False ideas about evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2011, 12:53 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
A new misconception as brought up in another thread.
In short the misconception is that lifeforms like humans and other metazoans are more complex than single-celled prokaryotes. The assumption is that complexity cannot arise from simplicity. That is, it was proposed that a simple prokaryote cannot produce anything more complex than a prokaryote and therefore evolution can't be true. This is more or less an argument of irreducible complexity.

The biggest issue here is that there has never been a single step that has been proposed for any species-species evolutionary step. The issue of applying names to species alone makes it impossible to actually distinguish within a single lineage exactly when it is appropriate to classify it as a separate species. That is, if we track the evolutionary trajectory of any species through time, at some point it will be sufficiently different enough to deserve a new species name, but this occurs along a spectrum of change. Enough differences must exist in order to justify a new classification. Back to the single-step idea though, we have observed in biology and paleontology that there is a sufficient amount of time necessary to promote evolution. This could be a matter of a few generations up to a few thousand generations. In an event, evolution is not a step-function. A step-function implies a value (y) is maintained at a level (x) and as x changes y remains the same, until a critical value of x is reached and y changes. The reality is that in nature 1 of 2 scenarios occurs, net change within a lineage remains fairly consistent to some average value and at some critical point (a punctuated event like rapid climate change or an asteroid impact) change begins to accumulate over shorter intervals of time as compared to the background noise of variability within a population through time. This is the punctuated equilibrium model where species remain constant over long periods of time (long as in maybe a few million years or more) and then punctuated events cause enough environmental change so as to promote a net change in a lineage. The other method of evolutionary change is one of a straight line with some slope (m). As x changes so does y at some rate (m). This is gradual evolution from generation to generation. This net change from a single generation to the next is negligible but over enough time the net change is now sufficient enough to classify a new species.

This initial assumption that a prokaryote produced a eukaryote completely negates the necessary component of time for change to occur.

Another issue that is not addressed in this assumption is the variability within a single lineage. All individuals of a single species are not genetic clones and even asexually reproducing eukaryotes have the ability to increase variability within a population (mutation, swapping of genetic information). If we start off with some common ancestor (I'll not discuss its origin because that is abiogenesis) that was probably very similar to an Arcahebacteria, this population is not perfectly constructed of a group of clones. Instead there is some variability within the population. Add in natural selection (competition and environment) and time and we begin to see change within the population. In the earliest days of life (3.0 billion years ago) there was little competition and most of the organisms where probably restricted to a similar environment. As natural selection begins to increase the disparity between the different lineages, eventually they are sufficiently different enough to constitute different species. So far, we have not needed to add anything new to the genome. But given enough time for mutations and the coevolution of viruses, we have mechanisms that begin to increase the number of base pairs withing the genetic sequence. We can see within our own genome the influence of insertions by virus. Fast forward a bit further and competition begins to increase to a new level, this promotes interactions between different species and the first symbiotic relationships develop. These symbiotic relationships are what formed the base for the development of the eukaryotic cell. The evidence for this is that chloroplasts in photosynthetic organisms and mithochondria in hetertrophs contain their own genetic information and perform their own cellular division separate of the cell they reside in. This is what we would expect if both the host cell and the symbiotic cell were originally seperate entities (and separate species). Both would have also presumably been prokaryotes and would have had their own cell membrane and in fact mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own cell membrane and a membrane around them from the host cell. This dual membrane is also what we would expect from a hypothesized symbiotic relationship.

With the development of the eukaryotic cell and sexual reproduction, life found two mechanisms to increase complexity to aid in nutrient acquisition and increase variability within a lineage. The evidence for these developments is supported by evolutionary biology, cellular biology, geochemistry, paleontology, geology, etc, etc.

In short complexity can increase forward in time. A "simple" organism can produce a lineage that, given enough time and a variable environment, can produce a trend towards increasing complexity.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 01:09 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
I'm thinking all them words, "nice-guy scientist speak" for: there ain't no micro, you macroignoramus! Big Grin

I'll continue not to help. A number is random if it can be calculated from an infinite number of iterations. When infinity occurs in physics, the scientists involved do a bit of witchcraft called re-normalization. I'm thinking evolutionary biology could use some witchcraft...

So invent another term, will ya? Ain't no fucking random in evolution, neither. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 01:19 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(08-11-2011 01:09 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I'm thinking all them words, "nice-guy scientist speak" for: there ain't no micro, you macroignoramus! Big Grin

I'll continue not to help. A number is random if it can be calculated from an infinite number of iterations. When infinity occurs in physics, the scientists involved do a bit of witchcraft called re-normalization. I'm thinking evolutionary biology could use some witchcraft...

So invent another term, will ya? Ain't no fucking random in evolution, neither. Tongue

The issue of random vs. non-random is another area we could spend days talking about. Natural selection is not random, but aspects that control natural selection may be random. For instance, splitting a population in 2 by separating them geographically through rifting of a continent or uplift of a mountain is controlled by the collision and separation of tectonic plates. That isn't random, but where the plates move and where they hit is a result of so many different factors that it behaves in a random way over very long periods of time (obviously on short time scales (a few thousand years or less) these events are negligible and on short time scales the motions can be predicted or reconstructed.)


As to the micro vs. macro debate...it is the most nonsensical argument. The processes that generate microevolution generate macroevolution, so they are the same freaking thing! A small building made of bricks is still a building just like a bigger building made out of bricks is still a building. Same materials, different scale!

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
08-11-2011, 01:36 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(08-11-2011 01:19 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The issue of random vs. non-random is another area we could spend days talking about...

No, we can't. I'm a mathematician. Big Grin

Kidding, of course. From my brief read, you know this shit, and you love this shit. Are you in the business?

(I usta hafta demurr, being all uncertified mathematician (never finished my degree) say I wasn't in the business - but now (A Miracle!) I'm an inchoate professional philosopher Big Grin)

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 01:39 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
I am a masters student doing research in paleontology, so I have to know something about statistics!

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
08-11-2011, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2011 01:59 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: False ideas about evolution
(20-09-2011 04:27 PM)Denicio Wrote:  The world is more literate than anytime in history, but somehow its littered with the dumbest of people. Jeesh!

D

Seems related to my penny philosophy...

Did this "thought experiment" that seems to reduce theism to "not thinking." Goes like this. Make a circle of pennies, ten feet in diameter (3M if you're civilized). Now take two out and stand in the middle with the theist.

See, being "right" is like kicking a penny through that two-cent void without touching any sides...

And being "right like YHWH" is a circle of pennies ninety-eight billion years in diameter... so if you're a theist, get yer kicker out. This I wanna see...

That's the philosophy, anyway. The relevance is: information don't give a fuck - it is neither (good, evil, right, wrong) - but being human, I trust in my fellow man to go out of his way to be misinformed.

('course I'm prejudiced. Imma natural born mathematician - that's evolution for the win, baby!)
(08-11-2011 01:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am a masters student doing research in paleontology, so I have to know something about statistics!

Master student. I align with that kinda terminology. Someone once called me a naive philosopher, and I was gonna object for about a picosecond - then I looked shit up. Been a naive philosopher ever since. And if I can get somebody else to take CD and zero-state formal, I'll remain there. Big Grin

(fame, notoriety, money, stuff - all overrated according to this fool. I'm mark of the beast, my Gwynnies on one arm, Mandelbrot's set on the other - that shit beats the Kryptonite outta a big S on the chest any day of the week and twice on Sunday Tongue)

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 02:03 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
"The relevance is: information don't give a fuck - it is neither (good, evil, right, wrong) - but being human, I trust in my fellow man to go out of his way to be misinformed."

People can't quite grasp the concept that nature is indifferent to our wants, desires, opinions and explanations. This means that they often see the information that is brought to light about nature as evil, because they don't know how to distinguish between indifference and evil.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 02:35 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(05-05-2011 08:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Evolution is a Fairytale"

I registered. I think they're doing a background check... Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 06:42 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(08-11-2011 02:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The relevance is: information don't give a fuck - it is neither (good, evil, right, wrong) - but being human, I trust in my fellow man to go out of his way to be misinformed."

People can't quite grasp the concept that nature is indifferent to our wants, desires, opinions and explanations. This means that they often see the information that is brought to light about nature as evil, because they don't know how to distinguish between indifference and evil.
I might be the only person in history who understands evil. That understanding begins and ends with "I'm evil."

I can get all the way away with that using naive philosophy. The moral law of the universe is conserve entropy. Love is the emotional dynamic of least entropy. I am a creature of love. I am evil, and when I die, that too shall pass.

That's love for the big V, right there. In other news...

WARNING - the following is information from a creationist website- Parse at your own risk -TTA forum assumes no liability.

What is evolution? – When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution. By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life). By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species from a common ancestor (all life from a single cell). We do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists, which sometimes includes speciation), on this forum since both sides agree it occurs. It is also disingenuous to claim macro-evolution proves evolution since this term now encapsulates speciation, which itself is a loose categorization where organisms can be reclassified as different species merely because of geographic isolation and change in mating habits (see bullet item below on What is Species/Speciation). It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, or that speciation occurs, then large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even my college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1]). An example that occurred on this forum was the fallacious claim that "Domesticated animals are a perfectly valid example of evolution at work." Anyone who continues to use such equivocal arguments for evolution after being referred to this FAQ will be banned from the forum. For more on this equivocation, see my article The Evolution Definition Shell Game.

~from (an evil place) evolution as fairytale

See what they did right here? (even my college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1])

Morality is zero-state - I mighta been the first to call it like I see it - which makes me an act of 'random' evolution. But while I'm "playing my own horn" singing the praises of zero-state as of late; sure as fuck can't hurt nothing to find out if it is a horn.

Semantics only work if the redefinition of the terms aligns with your morality... this kinda shit It is also disingenuous to claim macro-evolution proves evolution since this term now encapsulates speciation don't fly with a natural born mathematician... never was the time I accepted "micro/macro" - prolly cause I was ignorant of the biology, and once made a mathematical assessment...

That's what happens with words and numbers. With words, anyone can lie. There's a whole field of mathematics devoted to the study of lying with number - it's called statistics. Tongue

And ya can't get away with it, if there a mathematician around. Big Grin

There's me playing my melody. If I ain't making music, I wanna know...
(It ain't like my "real signing" - we'll keep that non-extant)
(and these fucks - gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict - are creating ethical standard from this moral posturing - the way to stop that kinda thing is a reassessment of YHWH - which I posted earlier - and which seems to be dying of loneliness. )

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2011, 11:09 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
That forum was pretty much the basis for this thread. I got banned from it....for...well...I'm not sure why I was banned other than presenting a reasonable, fact-based and fully cited argument.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: