Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Symphony by accident
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1 of 23 (605638)
02-21-2011 11:13 AM


I was at the concert hall the other night when suddenly, and entirely by accident, the sound of a Beethoven symphony rang through the hall.
  • The violinists were using their bows to cause random vibrations of the strings;
  • the flautists were blowing random air movements to their instruments;
  • the trumpeters were causing random vibrations of their lips on the mouthpiece;
  • the drummer was generating random vibrations on the drum.
Quite obviously, using the same reasoning as Bolder-dash in Is it an Accident?, that there was music was a complete accident.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:44 PM nwr has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 3:17 PM nwr has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2 of 23 (605646)
02-21-2011 11:40 AM


semantics
Is evolution an accident?
Yes and no, sort of... but not really.
It depends on how you want to use the word 'accident'.
Any particular random mutation could be called an accident. Whether or not the environment selects for or against that particular mutation could be called an accident. Evolution as a whole could be called an accident, in that there is no direction or planning to it.
But, that a particular evolved characteristic is working is no accident. The selective mechanism removes that accidental nature of the change.
To say 'an eye developed accidentally' is incorrect. The reason these types of arguments are brought up is to ridicule the odds of something that complex happening totally randomly. But the selective pressure removes that random component thereby making it no longer an "accident".

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by frako, posted 02-21-2011 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 3 of 23 (605653)
02-21-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by New Cat's Eye
02-21-2011 11:40 AM


Re: semantics
Is evolution an accident?
Well the same accident a this lets say you have 3 dice and you want to throw a 3 each dice showing nr 1. You throw the dice until you get one dice to show the single dot then you dont throw that dice anymore and only throw the other 2 dice and when the second dice shows 1 dot you stop throwing that one and only throw the last dice until it shows only 1 dot. And so you accidentally get all 3 dice to show 1 dot. Evolution is basically the same accident.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2011 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 4 of 23 (605656)
02-21-2011 12:15 PM


Once upon a time there was a mother with two daughters and a son. The girls liked to tease their little brother, telling him (among other things) that he was an 'accident'. Not knowing exactly what that meant, he asked his mother, "Was I an accident?"
She replied, "I prefer to think of you as a surprise."
"What's the difference?" he asked.
"Well, an accident is something bad and you don't want it to happen. A surprise is something good and you didn't even know you wanted it until you got it."
(credit to Roseanne Barr)
In evolution, a random mutation could be a fatal accident or it could be a happy surprise. There's no way of knowing until it's tested in the laboratory of natural selection.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 5 of 23 (605671)
02-21-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
02-21-2011 11:13 AM


But then, isn't the majority of mutations fixed through genetic drift ? (ie randomly)
If I'm not mistaken the number of mutations fixed by selection is quite small compared to genetic drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 02-21-2011 11:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2011 2:58 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 02-21-2011 2:58 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 3:06 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 3:09 PM slevesque has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 23 (605674)
02-21-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
02-21-2011 2:44 PM


But then, isn't the majority of mutations fixed through genetic drift ? (ie randomly)
If I'm not mistaken the number of mutations fixed by selection is quite small compared to genetic drift.
Even if so, the ones we'd need to focus on are the ones with high selective pressure if we're determining how "accidental" gross change is.
The accidentality comes up in the face of morphological differences, not from some slight genetic drifting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:44 PM slevesque has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 23 (605675)
02-21-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
02-21-2011 2:44 PM


slevesque writes:
If I'm not mistaken the number of mutations fixed by selection is quite small compared to genetic drift.
I'm not sure if this is settled. Actually, I'm not even sure that the terminology is settled.
As far as I know, it is combinations of genes that are most important. Traits may depend on many genes. The mutations add variation to the population. Then the filter of natural selection acts on that variation.
My example of music was admittedly an extreme case, intended for emphasis. But the point is that you have randomness that is fed into a filter. In our normal way of talking, we don't use "accident" when there is a directional filter.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:44 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:14 PM nwr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 23 (605676)
02-21-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
02-21-2011 2:44 PM


slevesque writes:
If I'm not mistaken the number of mutations fixed by selection is quite small compared to genetic drift.
It seems unlikely to me that there exists a way to count actual fixated mutations and classify them as to whether it was due to selection or drift, so I don't think we could know either way whether what you're claiming is true. Maybe one of the biologists will chime in.
We do know that advantageous alleles will be driven toward fixation more rapidly than neutral alleles, but as fixation approaches the effects of drift become more prominent and can actually interfere with fixation. Apparently, in sexual populations recessive advantageous alleles can actually have a better chance of fixation than dominate advantageous alleles simply because of the effects of drift. See Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow Do Not Act in Isolation in Natural Populations.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that the effects of adaptation are prominently in evidence throughout nature, and neutral alleles cannot produce adaptation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:44 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 23 (605678)
02-21-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
02-21-2011 2:44 PM


But then, isn't the majority of mutations fixed through genetic drift ? (ie randomly)
If I'm not mistaken the number of mutations fixed by selection is quite small compared to genetic drift.
Sure, but Bolder-dash was talking about the structure of the eye, which is not a product of genetic drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 2:44 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 10 of 23 (605679)
02-21-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
02-21-2011 2:58 PM


My example of music was admittedly an extreme case, intended for emphasis. But the point is that you have randomness that is fed into a filter. In our normal way of talking, we don't use "accident" when there is a directional filter.
Yes, but the force of the filter must be proportionally as strong as the quantity of randomness flooding in.
Someone would still be justified to call it accidental if the filter only gives it a weak direction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 02-21-2011 2:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 3:28 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 02-21-2011 4:07 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 23 (605681)
02-21-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
02-21-2011 11:13 AM


I had an isolated system and quite by accident it entered a state of higher entropy.
After that, by a complete accident, the random motion of air molecules did not cause my lungs to explode.
Later that same day, I accidentally didn't quantum tunnel to the Moon.
All sorts of bizarre accidents like that have been happening to me lately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 02-21-2011 11:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 02-21-2011 4:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 12 of 23 (605686)
02-21-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
02-21-2011 3:06 PM


It seems unlikely to me that there exists a way to count actual fixated mutations and classify them as to whether it was due to selection or drift, so I don't think we could know either way whether what you're claiming is true. Maybe one of the biologists will chime in.
Population genetics gives us a maximum on fixation by selection, since selection involves killing/inhibiting reproduction of individuals. So it can only select for so much in a given generation, all the rest is hope to genetic drift.
We do know that advantageous alleles will be driven toward fixation more rapidly than neutral alleles, but as fixation approaches the effects of drift become more prominent and can actually interfere with fixation. Apparently, in sexual populations recessive advantageous alleles can actually have a better chance of fixation than dominate advantageous alleles simply because of the effects of drift. See Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow Do Not Act in Isolation in Natural Populations.
And if genetic drift has such on a strong effect on the fixation of mutations, wouldn't one be justified to question if such an amount of randomness can still account for the evolution of complex structures ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 3:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 02-21-2011 3:54 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 12:31 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 23 (605687)
02-21-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:14 PM


Yes, but the force of the filter must be proportionally as strong as the quantity of randomness flooding in.
Someone would still be justified to call it accidental if the filter only gives it a weak direction.
Well, again, the topic was the eye, and whether Richard Dawkins thinks it happened "by accident". Clearly he thinks that the filter of selection is strong enough to produce the eye; consequently, he does not think that the eye is accidental.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:14 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 14 of 23 (605693)
02-21-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2011 3:28 PM


Well, again, the topic was the eye, and whether Richard Dawkins thinks it happened "by accident". Clearly he thinks that the filter of selection is strong enough to produce the eye; consequently, he does not think that the eye is accidental.
I hear you, but your changing the goalpost. My remark was concerning Nwr's OP, which in turn was in reply to Bolder-dash's statement that evolution as a whole is a random process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 02-21-2011 3:49 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 9:44 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 23 (605696)
02-21-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
02-21-2011 3:47 PM


slevesque writes:
Well, again, the topic was the eye, and whether Richard Dawkins thinks it happened "by accident". Clearly he thinks that the filter of selection is strong enough to produce the eye; consequently, he does not think that the eye is accidental.
I hear you, but your changing the goalpost. My remark was concerning Nwr's OP, which in turn was in reply to Bolder-dash's statement that evolution as a whole is a random process.
If you look at all the lifeforms that have existed, which one would you say was a desired product?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 02-21-2011 3:47 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024