the possibilities.

 

Where does quantum mechanics suggest this? Last time I checked Newton's three laws were still enforced in the macroscopic world.

[Biochemist]

Many people also think about evolution of new species only in terms of the accumulation of point mutations in structural genes. Probably much more important are changes in regulatory genes....It could happen embryologically, before a functioning respiratory system is required for life.

You are suggesting changes to complex systems that are mandatory for viability of the organism. There would be no oportuntity for serial selection based on serial mutation. Why don't you suggest a probabilistic mathematical model for the liklihood of one of these events?

[DAK]

<I'm sorry DAK, I didn't realize you were baiting a trap for me>

 

You actually set the trap yourself with your preconceived notions on the topic... I simply held the mirror up so you could see it. I didn't think you'd actually step in it as well.

 

DAK

[bartock]

as some here have already mentioned, the random element of evolution is often misunderstood. Here is a simple experiment that shows the error with one of the common arguments against evolution (the random-chance eyeball argument).

 

Say we have six 6-sided dice and our goal is to roll them and end up with all 1's. We try the following two methods.

 

Method #1:

 

Roll all six dice at once. If you do not get all 1's, pick them up and try again.

 

Method #2:

 

Roll all six dice at once. If you get any dice that are 1's, put them off to the side and pick up the remaining dice and roll them. Continue this process until there are no more dice to roll.

 

 

It is clear that you wouldn't to spend your time on Method #1 (assuming 1 roll per second, on average Method #1 would take ~13 hours and Method #2 would take ~1 min). Because of natural selection and its system of attribute preservation and loss, evolution builds on its successes and cuts its failures. Everything is a process taking place on huge timescales.'

it is probability theory not evolution

[blazer2000x]

When you are rolling the dice to try to roll all sixes, you say natural selection allows you to place aside any six you have already rolled. But that cannot be the case with the creation of life, because natural selection can only affect a living, duplicating cell. You would have to pick all of them up and roll them all over again. And not only that, you would not be using six dice, you would have to roll billions of dice all at the same time and have them all land in the exact order and the exact place just to create the simplest one-celled organism. The odds for life starting by chance are small enough to be considered virtually impossible. I personally believe in the Biblical creation. But, if the universe and matter have always been here as evolutionists clame, who's to say life hasn't existed forever as well?

[infamous]

I personally believe in the Biblical creation. But, if the universe and matter have always been here as evolutionists clame, who's to say life hasn't existed forever as well?

I to believe in creation but, and I also believe that the universe is much older than the popular view that bible scholars give to it. I believe that it is possible to believe in intellignet design and natural selection at the same instant without the need to rest upon what someones translation of scripture says about it. In any case, evidence is needed at this forum to make any claims, therefore I make no claims for I have no proof about the intelligent design aspect of my belief. Now about the natural selection part, I believe science has many proofs to support this persuasion.

[Biochemist]

Gentlemen-

 

This thread has gotten so large that no one could conceivably review it to participate.

 

Blazer, you brought up the notion of the probability associated with abiogenesis. If this topic interests you, I suggest you open a new thread specific to that topic. I suspect you will get pretty good participation.

 

We do get better and higher quality participation when the thread is focused, and short enough for interested participatns to scan the thread and gain a footing for the conversation.

 

I am going to close this thread, but I encourage y'all to start a new one on a relevant topic of interest.

 

Bio, as moderator.