|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
I would describe it more as 'the chance of evolution working to build one reproduction method seems low'... --- my emphasis I would agree wholeheartedly! But evolution doesn't try to build any one anything. It produces kajillions of different things. The chances of any one having cropped up might well be low. (for somethings: eye like things e.g., the chances appear to be not so low). In fact, they may well be much lower than we can begin to estimate. There is all that unexplored territory out there. All the various body plans and living methods that didn't get stumbled over or couldn't be reached "one slight change at a time" from where life was are produce a huge range of possibilities and reduce the chances of any one, particular one to be pretty darned low.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Would you speculate that at one time, non-reproductive species existed, or would you say that reproduction is truly the order of the day? And if so, you didn't quite answer my question. I don't think it is possible for a non-reproductive species to exist. The occasional individual, perhaps a family...but a species? I can't even begin to speculate how that would ever happen. Of course there are plenty of species that at one time didn't get to reproduce that went extinct - but species are a classification of life and the entire purpose of creating organisms is to serve as vehicles that propagate genes so a non-reproducing species seems to me to be the height of impossibility.
Things either survive, or don't. Survival seems to be the goal, but perhaps it is only the accidental result? As I said - survival is the goal of genes. Organisms only need survive long enough to propagate those genes.
What I am asking is, even if you could say that survival 'pressures' are evolved as part of a species and continue to be part of their make-up, how would we explain the 'desire' of the first living thing to reproduce? Is there some gene which designates this drive? Life is replication. The first thing that lived replicated itself. If it didn't replicate itself there are no other characteristics it would have that could have itself recognized as living. It would have just been organic chemistry. It was replication along with inheritance of traits that defined the beginning of life. There was no 'desire' to reproduce, it is just that the first thing that reproduced and passed on that property to its offspring would have been the first thing we would be tempted to call life. Naturally its offspring would also have the reproduction property and so they would reproduce. If any of the resulting offspring lost the technique of replication that line would go extinct. I'm sure in in modern complex life there are many genes that have been perfected to increase the chances of reproduction. One could almost say that is the entire use of all genes. Some genes aid in reproduction by increasing the chances of the organism in surviving predator attack, some aid in reproduction by increasing the chances of the organism surviving to find sufficient food and some aid in attracting mates. As for the 'sex drive', in more complex animals, I'm sure there are genes that control the brain which is the thing that makes the decisions about how to prioritize time, and the parts that say 'we should mate now' have undoubtedly got a team of genes behind them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Hey Ned, I know that endless speculation on chances and odds is pointless, but I wanted to make it clear, rather than look completely ignorant, that variety is more easily understood than the first 'singularity' that produced a prototype of any feature.
I would never say 'how could evolution produce so many kinds of eyes' because that is pretty stupid. Where I get lost is in the idea that things occur one small step at a time. Then, I have a mental picture of a half-formed eye serving no purpose. Or, I simplify and see one tiny cell having a very simple mechanism for sight which occured all in one change. It's still mind-boggling to wonder 'why' a thing would randomly produce a collection of cells, no matter how simple, which served so much purpose. This may still be ignorant of me, but I CAN see how someone would make a statement like 'the chances are too small'...and I don't think it even is chances they are talking about. The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
anastasia writes: Where I get lost is in the idea that things occur one small step at a time. Then, I have a mental picture of a half-formed eye serving no purpose. The following picture shows eyes of several creatures, as they are found in nature.
If you look at the pinhole camera eye of Nautilus (c), you will see that it lacks, among other things, a lens and a cornea. It's really not much more than a light-sensitive hole, open to sea water. It looks very much like a half-formed eye. Well, at least it does if you have a fully formed human eye in mind. But if you're a Nautilus, you'll think it's just perfect. Who needs a lens? And corneas are for wimps, aren't they? Do you still think that a "half-formed" eye serves no purpose?
The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it. If it happens by almost unnoticeably small steps, it may not be so baffling. When the first creatures with some light-sensitive cells in the skin appeared, they could perhaps sense a shadow looming over them and move to the side. That gave them an edge over creatures who were still completely blind. Then maybe a dent in the skin gave the primitive "eye" a bit more sense of direction. Then maybe an even deeper dent enhanced this. Then came the pinhole camera eye, et cetera. The first light-sensitive patch of skin was a far cry from the function of megapixel sharp colour vision we humans enjoy. But anything was better than nothing. Evolution wasn't working toward developing a distant function, it just used what was available at the time and built on that. I think it is reasonable to say that in an environment where there is light, evolution will, 100 per cent certain, evolve eyes. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
anastasia writes:
Light sensitive cells on plants serve a great deal of purpose. Then, I have a mental picture of a half-formed eye serving no purpose. The nautilus eye
which mind you has no lense seems to serve the nautilus just fine.
It's still mind-boggling to wonder 'why' a thing would randomly produce a collection of cells, no matter how simple, which served so much purpose.
I think you should just stick with the bible. No offense. Again, since the sun is the primary source of energy for our biomass, having a few light sensitive cells would give you a great deal of advantage over your competitors who have no idea where to seek out the light. Having even the most primitive eye could potentially give you advantage over your competitors by telling you if something big is coming your way or if lunch is just right there in front of you.
The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it.
Have you looked up the monte carlo method yet? If you take the time to learn how to write the simplest program and write out your own program using the monte carlo method to solve a physical system, I think you will get a better grasp at this. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it. Which is fair enough. The more scientific among us are happy to show examples of this happening in front of our eyes. We just need to look at evolutionary algorithms. Without any planning, and much to the researcher's delight, a physical evolutionary algorithm designed a radio, or using simple chemistry a pseudo-ear was formed (described in the same paper). The scientific among us are blown away too by the wonderful power of evolutionary systems and the wide array of uses that nature finds for collections of chemicals. Awe-inspiring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
anastasia writes: The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it. Yeah, it is amazing, but not at all mysterious if you understand the physical principles that make this possible. Look at it this way. Say you took a multiple choice test written in Swahili and received a score between 0 and 100. The score doesn't say which questions were right or wrong, it's just a total score. Assuming you don't understand Swahili and that there are five answers to choose from for each question, your score will probably be around 20%. But you're allowed to take the test again! And again and again and again! And you're given the results of each test. And when you get a higher score you'll use that test result as a model to try variations upon to get your grade even higher. What's most amazing about this is you're increasing your grade on a test in Swahili without understanding a word of Swahili. And as you try variations around tests with good scores, you really have no idea which variation is going to prove to be the one that increases your grade. And when you finally raise your score to 100, while you'll know that all your answers are correct, you still won't have any idea what the questions or answers were. Nature works the same way. It doesn't have any understanding of what's needed, it doesn't have any idea what the effect of any change might be, it just goes about trial-and-erroring its way through solutions, keeping those that work better than prior solutions, just as you did with the tests. Just as tiny changes to your answers caused tiny changes in your score up or down, tiny changes in organisms cause tiny changes in adaptation up or down. Just as you built upon good test results to achieve better test results, organisms build upon good changes to achieve even better changes. But this doesn't work through any conscious means. It's just that organisms with not so good changes don't get to produce as many offspring, or they may not get to produce any offspring at all. In other words, in nature bad answers don't get to have as many or even any children. It's the same as what you did when you got back a test result that was worse than the one before - you crumpled it up and threw it away. Of course, in reality you'd do better to keep bad test results around for reference, because together with all the other tests you've taken so far they provide information helpful to determining how you should change your answers on the next test, but the analogy doesn't work as well if that's part of your process since nature doesn't have any recollection about past failed trials. Nature could easily try a mutation that had already been tried in the past and that failed miserably, while you would never return to an answer that you had already determined through trial and error was wrong. When you modify your choices from one test to the next, this is analogous to the introduction of mutations. If you're changing answers on tests with low scores, then the odds of increasing your score on some of them isn't too bad. When most of the answers are wrong, then changing some of the answers is more likely to help than hurt. And if you're changing answers on tests with high scores, then the odds of increasing your score on some of them isn't so good. For example, if you change an answer on a test that already had a score of 100, you can only go down. In the natural world, creatures have no control over the mutations that pop up. It's as if God said, "Hey, organism, here's a mutation for you to try out, best of luck! Oops, that mutation made you run slow and now you've become food for some predator. Sorry about that, you just lost the evolutionary lottery. Oh well, maybe one of your siblings got a better mutation." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
My thanks to you and everyone else who has taken some time out to answer these questions. I feel rather foolish, because I am not completely unaware of any of these examples. I am pretty familiar with natural diversity. I spend a good deal of my free time 'working' with plants, fish, birds, mammals, or insects, which I am only mentioning because people keep posting photos of simple eyes and such. I am very aware that an eye does not have to have the characteristics of a human eye in order to function, and that it may be more or less complex.
I make many mistakes, still, but I didn't intend for the thread to become a baby-proofed Q and E session for anastasia. I asure you I am familiar with the processes you described, and my incredulity has persisted in some regards. If I don't find the answer I am looking for after re-reading these posts, I will write again and hopefully with more clarity. I am sure that understanding is the only bridge between belief and fact. It does me no good at this stage to 'believe' in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: Light sensitive cells on plants serve a great deal of purpose. That's not the point, Taz. I don't need for an eye to be human in order to be 'fully formed', or to have a lens, or cornea, etc. I have already read those threads about eyeball varieties. If something serves a purpose, it is acceptably 'complete' I was more wondering what it would take for the formation of the simplest eye known. I neither imagine an eye 'appearing' nor going through a long process during which it was serving no purpose. What are the odds that the most simple eye could appear in one mutation? Not exact odds, surely, but generally speaking, is it something that science can speculate as possible? Oh, and eyes are just a random example. I understand that it is not appropriate to envision a deformed nautilus without eyes, and conclude that therefore, there was a plan for them to have eyes. At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? People keep giving elaborate descriptions of how things 'just happened'. I am sorry, but even if it irks you, there are still elements of the whole thing which seem to be a matter of faith. Faith that a thing COULD happen. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
In your particular case, you should just take evolution on faith. Remember that the pope is infallible.
It does me no good at this stage to 'believe' in evolution. Here is a copy of John Paul's speech to the Pontifical Acad of Science in Europe.
quote: quote: He even reminded people that church scholars such as yourself should keep up-to-date on the latest scientific findings.
quote: Here is a direct comment that can be seen as a direct endorsement of the theory of evolution.
quote: I find the following very interesting, because again the pope makes it clear that there is no conflict between the evolution of man where the human form descended from some other form of life while still having the special status given by god. In other words, what's important is the human spiritual soul.
quote: So, clearly, the vatican isn't as concern with our physical attributes as much as our spiritual side (which I commend them for). Here is a very interesting paragraph that might potentially be taken the wrong way.
quote: This is simply a reminder that the theory of evolution cannot explain the spirit of man, which it doesn't anyway. Here is a conclusion that says more than it appears.
quote:Think about it. The pope didn't tell them to go to hell for believing in the theory of evolution. The fact that he did not advocating we put all biologists and evolution supporters in house arrest should be telling enough that catholics should either support evolution or not comment at all We'll leave the theology to theologians if you leave the science to scientists. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ana writes:
See, this is why I am not convinced you know anything about the theory. At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? Yes, there are a lot of things that get on fine without eyes. But these same things can't live in a lot of environments and niches. The things that did develop eyes were able to inhabit a myriad of new territories that the totally blind ones could never survive in. Ever heard of a concept called adaptive radiation?
I am sorry, but even if it irks you, there are still elements of the whole thing which seem to be a matter of faith. Faith that a thing COULD happen.
Why have you been avoiding my point about the monte carlo method in computer programming? I don't just have faith that it could work. I actually know that it could work. Here is a short explanation to why it irks me when you say it. I'm a musician. I play a lot of music. Sometimes, I get together with old buddies and we jam and perform jazz. For jazz, I play the sax. We do mostly improv. Every once in a while, I'd hear a comment made by a music illiterate that on stage we just played "random notes". Sometimes, I even hear some of them say that they could probably play just as well after spending an hour or two to get to know the instrument. It bothers the pianists, too, because they hear people comment that the piano, especially in jazz, is so easy to play because because all a pianist has to do is press down random "buttons" that happens to sound nice overall. Now, would you reccommend one of these people teaching a music theory class? Improv jazz IS NOT playing random notes. In much the same way, you don't understand evolution, so you conclude that noone else in the world knows anything about it. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
Hi anastasia,
I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying. I might be able to point you in the right direction.
I understand that it is not appropriate to envision a deformed nautilus without eyes, and conclude that therefore, there was a plan for them to have eyes. At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? People keep giving elaborate descriptions of how things 'just happened'. I am sorry, but even if it irks you, there are still elements of the whole thing which seem to be a matter of faith. Faith that a thing COULD happen. I think you might have a misunderstanding of how the modern scientific method works. The evolution of the eye from simple forms to more complex forms is a hypothesis. Experiments are conducted that challenge the validity of the hypothesis and as long as the hypothesis isn't refuted, conclusions are made that are held tentatively. Our explanation for the evolution of the eye is based on a lot of other evidence regarding descent with modification and is so far the best explanation we have. We have found nothing that contradicts it. Generally, when discussing aspects of evolutionary theory you will see a lot of talk about things that "could happen." If those "could happens" provide us with further experiments to conduct, that is a sign of good scientific theory. A good example of this method in action is another theory by Charles Darwin, the theory of atoll formation. Atoll - Wikipediahttp://pauillac.inria.fr/~clerger/Darwin.html quote: Notice the similarity with our explanations of the evolution of the eye? This theory is basically a description of how things just happened or could happen. Darwin never saw a given atoll go through gradual subsidence from volcanic island to atoll but it did explain a whole lot and pointed us in the direction of further experimentation. Edited by Clark, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ana writes: What are the odds that the most simple eye could appear in one mutation? Not exact odds, surely, but generally speaking, is it something that science can speculate as possible? Yes odds could probably be estimated, and since the eye has evolved independently several times the odds are probably pretty good. Consider all that is required is for some cells to be come light sensitive and generate some sort of output to a nervous system for a response. Being able to detect light, however meager, is very useful on a planet where the Sun is the primary energy source. Also light senstive cell would be useful in detecting a predators shadow. For example, starfish have a simple photoreceptor "eyespot" at the tip of each appendage. The eyespot only can detect differences of light and dark, which is useful in detecting movement and a possible foe.
Ana writes: At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? The point is differental success. Surely you can see this. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Clark writes: Notice the similarity with our explanations of the evolution of the eye? This theory is basically a description of how things just happened or could happen. Darwin never saw a given atoll go through gradual subsidence from volcanic island to atoll but it did explain a whole lot and pointed us in the direction of further experimentation. Huh, yes, I think that in the grand scheme of things, atolls don't HAVE a purpose, they were just used by something. The same may be true of eyes, limbs, tails, or anything else. It is jus a lot more difficult to imagine the gradual formation of an eye, than it is to imagine the gradual formation of a landscape. If we took the erupting volcano to be the sudden 'mutation' which produced an atoll, thing smay be clearer, but inevitably we get into 'why did the volcano erupt' or 'why did any mutation occur which led to the formation of the eye', and it gets very hard to seperate cause from result. Not impossible, but in general, we want to look for causes. That is basically the disbelief associated with the phrase 'random mutation', because humans are just not used to thinking of things having no cause. I don't think we can completely escape looking for a cause, and without a very good knowledge of what evolution is talking about, some of the terms used DO imply a sort of 'purpose' to what may occur. To say a thing adapted to its environment becomes confusing, to say it was 'selected' becomes confusing. I mean, it's not a big deal, but you get this nice orderly picture going, and then throw in something like 'random mutation', and all hell breaks loose. You get people thinking 'hey, if this random thing produced this perfect result, that seems pretty wild'. On the other hand, random mutations AND gradual changes are easily observed, and one wonders why it took so long to really pay attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Taz writes: In your particular case, you should just take evolution on faith. Remember that the pope is infallible. Maybe you all feel the same way about me as I feel when people constantly misrepresent the theory of infallibility, without learning the first thing about it.
This is simply a reminder that the theory of evolution cannot explain the spirit of man, which it doesn't anyway. When you get into this topic, it's not so much about whether evolution explains the spirit of man, but whether faith teaches a super-imposed spirit untouchable or unknown to observation.
Think about it. The pope didn't tell them to go to hell for believing in the theory of evolution. The fact that he did not advocating we put all biologists and evolution supporters in house arrest should be telling enough that catholics should either support evolution or not comment at all We'll leave the theology to theologians if you leave the science to scientists. Taz, ANY argument from authority is faulty. It does nothing to quiet the COI, and an answer, even if it be correct, is as good as invisible without it being understood. It is this very type of language that makes people wrongly feel that evolution is open for 'belief', one side against the other, etc. As you have mentioned, JPII finds it important for theologians to be current with science. I will not say that science is necessary for faith, but hello...do you want Biblical exegesis to continue in its ignorance? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024