daemon

Please note that I qualified my statement with "I believe," because I certainly claim to be no expert on biology; I'm a software developer with a degree in electrical engineering. theyeti has, in his posts, demonstrated a much deeper knowledge of the topic, and I believe he is a biologist, so I must bow to his assessment.

Having corrected that error...
This is completely irrelevant, and you apparently do not understand evolution; evolution does not address the origin of life.

Furthermore:
regarding computer simulations of eye evolution
Your interpretation of how the program operated is completely offbase. The program did not mutate itself.
Actually, there's no reason a program couldn't generate new instructions.
The program did not evolve; the simulated eye did.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]</p>

l-bow

davidH,

Check out:

<a href="http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~mlavin/b403/lec1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~mlavin/b403/lec1.htm</a>


According to this site, the number of point mutations per gamete, genome-wide is about 3. Scroll down six paragraphs down from the top.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

scigirl

Hey I-bow,

Are you from Montana State? That's where I am right now! I took a class from Matt Lavin, Evolution in fact.



scigirl

Sorry to digress, everyone else: get back on track to genetics!

tronvillain

Dawkins in Climing Mount Improbable:

Saying that the simulated eye didn't display any capability the original program didn't have is like saying the actual eye doesn't have any capability the laws of physics don't have.

l-bow

No, I got this page using a search engine searching for webpages that had the phrase "mutations per gamete".

Oolon Colluphid

David, a couple of quick points.

The probability of something concerns the probability of the event AND the number of attempts. Thus the chances of a particular mutation turning up in a particular organism may be hugely improbable. But the other factor you seem to be forgetting is the number of attempts. This is the size of the population and the number of generations you look at. For, say, bacteria, the population can easily be numbered in the millions, and the generations in just a year can be hundreds of thousands. This shortens the odds rather. The chances of being dealt four aces is very very low if you only play cards once ever (though it may still happen!). If you play ten hands a day all your life, it’ll happen a significant number of times (can’t be bothered to do the actual calculation!). With a million people playing cards every day, it will be a common enough event somewhere. It may be worth mentioning down the pub, but won’t make the national newspapers.

The other point is, I’d strongly suggest you pop to your local library or bookshop and get hold of Jonathan Weiner’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067973337X/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Beak of the Finch</a>. This discusses in depth the observations of Peter and Rosemary Grant of finch species on Daphne Major the Galapagos. <a href="http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/Heins/Evolution/lecture17.html" target="_blank">Here</a>, <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch2.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/freeman/chapter1/custom5/deluxe-content.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/teachstuds/pdf/natural_selection.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/teachstuds/pdf/grants_finch_data.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> is some more information about these finches.

Regardless of how probable or improbable you consider relevant mutations to be at the genetic level, these people (and many others) have watched the natural selection of differing phenotypes in different circumstances produce evolutionary changes in the populations. Subtle and cumulative changes. Which is what evolution expects.

Fascinating though the genetics is, I strongly suspect you’re using this as a red herring.

TTFN, Oolon

davidH

No, I'm not using this as a red herring - why would I?

In the link I was given on Darwin's finches, I noticed an interesting fact.
They asserted that they had seen evolution in 2 years - so maybe evolution didn't have to take place over millions of years.

One question here, you say that the earth is really old - what assumptions do you base this on?
And does the fact that the earth is really old actually mean that life had to start all those millions of years ago?
When infact I would say that the age of the earth has no implications on the age of life.

I'm in school so I have to go now.

One last question - it was said that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. So why then was someone else asserting that evolution removes the concept of a God.
I believe that evolution does have a really big thing to do with the origins of life - how can it not?
Many people here have made that assertion when I question them about this, but could this actually be an avoidance of a subject...?

Oolon Colluphid

And another thing. Despite all our efforts, you are still banging on about improbability. The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that it renders the vastly improbable-looking probable, by forming it not in one big jump -- by definition highly improbable -- but by a large series of small steps: by definition, each not very improbable.

Since you still don’t get it, here’s a quote from Richard Dawkins, saying the same thing... but it seems it needs repeating:

And he goes on to say that:

In other words, in the task of understanding the world, simply throwing in a goddidit explanation is no explanation at all. It replaces the unknown with the unknowable, which is a step backward.

Ref eyes, here’s some more about Nilsson and Pelger’s eye-evolving simulation: <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye_stages.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye_stages.html</a>
And you should see the whole article from which this page comes: <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html" target="_blank">How Could an Eye Evolve?</a>

Here are some of the stages in the development of this fish-type eye:



TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

You tell me... but one thing is clear: it is easy to get bogged down in this-way-and-that arguments over genetics, when there is abundant evidence of the next level up: selection of phenotypic effects. Learn how the engine works,then move on to the chemistry of petrol and the physics of exothermic reactions.

That is precisely the point. These are small changes. Spread this scale of change out over millions of years, and very very big changes can be produced.

No... sorry... can’t... resist... BWAHAHAHA! ROTFLMFAO!

Erm... it’s the ‘assumptions’ of quantum mechanics. Go thou hither and learn:
<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/10740RadioactiveDecay.html" target="_blank">http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/10740RadioactiveDecay.html</a>
<a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear.htm" target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear.htm</a>

and then move on to:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Tim_J_Thompson/radiometric.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Tim_J_Thompson/radiometric.html</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/</a>

Yes. See the links above.

You’ve heard of fossils I take it? The rocks they’re in can be dated. <a href="http://members.aol.com/drjohnsea/Vendianfossils.html" target="_blank">Here are some evidences for life as long ago as the Precambrian</a> – that’s over 570 million years ago. As dated by the methods above.

Try learning some geology and physics while you’re there.

Because god is usually used in arguments such as yours, as an explanation for the apparent design in nature. Evolution doesn’t remove the concept of god, it simply makes god superfluous, an extraneous element that isn’t needed for the explanation to work. You should note that the vast majority of Christians (except in the US perhaps) have no problem reconciling modern science with their faith. See:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</a>

Well you’re wrong...

Because evolution is about differential survival and reproductive success. Heritable variations, and only the ‘best’ ones each generation (or none!) surviving. Evolution is what you automatically get once you have things that replicate and compete for limited resources. Origins of life hypotheses are about where these replicators come from in the first place. Evolution is about living things. The term, I thought, was a giveaway: origins of life: where the stuff came from that could then evolve. Got it now?

Or simply that we’re bored of hearing the same old waste matter over and over, and can’t always be bothered to justify the really really basic stuff that people should be able to find out for themselves or be taught in the evolutionary biology equivalent of infant school.

TTFN, Oolon

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

lpetrich

OK, I'll bite. There is an abundance of evidence that the Earth has an age of 4.6 billion years -- a figure which is NOT an a priori assumption. And a figure derived completely independently of biology. That's right. Completely independently. And if you don't understand that, O davidH, tell me what will make you understand. Is it anything less than Ol' Mr. G. taking you back in time so you can observe in person the Earth's very long history?

Also, one can tell how long the Earth has been inhabited by studying fossils and dating the rocks that surround them. The Earth has been inhabited for over 3.6 billion years, but the first fossils look much like certain present-day bacteria.

No assumptions are really necessary.