Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 02-28-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus

"Simple. AFTER the random mutations, natural selection ensures that the best attributes stay, and the rest bugger off. This can happen over and over many many times, each time adding a little more complexity to the organisms in the population (provided that said complexity is a bonus for their reproductive sucess).

So if I were to randomly start daytrading stocks, buying and selling in a random, purposeless way, eventually I'd either wind up broke (extinct) or I would become more complex? Would I evolve the ability to predict the future direction of the market?

Keith

Keith · 02-28-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cricket

"Why do you keep saying it's a 'random process'? Natural selection is the opposite of random."

Are you denying that evolution involves a huge amount of randomness?

Keith

Keith · 02-28-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia

"And yet it is done in engineering all the time -- reusing previous components. Ever heard of the term "backwards compatibility?" Why would backwards compatibility be so important if it was "less than ideal?" Take a look at your PC. Let's count the number of modular components that can be replaced by newer components (and thereby rendering the previous components "old"): RAM, CPU, fans, LEDs, Power supplies, case, software, hard drives, disk drives, CD roms -- many components, but people get the idea. So, clearly your idea of "sync'd" development is not at all true. As has been pointed out, this is a strawman. Who says that evolution "designs" by "highly random processes?" You?"

Yes, and it will only work within small limits, which is my point. My computer can't work if the dispersion in the comlexity of parts gets beyond certain limits. It probably can't work with any internal parts made before 1990 or so, and if I keep putting in new parts, eventually I'll run into serious compatibility problems. How do the various bat ear parts evolve in sync with each other?

Keith

Godless Dave · 02-28-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Are you denying that evolution involves a huge amount of randomness?

Keith

One more time:

Mutations are random

Natural Selection is not random

So, yes, evolution involves a huge amount of randomness, and I don't think anyone is denying that.

Godless Dave · 02-28-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
How do the various bat ear parts evolve in sync with each other?

Because bats who are born with "ear parts" that are "out of sync" (ie their ears do not hear well or at all) will not live long enough to reproduce, so the mutation that caused the ears to develop that way will not be passed on.

Salmon of Doubt · 02-28-2003, 10:52 AM

Living things are here, and show a tendency to reproduce, because they would not be here otherwise. The first thing that replicated didn't need a purpose to exist, or a purpose to replicate. It just needed to happen to have features that caused it to reproduce.

When you get lots of these replicators and the replication isn't always perfect, some of them accumulate random mutations. If those random mutations happen to help it replicate more efficiently, or prevent the individual replicator from being destroyed, this is an advantage to the replicator, and all its descendents will have this advantage too.

This can apply to any system of replication, even in non-living things like computer code. We just happen to apply it to cells and organisms here, but people have carried out experiments like this with electronic circuits. By simply destroying replicators that fail to replicate or fail to gather materials essential for their survival, you allow a change in the next generation, where the individuals that survive will be better equipped for survival and replication.

The human mind has developed substantial pleasurable incentives to reproduce and survive, because those that did not wish to reproduce as strongly simply did not pass on those genes. So it's not an unusual opinion to think that evolution has a purpose, because our minds are just wired to see benefits in reproduction and survival. But that doesn't mean nature has a purpose. Destruction of the less fit replicators creates a pressure to replicate and more effectively, that's it. As soon as you get a situation with imperfect replicators where the environment kills the lest fit individuals, you get evolution. No miracles required.

Keith · 02-28-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Monkeybot

"A more accurate analogy would be if a factory cranked out hundreds of planes every year, each with their own unique variations. Then all these planes are forced to fly. The blueprints for the planes that crash are thrown away. The blueprints for the planes that fly are retained, and used in building the next generation of planes.

Over time, enough planes crash to weed out the truly fatal defects. The blueprints of the more successful planes eventually make up the majority of those in the factory, just as certain alleles show up with greater frequency in a given gene pool."

Very neat analogy. But do some of the non-crashing planes get to evolve into space shuttles? If so, why does this happen?

Keith

Godless Dave · 02-28-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Very neat analogy. But do some of the non-crashing planes get to evolve into space shuttles? If so, why does this happen?

Keith

The engineers only care that the planes do not crash. If a design creeps in that allows a plane to fly into space it will not be rejected, as long as planes following that design do not crash.

Keith · 02-28-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by James Hamlin

"So your point in all of this is to string us along in an attempt to get us to prove your point for you? I don't think it'll work. You ask how it happened, someone says it "just happened" (random mutation + natural selection) and you can't handle the answer. If you had your own preconceived and erroneous notion that the individual was "intelligently designed" that you were unwilling to give up, then why did you even ask?

As has been said to many believers before, just cause you believe it don't make it true.

True, but at least I admit that I believe in miracles!

Keith

Godless Dave · 02-28-2003, 11:15 AM

Keith, just because you cannot understand how mutations work does not mean they ae miraculous. If I were going to jump to conclusions I would guess it is because you received a sub-standard science education, have never read National Geographic or watched a biology show on PBS, much less read Nature or Science, and/or you have been lied to from the pulpit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-28-2003, 10:52 AM	#216
Salmon of Doubt Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: UK Posts: 150	Living things are here, and show a tendency to reproduce, because they would not be here otherwise. The first thing that replicated didn't need a purpose to exist, or a purpose to replicate. It just needed to happen to have features that caused it to reproduce. When you get lots of these replicators and the replication isn't always perfect, some of them accumulate random mutations. If those random mutations happen to help it replicate more efficiently, or prevent the individual replicator from being destroyed, this is an advantage to the replicator, and all its descendents will have this advantage too. This can apply to any system of replication, even in non-living things like computer code. We just happen to apply it to cells and organisms here, but people have carried out experiments like this with electronic circuits. By simply destroying replicators that fail to replicate or fail to gather materials essential for their survival, you allow a change in the next generation, where the individuals that survive will be better equipped for survival and replication. The human mind has developed substantial pleasurable incentives to reproduce and survive, because those that did not wish to reproduce as strongly simply did not pass on those genes. So it's not an unusual opinion to think that evolution has a purpose, because our minds are just wired to see benefits in reproduction and survival. But that doesn't mean nature has a purpose. Destruction of the less fit replicators creates a pressure to replicate and more effectively, that's it. As soon as you get a situation with imperfect replicators where the environment kills the lest fit individuals, you get evolution. No miracles required.

02-28-2003, 11:15 AM	#220
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Keith, just because you cannot understand how mutations work does not mean they ae miraculous. If I were going to jump to conclusions I would guess it is because you received a sub-standard science education, have never read National Geographic or watched a biology show on PBS, much less read Nature or Science, and/or you have been lied to from the pulpit.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.