Evolution: The ramfications of mutations And the necessity for Information

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SX23]

Having a few looses times due to launcher's waiting, I decided to create this.
Share your thoughts and please do not post "stupid" threads.

Despite the current beliefs on the Evolution theory, this one's is not as stable as we were lead to believe. The following arguments are quite logic and do no require any specific scientific knowledge apart from bases in anatomy and biology.
The basis of the theory clearly state a starting point from where a mutation occurs and cause radical or simples changes in the individual. Due to Darwin lack of recent knowledge into anatomy, specifically the way that organs interact with each others, his mistakes are quite easy to understand. What we have come to learn recently is that no "simple" physical mutation may occur without a disregard to specifics from the said mutations or another organ that might be linked.
As a quick example to help understand what I mean:
If having a third arm would help to one's species survival and that some day, an individual would have one, he would therefore need new nerves connection to his brain that would fit EXACTLY the new arm, (Which would need to be a separate mutation, as nerves and arms are quite separated in the DNA) And then he would need new entries into the brain to "acknowledge" the new arm, which would require a new mutation (As again, brain functions and arm's are quite separated) and from now on, he would also need new ligaments and et cetera. As one's could imagine, the probability for all those mutations to concur into one's body and to "fit" with each other, not to mention that even with billions of years of tries, the fact that one's mutation without the others would render the 1st mutation useless is even more detrimental to the probabilities. And those are quite slim. So slim that mathematically speaking, we do have an appellation for it: Impossible.

My second point is referring to information. Most of you would agree that this one's needs to be generated by an intelligent organism, both for the encoding mechanism and for the decoding one, along with the fact that plain matter cannot create information.
Then again, most of you would agree to the fact that the DNA possess information which is decoded by ribosomes. However, information cannot be created by matter, and such as, do need an intelligent source. As the sole source on Earth known to be able to do something that might approach some day the DNA complexity and information is the human, and that is impossible that humanity, time's paradoxes forbid, is the source to humanity, or evolution for that matter, we must conclude that a form of intelligence have preceded us. And no matter what is that source, in each case it involves exterior involvement in the creation of life, leading into a falsified, or at least incomplete, evolution theory.
Cordially,
SX23.

[Sharpshooter824]

Can't agree more with that, if people would really think hard about the human body, and realize that it couldn't just form randomly considering each individual cell is so complex and everything in the body works together perfectly..it's practically common sense that evolution is false.

[EIRRMod]

So slim that mathematically speaking, we do have an appellation for it: Improbable.

My only argument with your comment

[CrazyWR]

lol...

[SX23]

My only argument with your comment

If I can give a counter-argument:
In theory, no laws of nature have been "proved".
They are based on repeated observations on the matter and we came with general conclusion, such as the gravity laws.
However, considering all factors, the odds to have a dozen of different mutations on the same individual, and furthermore, mutations that do "match", with others, are so slim that it is considered, both by the scientific and mathematic community, to be impossible, even with billions of billions tries. If you do therefor believe it, you are a "believer" in the evolution, as such odds can be solved by nothing else than a miracle.
And that is without mentioning the fact that one's mutation without the others would render the 1st mutation useless, and occur the loss of the said mutation, due to support of useless matter thorough your anatomy, not to mention the destruction of already available information, which results in factors that are DETRIMENTAL to the survival of the individual, therefor occurring in the loss of the said "advancement"  is even more detrimental to the probabilities

[AmPM]

The problem with your argument is basing it on the concept that something cannot be formed from nothing. If something cannot be formed from nothing then nothing would still be here, as nothing would have formed prior to us.

As for information, information is stored in every particle of matter, information and matter cannot be destroyed, merely redistributed. Well, short of anti-matter.

Anyway, if anyone is wondering whether or not a piece of a grand whole can be a useful mutation, yes it can. The idea that a complex piece of biology cannot be formed by evolution was proven false. However the odds of the mutation happening quickly is not likely. This information would not be deleted from the DNA either, as we can all see from the differences in physical form that we all share. Even amongst twins there are usually differences, slight mutations in the code no matter how minor.

Organisms do not evolve for efficiency, the evolve to survive. An extra piece of something does not preclude survival and as that one survives and passes its DNA on to it's offspring/copy the number of creatures with that mutation multiply. As they multiply a few others mutate further and so on and so forth until something useful comes along.

For proof that organisms with useless features survive and thrive, please look in the mirror, then look up your appendix.

[acker]

SX23: I think your definition of "information" in your info argument borders on equivocation; a logical fallacy. You are switching between the everyday definition of information, which is data created/shared between sentient life-forms, and the "scientific" definition of information, which is pretty much what AMPM said; the 'traits' that make up everything, for lack of a better term. If one sticks with one definition through the course of your argument, your argument falls apart; it either becomes a tautology or, in the other case, becomes completely nonsensical.

Your argument from design suffers from the "half a wing" or "third of an eye" problem, better known as the mousetrap fallacy; the presumption that "complete", "assembled" products of evolution necessarily "need" to evolve "complete" or "assembled" to prove useful for survival. This is patently untrue, as even your legs or spine or pinky toe (all systems "built" for quadrupeds, resulting in massive problems later in life for bipedal creatures) can demonstrate. On a much smaller (yet more complicated) scale, something as simple as a photoreceptive pigment in a cell can prove useful, even though pigments, in no way, shape or form, are comparable to an eye.

[Spartan_Marine88]

As always when it comes to Science, i point out that we as a species deem fit to convince ourselves that we are at a socially enlightened enough point that we can analyze things as deep as DNA and the Universe and not only comprehend it but fully understand it, when we haven't even discovered everything on our relitively small planet, new species and types of species are being found (rediscovered in some cases) all the time such as the Oil Eating Bacteria in the Gulf.

While i am by no means saying that such things shouldn't be studied. The arrogance and tunnel vision 'Scientists' display more often for political and monetary gain means that what is presented as fact probably bares little resemblance to it

can't remember what this is from but it makes sense

lets use the cure for cancer as an example
- if 400 000 scientists are being paid 200 000$ a year each to do the research for the cure what will happen to the economy when the cure is found

- if all those scientists are as smart as they are supposed to be would they ever let us know that the cure has been discovered thereby jeapordizing thier income and security


Same can be applied to alot of jobs were research has been applied

[Groundfire]

lets use the cure for cancer as an example
- if 400 000 scientists are being paid 200 000$ a year each to do the research for the cure what will happen to the economy when the cure is found

- if all those scientists are as smart as they are supposed to be would they ever let us know that the cure has been discovered thereby jeapordizing thier income and security


Same can be applied to alot of jobs were research has been applied

To play devils advocate, that same metaphor can also be applied to religion.

Which I state because at the core of SX23's original post seems to be driven by the theory of a higher deity, or intelligent design of some kind.

[Spartan_Marine88]

To play devils advocate, that same metaphor can also be applied to religion.

Not can, but should be. Thats what just comes along with power, status and/or wealth, don't take me as pessimistic

Unfortunatly if the truth is somewhere between science and religion we will never find out as even worse for one to find out the other was right all along, would be for both sides to agree that they were both wrong

[Groundfire]

Not can, but should be. Thats what just comes along with power, status and/or wealth, don't take me as pessimistic

Unfortunatly if the truth is somewhere between science and religion we will never find out as even worse for one to find out the other was right all along, would be for both sides to agree that they were both wrong

none taken, just trying to jump in.

[Spartan_Marine88]

none taken, just trying to jump in.

i was agreeing with you

[EIRRMod]

If I can give a counter-argument:
In theory, no laws of nature have been "proved".
They are based on repeated observations on the matter and we came with general conclusion, such as the gravity laws.
However, considering all factors, the odds to have a dozen of different mutations on the same individual, and furthermore, mutations that do "match", with others, are so slim that it is considered, both by the scientific and mathematic community, to be impossible, even with billions of billions tries. If you do therefor believe it, you are a "believer" in the evolution, as such odds can be solved by nothing else than a miracle.
And that is without mentioning the fact that one's mutation without the others would render the 1st mutation useless, and occur the loss of the said mutation, due to support of useless matter thorough your anatomy, not to mention the destruction of already available information, which results in factors that are DETRIMENTAL to the survival of the individual, therefor occurring in the loss of the said "advancement"  is even more detrimental to the probabilities

Indeed, I was just mentioning that Impossible, and Statistically Improbable are two different things =)

[HexaFighter]

no.
the example of a 3rd arm is bad.
mutations happen on a small scale first. so small that you don't see any physical changes first.
if the individual survives and reproduces that mutation is carried on through generations.
take small scale changes to the power of millions of years and you might get a third arm.
because individuals who carried that genetic baggage managed to survive and reproduce doesn't necessarily mean that any physical changes enhance survivability so long as it doesn't hinder it.

as for the information part..i donno where you 're going with you're argumentation. we abstracted the process of DNA decoding by the body notably with the concept of information.

regardless of what we call it something is happening.
in the end evolution theory is the best we got to explain speciation and we have more evidence on it than anyother fairytale you might come up with

[Spartan_Marine88]

in the end evolution theory is the best we got to explain speciation and we have more evidence on it than anyother fairytale you might come up with

We had evidence that the world was flat at one point too, and killed or jailed those who disagreed with it

[HexaFighter]

no we did not have evidence on it.
we had church bullshit
Galileo gave evidence. (or copernicus? )
do you know what evidence is?

After looking up on the subject.
I am in the wrong and the Earth was proven spherical by ancient greeks notably.
the myth of a flat earth appeared and disappeared through time until the 19th century and this myth did not necessarily have anything to do with religion or christianity.

[Groundfire]

Yeah, it was pretty much church bullshit.

Even now, go look at a partial lunar eclipse. You will see the curvature of the earth as a shadow on the moon. People knew that the earth was a sphere long before there was actual exploration and instruments to tell us otherwise or confirm one way or the other.

[Spartan_Marine88]

no we did not have evidence on it.
we had church bullshit
Galileo gave evidence. (or copernicus? )
do you know what evidence is?

Nice personal attack

And how much scientific bullshit is spread around.

In lots of ways science today is kind of like an illusionist, the stun you with dazzle and flash telling you what they think, while showing you only what is necessary to prove thier point

Example. We know smoking gives you cancer. Why because the surgeon general tells you so (kind of like how we know Jesus loves us, because the bible tells you so) only difference is they give you flashy pictures and long winded reports on it.

And while you can go find the 'proof' anywhere, it is only based on thier research not your own. Now if your a scientist doing the research its based upon thier mathematics, or if they really want you to tell the truth, there is always a pay raise.

It the same logic that makes me suspicious of all doctors, hes getting paid 100k+ a year to look at me and tell me whats wrong with me so that i can pay him more. I am not a doctor, how the hell do i know if he is making all that stuff up.

Last point, schools indoctrinate you not to think for yourself but to think thier way, and make sure you know that if you follow the way they think after you get out of school the better you were able to follow orders and obey what they said (you high marks) you are able to make lots and lots of money, money brings you hot chicks (thats why we got prenup) and when you get old you get to travel the world.

[HexaFighter]

well Spartan believe in what you will my friend.
i choose the path of least doubt
this waryness against scientists is well spread
but you cannot throw away a theory like evolution without reading on the subject.
until anyone first starts by fully reading darwin's Origin of species, followed by every study and book on the subject that came after it, they are not allowed to discuss evolution scientifically.
I also doubt SX 23 read it.
it 's on thing to do a little fantasy philosophy and it 's another to lay hypothesis, look at data , experiment then confirm or deny them.

[AmPM]