[Al_U_Card]

Unless our particles and those of the sun were afflicted by quantum entanglement. Then we would have 8 minutes of lighted hysteria.....unless the light photons were also entangled....then immediate darkness....sounds spooky...

Brane theory, quantum triangulated space, tetrahedral materiality... we live in interesting times.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Jan 29 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Heck, I used to play mini-roman!

I have a partner who loves mini-Roman and (because he is a good friend of many years) I play it with him. Whenever he opens 2♦, I hold a 5=3=2=3 10-count.

[gwnn]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 29 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

Unless our particles and those of the sun were afflicted by quantum entanglement. Then we would have 8 minutes of lighted hysteria.....unless the light photons were also entangled....then immediate darkness....sounds spooky...

Brane theory, quantum triangulated space, tetrahedral materiality... we live in interesting times.

http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&safe=off...ot;&btnG=Search

[vuroth]

The OP throws out the word "improbable" fairly often, without really, I think, thinking through or understanding the implications of the word.

Look at the recent, famous, E Coli experiment. The 2 necessary mutations were incredibly unlikely, but once the second occurred, the new THING dominated the environment in a very short amount of time.

V

[Little Kid]

First of all I'd like to thank Hrothgar for the link as it is probably what I am looking for. I must confess however that my mathematical analysis skills are not so advanced and that I can't quite intuitively make sense of the article.

That being said I think I need to clarify a few points because I think people are getting the wrong idea of me... As I stated before I am not a creationist, nor any other form of theist for that matter, I'm an atheist. The sole purpose of this thread was for me to be able to make sense of the basis of genetic change in organisms. If I was just trying to hate on evolution without trying to learn anything I would not have started this topic and would most certainly not be studying as a 2nd year Molecular Biologist.

I never claimed evolution to be a hoax and all the evidence just to be coincidental. I accept that genetic variation arises and that it is naturally selected for by the environment. The question I asked was HOW it arises. Many of the mechanisms that mentioned be create this genetic variation seem (to me anyway) to be more of a means to distribute it than form it. I might just be interpreting everything wrongly, but I'll have a look at this Dawkins fellow that was mentioned and hopefully it will clear things up.

[Al_U_Card]

gwnn, on Jan 29 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 29 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

Unless our particles and those of the sun were afflicted by quantum entanglement.  Then we would have 8 minutes of lighted hysteria.....unless the light photons were also entangled....then immediate darkness....sounds spooky...

Brane theory, quantum triangulated space, tetrahedral materiality... we live in interesting times.

http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&safe=off...ot;&btnG=Search

Try to have your great-grandfather imagine i-phones. Magic? Flight of fancy? Just what we have yet to uncover and explore is all.
So many things to know, so little time....good thing that it all comes from the void....makes it easy to carry within

[DrTodd13]

Everybody is coming at this question with a pre-established worldview. Some hold to the materialist view and so they are forced to believe in whatever the most likely materialist explanation is even if that explanation was in absolute terms highly unlikely. At a micro level, calculations have been made on the probability of certain molecules forming by chance. Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance. Physicists have struggled with this problem and have invented a variety of explanations which are only slight less preposterous than claiming that only one universe exists and it just so happens that it's fundamental constants are compatible with life (this isn't just like one in a billion...more like 1 in 10^120)...multiple universes with every possible set of values for the constants of nature or the universe existing in one giant quantum superposition whose wave function collapses once one of the uncountable possibilities results in an "intelligent" observer. If you a priori reject non-material agents then you have no choice but to believe the highly improbable has occurred. Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting people for this belief because the other alternative (at least partial construction by an intelligence external to the universe) is also highly unlikely and without proof. If there were a statistician with no pre-conceptions I think they would find both explanations unappealing.

A core part of darwinism is the belief that "random mutation" has helped produce genetic diversity. If mutation were instead not random but guided via the intelligent manipulation of non-deterministic quantum events then the two scenarios would be indistinguishable. Again, by doing this, you fix the problem of the sheer unlikelihood of random events getting us where we are today but replace it with God. So, in short I would say that evolution is possible but failure to have a better explanation is not proof of the truth of the current best conjecture particularly when the same science giving us this explanation says its likelihood is extremely low.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Jan 29 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

So, in short I would say that evolution is possible but failure to have a better explanation is not proof of the truth of the current best conjecture particularly when the same science giving us this explanation says its likelihood is extremely low.

If you are saying you only would believe an explanation for our existance if a priori it were extremely likely to occur, then I strongly disagree!

[mikeh]

DrTodd13, on Jan 29 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

  At a micro level, calculations have been made on the probability of certain molecules forming by chance.  Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance. 

The calculations done to arrive at the improbability of the current ecosphere, and organisms therein, emerging from an original self-replicating molecule are, as a moment's reflection would reveal, based on the absurd notion that we are the intended result. If, and this may be a big if for some, we accept that over the course of a billion years or more of early earth chemistry, such an original replicator arose, then it becomes almost mathematically certain that a wide range of organisms of varying complexity would emerge, if not here, then somewhere else. And if it ever did arise, then its more complex creations might well one day marvel at their own improbability.

Predicting, a billion years ago, how it would appear today.... impossible.. predicting that it might well be extremely diverse and complex... trivial.

As for the constants of the universe, such that stars form, planets form, the original replicators can even exist.. this is, admittedly, far more difficult.

However, mankind, as a species, is very early in the intellectual pursuit of answers, other than the superstitious nonsense that ascibes that which we do not understand to 'god'.

The Standard Model of physics which held sway for several decades could not answer why elementary particles come in 3 groupings.

String theory suggests that the number arises as the inevitable result of the theory.

String theorists entertain, but have not yet been able to confirm or deny, the possibility that the various factors that give rise to our universe arise also out of the theory.

This may seem to beg the question: if the universe is the inevitable, but probablistic, result of an underlying physical or mathematical equation, 'who first formulated the equation?'

Whether we can ever even truly understand the answer is, as far as I am concerned, an open and so far unanswerable question... others may and I am sure do disagree.

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

That is the point that really amazes me about theists. Don't any of them have ANY questions about their god's origins, and makeup, and environment, and motivation? No.. that is all 'off limits' or, perhaps more accurately, not meaningful, and that is why I have suggested that to beleive in God as the ultimate answer is to stop thinking. No-one has ever posted any rational answer to that proposition... oh, they all claim that they do think, or that faith is the answer or that god's will is the answer.. but this is just so much hogwash that it is almost embarrassing to respond to it.

More to the point.. there is, I would think, a fundamental difference between acknowledging that IF we can push back our boundaries of ignorance to the point that we can determine precisely how our universe came into existence, we MIGHT find that some force external to the universe 'created' it.. I acknowledge that that would seem to be possible.. on the one hand, and, on the other, positing that a particular god did it, that the particular god did it so as to create us, and the god watches us, and rewards or punishes us for our behaviour seems a bit much... and positively unnecessary... a 'god'.. maybe, we can't rule it out.. but a christian god, or a druidian god, or a muslim god or a sun god... why do we need that?

I mean, why is all of this ongoing involvement neccessary? Why create the universe if we are the focal point? We are never going to fill the universe.... even if our species lasted for the rest of eternity, it isn't ever going to be able to reach the outer bounds of the universe. It seems, with no respect intended, to be a very wasteful god. And cruel beyond belief.. it didn't even try to save most of our 'souls' for thousands, and thousands of years... not to mention a point I have never seen addressed. if we all have immortal souls... where do they come from? Where were the 7 billion souls now inhabiting human bodies for the past 15 billion years? Where are the next generations souls now. Why do we need to multiply these concepts?

Religion is an effort to make our existence mean something, and to protect us from our fear of oblivion after death. It has also proven to be a very successful model for those who love to control others, and to gain, preserve and enhance power. I would hope that we outgrow these childish beliefs... but it is clearly a very powerful meme... which has a remarkable rate of successful inoculation of its victims.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jan 29 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jan 29 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

  At a micro level, calculations have been made on the probability of certain molecules forming by chance.  Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance. 

The calculations done to arrive at the improbability of the current ecosphere, and organisms therein, emerging from an original self-replicating molecule are, as a moment's reflection would reveal, based on the absurd notion that we are the intended result.

i think we already covered this fallacy in an earlier post... i know a woman who found a powerball ticket on the ground and came to find out that it was worth $100,000... now whether or not it was absurd to think the intended result was her winning that cash has nothing to do with the odds against that result

Quote

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

Quote

That is the point that really amazes me about theists. Don't any of them have ANY questions about their god's origins, and makeup, and environment, and motivation? No.. that is all 'off limits' or, perhaps more accurately, not meaningful, and that is why I have suggested that to beleive in God as the ultimate answer is to stop thinking. No-one has ever posted any rational answer to that proposition... oh, they all claim that they do think, or that faith is the answer or that god's will is the answer.. but this is just so much hogwash that it is almost embarrassing to respond to it.

you aren't allowed to ask a question about what a group thinks and then answer that question as if you actually know the answer... many have thought on these very things and have arrived at answers - naive and ignorant answers, to be sure, but answers nonetheless

Quote

I acknowledge that that would seem to be possible.. on the one hand, and, on the other, positing that a particular god did it, that the particular god did it so as to create us, and the god watches us, and rewards or punishes us for our behaviour seems a bit much... and positively unnecessary... a 'god'.. maybe, we can't rule it out.. but a christian god, or a druidian god, or a muslim god or a sun god... why do we need that?

you don't... this is all really elemental, but the quick answer is - which version of "god" can be shown to be internally consistent and which can't

Quote

Religion is an effort to make our existence mean something, and to protect us from our fear of oblivion after death.

says who?

Quote

It has also proven to be a very successful model for those who love to control others, and to gain, preserve and enhance power. I would hope that we outgrow these childish beliefs... but it is clearly a very powerful meme... which has a remarkable rate of successful inoculation of its victims.

go in circles often?

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 29 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

Would you care to explain to an ignorant materialist, what you mean by 'non-material laws'?

Would you care to explain how such laws are testable, in terms of objectively verifiable outcomes?

or is this all a matter of faith?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 29 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

I realize Mike just questioned this portion of your post, but I certainly am wondering some things about it.
- Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?
- I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."
- Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

When he said "notice", if he meant "see" then he is completely correct (if the sun suddenly vanished, we wouldn't see it vanish for 8 minutes I believe.) If he meant "feel" in the sense of gravity, then I honestly have no idea although I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn there is a similar delay.

The theory of general relativity suggests that gravity propagates at the speed of light.

[PassedOut]

DrTodd13, on Jan 29 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance.

And when you combine that with the probability of an intelligent designer arising spontaneously beforehand and our existence is that much more unlikely. I pinch myself to make sure I exist.

[mike777]

Late to the discussion but if we are discussing evolution I hope we all agree evolution of humans in not over......and next we can debate what is does it mean to be human.....in other words how many machine parts or clone parts, and gene therapy can we have and still be......

Now if we and the universe are holograms....then...?




http://homepages.ihu...i/hologram.html


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...t-hologram.html

[Gerardo]

Tetrachromacy in humans might be an example of evolution in action.

Interestingly, seems some kind of previous color blindness is necessary to achieve a tetrachromat.

Or, highly probably, I may be talking out of my ass.

[helene_t]

Gerardo, on Jan 30 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

Tetrachromacy in humans might be an example of evolution in action.

Interestingly, seems some kind of previous color blindness is necessary to achieve a tetrachromat.

Or, highly probably, I may be talking out of my ass.

Interesting. But I doubt that there is much of a reproductive advantage associated with tetrachromacy in humans.

[helene_t]

shintaro, on Jan 29 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

Gravity is just a theory;

If so what do you think keeps us all 'Grounded'

Do we both accept it as a fact that we are "grounded"? After all it could be an illusion.

If we accept it as a fact, some of us would like to have a theory that explains why we are grounded. Gravity is, for most purposes, at least to me, the most useful theory. Of course one could argue that it just pushes the question to somewhere else as we can still wonder why gravity is there. But to some of us, it is nevertheless a useful theory, for example because it unifies a lot of phenomena, from water pressure to falling apples to planetary movements. Of course if you don't care for such unification, or if you insist on an "ultimate" explanation, gravity may be useless to you.

Analogy: Do we both accept evolution as a fact? After all the fossils could have been planted by aliens who use us a guinea pigs, or it could be that some series of miracles wiped out the entire biosphere and replaced it with a slightly different biosphere some 10,000 times during the last billion years, thereby creating an illusion of evolution.

If we accept evolution as a fact, some of us would like to have it explained by a theory. Random mutations and natural selection is an attractive idea since it only builds on phenomena we can observe directly in our own time - it does not rely on "miracles" or vastly different conditions in the past. Obviously it just pushes the question - we can still wonder if anything more informed could be said about the mutations that must have taken place than that they are "random", and one can still wonder how it all got started. Nevertheless, it is a useful theory because it unifies all of biology. It is easier to recall facts if we can understand them as opposed to just saying that they happen to appear to be true. And it provides useful predictions such as intermediate forms being likely to be found, species that based on their fossil records appear to be related are likely to have similar junk DNA signatures, fishery management can predict fish to evolve in response to fishery, bacteria being likely to evolve in response to antibiotics etc. To some people this all doesn't matter so natural selection will not be a useful theory to them.

[Little Kid]

In the OP I asked about concrete evidence of the mechanisms generating novel gene traits, not just observed examples of them happening today or the past(eg. citrate metabolising E. coli or the classic example of the speckled moth) or even the mechanisms that "could" do so.

However, It seems that little of you seem to be interested in that and rather debate about the theory of evolution itself. Personally I feel that the evidence for this is fairly strong but that it has not yet been investigated to such an extend that all the gaps are filled. Before I get accused of being ignorant creationist again I'll back up my views and provide you with a few thoughts from prominent scientists in the field of evolution. They were asked what they thought to be the "biggest gaps" remaining in evolutionary theory.


"We still don't know what the last common ancestor of the humans and chimpanzees looked like, where and how it lived, and what processes sent us down our separate evolutionary paths. There are now a few important fossils from Africa in the likely time period of between 7 and 5 million years ago, but for me they have not necessarily brought us close to an answer."

Chris Stringer, Department of Paleontology at the Natural History Museum in London


"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself. We know that life began, probably near volcanically active zones, about 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, at a time when tehre was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. In the laboratory it has been possible to replicate such conditions and produce amino acids, primitive membrane-like structures and some of the building blocks of DNA and RNA. More recently, it has been found that, along with protein enzymes, RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, and it has even been possible to construct RNA molecules that can copy parts of themselves. But the gap between such a collection of molecules and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."

Chriss Wills, biology professor at University of California, San Diego


"Which facts of evolution had to be true and which just happened to be true? Did the genetic code have to be digital in order for natural selection to work? Could any other classes of molecules have substituted for proteins? How inevitable was the evolution of sex? Eyes? Intelligence? Language? Consciousness? Was the origin of life itself a common event, and therefore is life common in the universe?"

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford


"Evolution's biggest gap? Quite simple, old boy." Professor Mortimer leaned back and grinned. "Evolution equals change? Naturally, but that is only one step. What is life? A spectacular tightrope walk on a gossamer thread between the vast regions of crystalline immobolity and chaotic flux. If you don't like that metaphor, try thinking of a pack of cards a mile high with an elephant perfectly balanced on top. And then there is this uncanny self-organisation. Cells to consciousness - impressive isn't it? Darwin got it right, but so did Newton. But then physics had Einstein. Perhaos now it is biology's turn."

Simon Conway Morris, professor in Department of Earth Sciences at University of Cambridge

[jdonn]

Little Kid, on Jan 30 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

However, It seems that little of you seem to be interested in that and rather debate about the theory of evolution itself. Personally I feel that the evidence for this is fairly strong but that it has not yet been investigated to such an extend that all the gaps are filled.

Everyone will agree with you that the theory of evolution has gaps that so far aren't filled, whether they believe in evolution or not. It won't make for a very interesting discussion...