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

[Spartan_Marine88]

First i believe in Evolution wether or not it was natural or devine, to be honest i don't care

second, Darwin was pretty smart, but he was also a conformist to the time and made some pretty good money. Also in his book he also tried to say as little about humans as possible, as sentience doesn't really agree with his type of thought.

[Smokaz]

I think the evolution theory is one of those scientific paradigms that people want to attack, first because it demystifies human purpose and value in some ways secondly because it has received some poster boy status in the atheism following or those generally unimpressed by the bibles creation myt

[arsonist123]

I think the evolution theory is one of those scientific paradigms that people want to attack, first because it demystifies human purpose and value in some ways secondly because it has received some poster boy status in the atheism following or those generally unimpressed by the bibles creation myt

smokaz are you rifle?

 j/k..........

I think sx23 needs to do real journalism... and Start making an actual idk? Thesis before he starts ranting with people who don't even have a degree in biology.. or infact.. any degrees at all... *Woops.*

[HexaFighter]

@spartan's last post
It's not about wether darwin is smart or not. We're looking for the truth.
I don't know if Darwin was a conformist and what that means in the context of evolution theory. I do know he was ridiculed for it and at the same time acclaimed.
Darwin made no inferences to Homo homo sapiens because at that point it was already a major stepping stone to notice evolution trends amongst species of the Galagos islands.
Also Sentience is a mental ability linked to the brain, mammals have this. it fits with evolution. it is also a survival tool.
@arsonist
personally i have a minor in anthropology and am always interested in such discussions.

in this thread , overall i think SX23 got great answers from AMPM , acker and Smokaz. Things that will make the person rethink the initial post

[smurfORnot]

God created us u heretics...

[SX23]

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.

Oh, Hexa, be sure I read it all to the last end. Darwin, with the actual scientific knowledge proper to his time, did not compute with multiple mutations, which are necessary for useful mutations.

AmPm, your example serves my purpose. As a matter of fact, having a bigger neck would soon require to have a new vertebrae, along with new nerves, ligaments and muscles. Which would all count as new and separate mutation. As for the original one, a slightly longer neck would serve no purpose, as you can't turn, or feel it, without the proper nerves and vertebrae.

Arsenist, tanks, much appreciated, but sadly I'm a mere sec 5 student with a few loose time for the moments.

[Mysthalin]

By your logic, SX23 - every single animal is a massively mutated one. At least - I'm certain that most animals aren't born to their full size and require to GROW to it : and the nerves, muscles, blood vessels etc. have to grow in tandem. Apparently - those are all seperate and completely unrelated mutations, that happen constantly as we speak!

You fail to realise that true mutations happen throughout multiple generations, and in quite literally unnoticeable amounts. Let's take the same idea of a longer neck. In the first generation - the muscles slightly over-develop. In the second generation, due to the reduction in blood pressure at the neck, as well as in the reduction in nervous bandwidth - the nerves and blood vessels slightly over-develop. Then again the muscles. In the cases that the neck muscles continue to over-develop, but not the nerves or blood vessels : the animals essentially die off, and the mutation proves a non-success : with every one of the animals eventually dieing out. Maybe it's harsh to say so - but evolution is nothing but trial and error. Either it works, or all the animals featuring the new mutation eventually die out.

Another proof that mutation and evolution isn't in fact "smart" is our dear friend Cancer. Essentially - cancerous cells are cells that have mutated too quickly and in too large a scale within one organism of one generation, without managing to serve any kind of purpose. Now, some cancers are "benevolent"(at least, that's the direct translation from the Lithuanian term) - and are absolutely harmless to the organism. Just serving no purpose(much like the Appendix). If the individual with such a cancer were to reproduce - his kids would also likely be born with, or develop the same kind or simmilar cellular formations within their bodies. Fortunately(or not) - most people have cancer in their later stages of life, rather than early on - reducing their chances of reproduction significantly.

Other cancers are "malevolent" - and are actually harmful, since they interfere with a vital part of the human body(respiration, digestion, blood circulation, etc.). In those cases - the one with the cancer is either operated and the mutation is removed - or the person dies. Simple as that. Evolution simply fails at attempting trial and error.

[Mister Schmidt]

I agree with you Myst, but just so you know for the future, in English the terms are "Benign" and "Malignant"

[Mysthalin]

Thank you. I hate having to use direct translations for terms like these, heh .

[Smokaz]

nice thread though

[AmPM]

God created us u heretics...

And who created God, since obviously this advanced being could not evolve and had to have an intelligent creator right.

Also, a Giraffe has the exact same number of vertebrae as a human and almost every other mammal in its neck, 7, they are just longer.

You can actually look at the skeletons of most mammals and find that they are all very similar for the most part.

[LeoPhone]

if you want to know who created god, look in the mirror.

[acker]

Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit!

Amen 

[SX23]

First of all, please do not diverge from the original subject. I'm afraid the point is referring to actual science, and not the morals aspects.

By your logic, SX23 - every single animal is a massively mutated one. At least - I'm certain that most animals aren't born to their full size and require to GROW to it : and the nerves, muscles, blood vessels etc. have to grow in tandem. Apparently - those are all seperate and completely unrelated mutations, that happen constantly as we speak!

Forgive me if I wasn't concise enough if my first post. That fact, Mysthalin, is called growth. And despite what you may have learned, growth follow a very precise pattern of information, which we call the DNA. If you happen to have a change, no matter how tiny, new modifications to the said DNA will be required to grow "support", notably proteins creations and nerves links, to lead to any useful mutation. On the other side, if you only include the new matter without nerves or such, this one will be useless and it won't promote survival, as you would need to support useless matter thorough your body, along with the destruction of already available DNA information due to the mutations.
 And that is, as I already stated, impossible, as the chances of having multiple "supporting" mutation in the same individual being zero.

You fail to realise that true mutations happen throughout multiple generations, and in quite literally unnoticeable amounts. Let's take the same idea of a longer neck. In the first generation - the muscles slightly over-develop. In the second generation, due to the reduction in blood pressure at the neck, as well as in the reduction in nervous bandwidth - the nerves and blood vessels slightly over-develop. Then again the muscles. In the cases that the neck muscles continue to over-develop, but not the nerves or blood vessels : the animals essentially die off, and the mutation proves a non-success : with every one of the animals eventually dieing out. Maybe it's harsh to say so - but evolution is nothing but trial and error. Either it works, or all the animals featuring the new mutation eventually die out.

And you fail to realize that mutation, no matter how tiny, require major changes in the organism to be of any utility. If you do not have those changes in the organism, the sole answer will be quite simple: The individual survival will not be promoted and therefore, according to the very rules of the theory, the mutation will be wiped. Also, if the changes were happening as you originally suggested, which is not quite the case, there would still be a major problem: Do you realize that you suggest dozen of mutations thorough time (If the 1st one proves to be of no utility, it will disappear and the process will need to restart, and that is valid for the 2nd, the 3rd, and from there on until the mutation comes to something useful). Not to mention that each mutation will either destroy already available information (A concise example would be hemophilia: They are immune to some blood-related disease, but they would probably bleed off from a mosquito bite if leaved unchecked by modern medical technologies). So if you do happen to have a mutation, it will either destroy already functioning DNA aspects or it will be a duplicate of already existing information. In the first case, you do lose some survival abilities until you have the dozen other mutation needed through generations. As we are talking about millions years before coming to any actual result, and if we compute the fact that the mutation is in all case damageable to existing DNA (Which do not promote the individual survival's and therefor reproduction), with the fact that the first useless mutation will die off with time, having such a pattern is once again having probabilities so small that it is considered as impossible. However, if you do believe in such patterns, as, if I may retake my own expression: Such odds can be solved by nothing else than a miracle.

[/quote]


As for your last part concerning the cancer:
Mutation through life are common due to radiation poisoning, food poisoning, and others.
However, the body (And not only the human body) will eradicate each cell that have the misfortune to mutate. However, on long term, one of those will survive and thrive through your body creating a bunch of duplicatas of himself and therefore creating a cancer. And when you reproduce, unless the cancer affect your reproduction organs (In which case you won't probably even be able to reproduce), the body send "clean" DNA through sperm. In no case cancer is the cause of some evolution.

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

I already answered your first part up above. As for the second, I am referring to the origin of life itself. The evolution theory implicates that somehow a living organism once appeared due to "randomization" of matter. As you would agree that matter cannot create coherent information, as one of the part, either the encoder or the decoding will be missing therefor leading to useless randomization that cannot be held as information.
Now, as you would probably agree, DNA contains information that is read by ribosome to create a said protein or achieve a specific function. So, my question is: How could you have random matter that create something such as complex as the DNA and the information it contain?
Of course, you could agree that it's a simple arrangement of molecules. And that is, in theory, easy to achieve. But the DNA is millions of molecules placed in a very specific way. Not to mention that if, even with the probabilities being of the bar of the impossible, we happen to have livable DNA, this still require to have, as the exact same place, (And you would agree that DNA is quite small), and instrument that can decode it: the ribosomes. And then, you need something that can process it: A cell.
The odds of having at once those materials is considered as plain impossible.
Last thing but not the least: Sole DNA would degrade over time, along with sole Ribosome, preventing to rely on the "time" factor, as each time it would be to do over again.

[brn4meplz]

you can never have enough options for a poll asking that type of question. Not to mention the wording delivers a bias. As such I'm pulling it

[brn4meplz]

On topic post.

Evolution is not a strategy game. It's not Barracks>Supply Yard>Motor Pool.

Mutation is a healthy trait. It takes an incredibly long period of time but things evolve to survive in their surroundings. When a mutation develops all parts of it occur simultaneously. Of course the individual organisms throughout the period of mutation would not even recognize they were changing.

All things considered, our Solar system is fantastic. If we had lower levels of radiation we would effectively be supremely retarded(in the sense of to slow or delay)

[HexaFighter]

@ SX23 , your last post
there are some misconceptions on your part.
- evolution theory is not to be used in explaining the origins of life. it explains speciation by means of natural selection.
- mutations that do not promote survival can persist so as long as they do not hinder survival

also concerning the probability of nature to form complex molecular arrangements like DNA. I do not find it unexplainable. If you take the smalles organism with the smallest DNA chains, it is totally conceivable that by the laws of chemistry something like DNA eventually was created, the same way you can find complex molecular arrangements in minerals and crystals.

The origins of life do remain a mystery AFAIK

[Spartan_Marine88]

there are some misconceptions on your part.
- evolution theory is not to be used in explaining the origins of life. it explains speciation by means of natural selection.
- mutations that do not promote survival can persist so as long as they do not hinder survival

Very true

The origins of life do remain a mystery AFAIK

There was a very good theory (seems a little wierd but does have some merit) i heard about a gigantic energy spike in our atmosphere causing pretty much a super lighting bolt hitting the water causing the very first very basic begginings of life

[Sharpshooter824]

So bashing religion/God is entirely O.K. and delivers absolutely no opinion or bias whatsoever? Rofl I refuse to even consider half the people's arguments in this thread due to them not even considering the fact that God possibly always existed and that he created man.

[arsonist123]

maybe... We are god?? OOooohoOOOOo has anyone heard of that theory... about how god is infact just an astral subconcious part of our brain that connects all human beings together O.o that he infact is not solid Or an object as we imagine him to be! you guys should look into it.. Its deviating and greatreaad! BUT i FORGOT the name of that theory.. so good luck coarxing it from the great world wide web.


lolololol FOUND it... >.> it was on here..
http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-creator/