Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution by Definition
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5788 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 31 of 74 (454190)
02-05-2008 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by tesla
02-05-2008 8:27 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
You're completely correct, except for one major flaw.
you say that DNA will "make changes to compensate." This is wrong. DNA can't consciously do anything. It can't "make" anything. But a chance change in the DNA might allow the bird to survive without the salt or vitamin. This would of course, constitute biological evolution.
The changes in the DNA level of organization could effect the emergent properties at the higher levels to help the future generations of birds to survive eating this plant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:27 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:36 PM Organicmachination has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 32 of 74 (454194)
02-05-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:30 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
But a chance change in the DNA
id like to debate this if able.
if i took two exactly same strands of DNA, would it react exactly the same way to introduction into its environment? in identical environments?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:30 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:38 PM tesla has replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5788 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 33 of 74 (454195)
02-05-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by tesla
02-05-2008 8:36 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
Yes, yes they would, if by react you mean degrade and denature.
But if you mean if we put it inside two identical cells, then also yes, they would react the same way.
Think about identical twins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:36 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:41 PM Organicmachination has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 34 of 74 (454197)
02-05-2008 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:38 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
then the direction is absolute decisions made by the DNA directed by the mitochondria, is it not?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:38 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:44 PM tesla has replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5788 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 35 of 74 (454200)
02-05-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by tesla
02-05-2008 8:41 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
First of all, mitochondria are energy factories of the cell, and have nothing to do with genetics.
And yes, for a given strand of DNA, there are only a set number of proteins it can make and set number of amino acids it can code for. For a given sequence of DNA, only one set of immediate outcomes is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:41 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 2:52 AM Organicmachination has not replied
 Message 38 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2008 4:22 AM Organicmachination has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 36 of 74 (454235)
02-06-2008 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:44 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
then DNA is decisive. we only need to know what prompts it to come to a conclusion.
have there been any tests done on how elements behave may be a trigger in the DNA's actions? (chemistry i suppose, im just wanting to pursue that the atom is probably the first cause for action in DNA, and it just trickles down as we have observed.)
(oh, and the house is still standing. power back up too, but i gotta work tomorrow so ill check this probably after work)

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:44 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 3:31 AM tesla has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3784 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 37 of 74 (454237)
02-06-2008 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by tesla
02-06-2008 2:52 AM


Re: Emergent Properties
Eh?
You say
then DNA is decisive. we only need to know what prompts it to come to a conclusion
You do realise that this is the equivalent of asking
then table salt is decisive. we only need to know what prompts it to decide to come out of the salt cellar when we shake the salt cellar upside down over out food
You have to accept that DNA is a chemical, an unusual one with some amazing properties, but a chemical nonetheless. As such it can't make decisions, it can't reach "conclusions".
You have to stop thinking of deoxyribonucleic acid as an entity with control over it's own destiny. It's just an unusual chemical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 2:52 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 9:10 AM Trixie has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 38 of 74 (454241)
02-06-2008 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Organicmachination
02-05-2008 8:44 PM


m-DNA
Organicmachination writes:
[...] mitochondria are energy factories of the cell, and have nothing to do with genetics.
Not to detract from the main discussion, but I wouldn't say 'nothing'. Mitochondria have their own DNA, independent of the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Since sperm cell mitochondria do not contribute to the zygote's mitochondria population (they are destroyed), and egg cell mitochondria do, mitochondrial DNA is inherited via the maternal line only. This fact can be used in genetics in various ways.
Edited by Parasomnium, : factual error corrected

"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Organicmachination, posted 02-05-2008 8:44 PM Organicmachination has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 39 of 74 (454282)
02-06-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trixie
02-06-2008 3:31 AM


Re: Emergent Properties
You have to stop thinking of deoxyribonucleic acid as an entity with control over it's own destiny. It's just an unusual chemical.
when you expose wood to fire, it burns. its a decisive outcome given the condition.
perhaps its better to stop looking at human biology as an all powerful intelligent being, and realize our bodies are a very complicated unusual chemical.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 3:31 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 9:25 AM tesla has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3784 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 40 of 74 (454289)
02-06-2008 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by tesla
02-06-2008 9:10 AM


Re: Emergent Properties
When you say
when you expose wood to fire, it burns. its a decisive outcome given the condition.
are you trying to suggest that the wood "decides" to burn and could just as well have decided not to burn?
perhaps its better to stop looking at human biology as an all powerful intelligent being, and realize our bodies are a very complicated unusual chemical.
If this is your attempt to turn my argument back on me, I'm sorry to say that it doesn't work and is the most meaningless drivel spouted so far (but I will happily stand correced if anyone can point a more meaningless example ou to me).
Can you clarify what it is you're actually trying to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 9:10 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 6:38 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 41 of 74 (454313)
02-06-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by tesla
02-05-2008 9:52 AM


Re: ill "try"
tesla writes:
i thought the question was, what is the TRUE definition of evolution.
You forgot to read the question in context of Phat's OP. He was referring to biological evolution.
do stars evolve?
has the earth evolved?
man has evolved?
the ocean currents have evolved?
the universe has evolved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Yes
if it evolves..isn't it evolution?
No. The term evolution, or more specifically biological evolution, refers to a nondirectional change in allele frequency of a population or species over time due to selective pressure. If you're talking about stellar evolution, it's a directional change in the state of a planetary system or star due to the initial composition and status of the planetary system or star. Two entirely different things.
evolution then would encompass more than the biological sense in a "true" definition.
Again, it depends on which "evolution" you are talking about. The only reason I use the word "evolution" for both biological and stellar change is due to the limitation of the English language. They're two entirely different things.
Biological evolution is directional while stellar evolution have inevitable results.
the same elements that make up the earth and universe are present in the make up of biological things, and the same forces (strong force etc) are holding together these elements in biological things, as it holds things together in non biological things.
You are commiting the fallacy of composition. Look it up and try to see why I said that.
the term "alive" is applied only to the biological things, because of the complexity of the environments that the elements exist in.
Actually, as we look more and more at biological systems, we've realized more and more that the line between biological and nonbiological things aren't so clearly defined.
ie: if you take biological ,material and examine its base composition, what is found? carbon..i dunno the rest. carbon based i do know.
And...?
now, the arrangement of the carbons and other elements work together in a complex fashion, therefore, it is "alive"
There are plenty of complex forms of carbon based molecular arrangement, and most of them are not "alive". You need to be more specific.
under this observation, the laws that apply to non living things, apply to living things. but must be scrutinized by individual environments (conditions).
Yes and no. Yes, it's true that living things are subject to the same "laws" as everything else. No, it's not what you're referring to.
so to say evolution of biological things is the most common understanding of the word evolution not a lie, but that a true definition of evolution would be attributed to things that "evolve"
Again, you're just using the word "evolution" to describe 2 entirely different processes. This is due to (1) the limitations of the English language and (2) your unfamiliarity with this subject. A layman, more often than not, depends too much on words. Trust me, people who are more educated on these topics don't depend so much on words or semantics. We try to see past the words and actually look at the concepts and mathematics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 9:52 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 6:31 PM Taz has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 42 of 74 (454380)
02-06-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taz
02-06-2008 9:57 AM


Re: ill "try"
Again, it depends on which "evolution" you are talking about. The only reason I use the word "evolution" for both biological and stellar change is due to the limitation of the English language. They're two entirely different things.
thats the point of this post. this post points out the lack of clearer definition.
biological evolution can refer to any points of biological evolution, and because there are so many different types of biological evolution, the term is misunderstood by which biological evolution is the topic.
there needs to be clearer definitions of individual types of biological evolution to discuss the different aspects without going too far off topic of the posters discussion.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 02-06-2008 9:57 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Taz, posted 02-06-2008 10:01 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 43 of 74 (454381)
02-06-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Trixie
02-06-2008 9:25 AM


Re: Emergent Properties
Can you clarify what it is you're actually trying to say?
i can try.
hmm. DNA has a decided outcome if the variables are understood. since only some variables are understood, some changes appear random. but the DNA makes specific decisions based on its construction.
the analogy of wood, can wood decide not to burn? of course. if it is too wet.
people are not really so different. if you understood a mans life, you could determine what his actions would be.
ie: who after being married for 25 years does not know the routines of their mate? and not know them and perhaps even call them "predictable?" of course the predictability can change, as the biochemistry changes, and attitude changes, or environment or (too many variables to list)
but DNA is simpler. it doesn't change its mind. it reacts as its coded to act. much like a computer program. and if their are glitches, there's reasons for the glitches, if you can discover them.
did i answer your question?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 9:25 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Organicmachination, posted 02-06-2008 7:34 PM tesla has replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5788 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 44 of 74 (454389)
02-06-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by tesla
02-06-2008 6:38 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
the analogy of wood, can wood decide not to burn? of course. if it is too wet.
The wood doesn't "decide" anything. The fact that it will not burn traditionally if it is wet has nothing to do with what the wood "wants". In fact, the wood can't want anything.
Mutations in DNA are independent of its coding. Mutations are random. They are not variables in the same equation as that of DNA. They are variables that are introduced randomly into the equation that change how the equation looks, and thereby, works.
And blanket statements like "who, after being married for 25 years does not know the routines of their mate," aren't at all relevant to the topic at hand. Humans are sentient, DNA is not, and most of us, at least in America, don't know anything about our mates, even after years of marriage (just look at our divorce rates).
The reasons for the glitches are mutations, which are random, and do not factor into the equation until after they are randomly introduced.
So, what is really your point? We are getting farther and farther off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 6:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by tesla, posted 02-06-2008 7:54 PM Organicmachination has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 45 of 74 (454393)
02-06-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Organicmachination
02-06-2008 7:34 PM


Re: Emergent Properties
Mutations in DNA are independent of its coding. Mutations are random.
don't you mean "apparently" random?
your right. this is getting off topic.
if you can understand what introductions to DNA prompt it to mutate, then you can understand the condition that caused the mutation, or at least, know what condition had to be available.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Organicmachination, posted 02-06-2008 7:34 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Organicmachination, posted 02-06-2008 7:56 PM tesla has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024