Is Mankind A Fluke?

[TagliatelliMonster]

You make it sound so simple. Who is making the selection?

Not a "who".

A what. The "what" is the inhabited niche.
Those that outperform their peers (because they are better adapted to the inhabited niche) will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

Those are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation, while the others are more likely not to (meaning that their genes reach a dead end).

And this process is called "natural selection".

Is this the first time you heard of "natural selection"?
That would be kind of strange....

It's like trying to argue against gravity while not being aware how gravity relates to mass.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It just seems really far fetched that so often mutations occur that just "happen" to be very useful.

Again, who claimed that this happens "often"?
Beneficial mutations are actually quite rare.
The vast bulk of mutations is neutral or harmful. The harmful ones don't tend to reach the next generation.

It's even more bizarre that the same mutations happen over and over independently, when the odds, using common sense, seem to be against it.

Which mutations would that be?
Are you going to show your ignorance about convergent evolution again?

It's bizarre that these two unrelated plants would look so similar for absolutely no reason I can think of but both live at similar altitudes.

The odds of similar, mutations, through a successive process of mini-mutations, is in opposition to common sense.

View attachment 46312 View attachment 46313
Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

I guess the answer to my last question was "yes" then.....


Newsflash: convergent evolution is about evolving similar TRAITS. This is phenotype. Not genotype.
The underlying genetic evolutionary pathways are not the same.
The genetics that make these plants look alike are not the same.
The mutations that lead to it in both are not the same.

 

[Cooky]

Who here is asking anyone to ignore that mutation occurs and that selection follows the manifestation of mutations?

That was the weaker half of my post. Nothing productive will result from us attacking the weakest parts of each other's posts.

It would be more beneficial if we were to address the best parts of each other's posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not saying evolution isn't real... It is!

...There's just something missing. there is some kind of communication that's happening, where needs are met, in order for complex arrangements of successive mutations to occur in what sometimes, even appears to be an orderly fashion.

The only thing that seems to be "missing" here, is knowledge of evolution in your understanding of it.

Luckily, this is easily cured. All you have to do is read up a bit.

You seem to think that convergent evolution requires identical mutations to result in identical DNA for those convergent traits to be "similar".

This is as wrong as can be.

The 40 times that eyes evolved independently = all convergent evolution.
Yet, all 40 types of eyes are different. So are the underlying genetics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, a tornado that codes DNA strands over millions of years. Better?

Not better.
If possible, actually even worse.

 

[Cooky]

Again, who claimed that this happens "often"?
Beneficial mutations are actually quite rare.
The vast bulk of mutations is neutral or harmful. The harmful ones don't tend to reach the next generation.




Which mutations would that be?
Are you going to show your ignorance about convergent evolution again?



I guess the answer to my last question was "yes" then.....


Newsflash: convergent evolution is about evolving similar TRAITS. This is phenotype. Not genotype.
The underlying genetic evolutionary pathways are not the same.
The genetics that make these plants look alike are not the same.
The mutations that lead to it in both are not the same.

Oh, you're offering me "newsflashes" now. You must be the authority on RF in regards to anything science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the answer is so simple.

As simple as pointing out your obvious ignorance.

 

[Cooky]

The only thing that seems to be "missing" here, is knowledge of evolution in your understanding of it.

Luckily, this is easily cured. All you have to do is read up a bit.

You seem to think that convergent evolution requires identical mutations to result in identical DNA for those convergent traits to be "similar".

This is as wrong as can be.

The 40 times that eyes evolved independently = all convergent evolution.
Yet, all 40 types of eyes are different. So are the underlying genetics.

Nope. I never suggested it or meant it in any way.

...I already pointed out that magpie birds have developed the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror without having a neocortex.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How often do ice crystals evolve into scientists and engineers?

About as often as Jewish carpenters come back to life after being dead for 3 days.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL... I like that. Have we been able to produce life in a beaker yet?

No, but we most definitely have created plenty of new species both in lab conditions as in agriculture and breeding programs, many times over.

I mean, without cheating the process?

Yep, without cheating.
Just a matter of having the individuals we liked most, reproduce and repeating it.

This only works because evolution occurs. it IS evolution.

but hey, don't let intellectual honesty, evidence and logic get in the way of your creationists religious propaganda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yours is a theory that has yet to be proven

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

May you safely share the love and company of family and friends.

In these pandemic days, there is no "safe" in the company of family and friends.
Unless that "company" is virtual in cyberspace.

Most boring holiday season EVER.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm not saying evolution isn't real... It is!

...There's just something missing. there is some kind of communication that's happening, where needs are met, in order for complex arrangements of successive mutations to occur in what sometimes, even appears to be an orderly fashion.

The current study of pleiotropy in genetics probably holds the answer to this problem. Pleiotropy is where one gene influences two or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. This process can slow down evolutionary changes but can also allow for multiple genes to become connected and form a more complex structure than by one gene - one trait evolutionary changes.

Of eyes and embryos: subfunctionalization of the CRX homeobox gene in mammalian evolution | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

"The duplication, degeneration and complementation (DDC) model of gene evolution postulates that duplication of a pleiotropic gene leads to functional redundancy, followed by stochastic mutation of different functional elements in each duplicate gene and distribution of ancestral gene functions between the duplicates [32]. This can be an intermediate step in the evolution of new or optimized gene functions, because if a pleiotropic gene is deployed for two or more roles in the same organism, it might not be possible for natural selection to optimize the gene for each role simultaneously. This resolution from compromise has been termed ‘escape from adaptive conflict’ [33]. Alternatively, when a new gene originates by a duplication event, it could acquire entirely new functions (or additional functions) through ‘neofunctionalization’. Distinguishing between these alternatives is crucially important if we wish to understand the origin and evolution of biological traits."


F

 

[Cooky]

The current study of pleiotropy in genetics probably holds the answer to this problem. Pleiotropy is where one gene influences two or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. This process can slow down evolutionary changes but can also allow for multiple genes to become connected and form a more complex structure than by one gene - one trait evolutionary changes.

Of eyes and embryos: subfunctionalization of the CRX homeobox gene in mammalian evolution | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

"The duplication, degeneration and complementation (DDC) model of gene evolution postulates that duplication of a pleiotropic gene leads to functional redundancy, followed by stochastic mutation of different functional elements in each duplicate gene and distribution of ancestral gene functions between the duplicates [32]. This can be an intermediate step in the evolution of new or optimized gene functions, because if a pleiotropic gene is deployed for two or more roles in the same organism, it might not be possible for natural selection to optimize the gene for each role simultaneously. This resolution from compromise has been termed ‘escape from adaptive conflict’ [33]. Alternatively, when a new gene originates by a duplication event, it could acquire entirely new functions (or additional functions) through ‘neofunctionalization’. Distinguishing between these alternatives is crucially important if we wish to understand the origin and evolution of biological traits."

Something like this might explain how pre-mammalian Therapsids developed what seems to be a neocortex, though it was lost after their extinction, but was regained later within the synapsid chain, *independently* in mammals.


And the reason this convergent evolution (neocortex) occured in the two species (Therapsids and mammals), is apparently because of a variety of extrasensory mutations to begin with, such as binocular vision and a highly developed sense of touch, in therapsids that caused similar chain reactions in different genes... And this is in contrast to our own mammalian extrasensory mutations... Causing similar chain reacrions... Interesting stuff.

Evidence for convergent evolution of a neocortex-like structure in a late Permian therapsid - PubMed

Therapsids:

 

[Bear Wild]

Something like this might explain how pre-mammalian Therapsids developed what seems to be a neocortex, though it was lost after their extinction, but was regained later within the synapsid chain, *independently* in mammals.


And the reason this convergent evolution (neocortex) occured in the two species (Therapsids and mammals), is apparently because of a variety of extrasensory mutations to begin with, such as binocular vision and a highly developed sense of touch, in therapsids that caused similar chain reactions in different genes... And this is in contrast to our own mammalian extrasensory mutations... Causing similar chain reacrions... Interesting stuff.

Evidence for convergent evolution of a neocortex-like structure in a late Permian therapsid - PubMed

Therapsids:
View attachment 46375

I did a thread on the convergent evolution of the brains of birds and mammals who developed two different brain patterns resulting in amazingly similar cognitive abilities from tool building, language with syntax, theory of mind, and complex social patterns. Your article fits well. It is also interesting how different crocodile behavior is much more complex than reptiles even-though we often see them so similar. Thanks for the article.

 

[Cooky]

Here's an interesting thought:

If a single mutation effects 3 or more genes around it universally, in various life forms similarly, then going back in time, in reverse, we see that the environment dictated what was allowed, and "chemistry" happened that couldn't have been any different due to both the chemicals and the environmental conditions...

Now rewind further, and go back all the way to abiogenesis, and view the natural chemicals that started it all in the beginning...

Now was it physics that started life? Are physics bound in biology? The reason I ask, is because physics is based on "universal laws"... So if we see some things like convergent evolution, with a neocortex two times, here on earth, then under the very same *original* ingredients of life through abiogenesis, would we see the same result of a neocortex developed on another planet, with the same basic ingredients to begin life? As a *Universal Law*..?

Wow. To think it's a Universal law, that any planet in the "habitable zone" would eventually end up with life having a neocortex. Thus having animals with language, imagination, abstract thought, consciousness, rationalization...

That's a mind boggling notion. And this returns us to the original topic of the thread... Under a new light.

 

[Cooky]

Under a new light.

...That new light being that the laws of physics dictate the result of life to attain levels of intelligence naturally. Thus man is not a fluke, but is a factor of the natural laws of physics in our universe.

Of course then, the argument could be made that intelligence exists within the universe with man as the very proof thereof... So the argument remains a circular one to the bitter end.

 

[Valjean]

Here's an interesting thought:

If a single mutation effects 3 or more genes around it universally, in various life forms similarly, then going back in time, in reverse, we see that the environment dictated what was allowed, and "chemistry" happened that couldn't have been any different due to both the chemicals and the environmental conditions...

Physics/chemistry dictate how atoms and molecules interact, it doesn't dictate what life-forms, if any, will evolve. There are many factors involved.

Now was it physics that started life? Are physics bound in biology?

I don't understand the question. "Bound in biology?"

The reason I ask, is because physics is based on "universal laws"... So if we see some things like convergent evolution, with a neocortex two times, here on earth, then under the very same *original* ingredients of life through abiogenesis, would we see the same result of a neocortex developed on another planet, with the same basic ingredients to begin life? As a *Universal Law*..?

If there were only one factor in play things might be predictable. A dice throw -- entirely dictated by physics -- is not predictable. Why would a much more complex process be predictable?

Wow. To think it's a Universal law, that any planet in the "habitable zone" would eventually end up with life having a neocortex. Thus having animals with language, imagination, abstract thought, consciousness, rationalization...

And you know this is just silly. No-one's making this claim.[/quote]

 

[Valjean]

...That new light being that the laws of physics dictate the result of life to attain levels of intelligence naturally. Thus man is not a fluke, but is a factor of the natural laws of physics in our universe.

Natural selection and the other mechanisms of evolution are not physics, and there's no reason to think our current level of intelligence is anything but a fluke. Why would you think it inevitable? Why did it take so long to appear?

Of course then, the argument could be made that intelligence exists within the universe with man as the very proof thereof... So the argument remains a circular one to the bitter end.

It could be argued that interdimensional space mice created us, too.

A circular argument? Your making up facts and premises, drawing illogical conclusions, and calling it an argument.
You don't understand the mechanisms we're arguing.
Evolution of complex organisms isn't mutation driven, or physics driven. It's driven more by reproductive variation and natural selection.

 

[Cooky]

Your making up facts and premises, drawing illogical conclusions, and calling it an argument.
You don't understand the mechanisms we're arguing.

@Valjean, your last two posts were very boring... So much so, I'm afraid I have to go to sleep now. Goodnight.