Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

OK So there are blind engineers and there are probably blind engineers with no hands, but ALL of beautiful and wonderful life blindly without hands? I CAN'T believe it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Thank you for talking to be and imagining me. I think that YOU and THEY have not considered one bit what I brought to the table. Please explain how a mind, some very, very great minds (not mine and I am OK with being stupid) happened in such tiny steps as to be to most eyes inconceivable, in such a short time? I know millions of years is not so short. But please THINK about how many tiny steps had to have happened, and blindly, for Einstein to have been born.

Well the first smiple life was 3.8 billion years ago and the vastness of that time is enough for the timeline to make sense. A few million years makes a lot of difference in the world but to get from single celled organisms to us took billions. And that isn't even counting the billion years that the Earth was here before the earlist forms of life.

 

[savagewind]

Well the first smiple life was 3.8 billion years ago and the vastness of that time is enough for the timeline to make sense. A few million years makes a lot of difference in the world but to get from single celled organisms to us took billions. And that isn't even counting the billion years that the Earth was here before the earlist forms of life.

I wonder why you would allow for the billions of years before any life formed?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is demonstrated in nature. Living things reproduce according to their "kind"...tell me when this is not true. In oceans of fish and vast land areas, where do we see evolution taking place? All those creatures only reproduce with their own "kind" and always will. Minor adaptive changes do not alter their kind......do you have evidence to the contrary?

Where in nature will I see traits in any species that are passed on where it eventually leads to another "kind" of creature altogether.....?

Foxes are not dog kind. Hyenas are not dog kind. Ferrits are not cat kind.This idea of "kind" is rather vauge and doesn't actually have a real definition and nor does it serve its puropse when we have species that are very different. What of whales and manatee's? Are they of the same kind? What of dolphins and whales? What of hippos? Why is it that we have "dog kind" but not specified versions of "lizard kind". Why is the specifics narrow more and more with "kinds' determined by species that humans interact with far more frequently than not? ARe all bugs bug kind? And don't get me started on this silly idea that all bacteria are just "bacteria kind" when they are more diverse than the whole animal kingdom.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I wonder why you would allow for the billions of years before any life formed?

Because the the grey room of life and not life of abiogensis likely took longer to happen than for mammals to first split from reptiles and become eventually humans.

 

[savagewind]

I suggest that the right sequence of DNA would take many billions of tries. If I am right, it means that each DNA settling in the right position would be better than one each Earth year.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I suggest that the right sequence of DNA would take many billions of tries. If I am right, it means that each DNA settling in the right position would be better than one each Earth year.

You mean each individual mutation?

 

[savagewind]

Because the the grey room of life and not life of abiogensis likely took longer to happen than for mammals to first split from reptiles and become eventually humans.

Oh, I definitely agree with that! But let's just start from the first living cell. Shall we?

 

[savagewind]

You mean each individual mutation?

Each individual progressive mutation.

A progressive mutation is one which takes and makes the organism more adaptive.

 

[savagewind]

If I am right and each adaptive gene sequence is enough to equal one each Earth year, where, oh where, are all the modern adaptive mutations? Or, why has gene adaptation slowed so very much?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Oh, I definitely agree with that! But let's just start from the first living cell. Shall we?

That I can agree to.

Each individual progressive mutation.

That would probably be a good start. We contain about 20,000 genes. That means at least 20,000 mutations. However I am sure it is significantly more than that. It is probably in the millions. If we guestimated one million mutations (which is just a shot in the dark it is probalby more) That would mean an average of one mutation every 3,600 years. The mutation rate varies betwen species. Bacteria mutate enough to become a new strand nearly every year. Humans get about 64 mutations every generation. So we need to multiply that times the number of people per generation and then we have the number of total mutations. The chances of one of them being positive and impactful to the organism's ability to produce offspring is small but over the generations it becomes pretty regular that we achieve some sort of change almost at a semi-set interval.

 

[savagewind]

That I can agree to.

That would probably be a good start. We contain about 20,000 genes. That means at least 20,000 mutations. However I am sure it is significantly more than that. It is probably in the millions. If we guestimated one million mutations (which is just a shot in the dark it is probalby more) That would mean an average of one mutation every 3,600 years. The mutation rate varies betwen species. Bacteria mutate enough to become a new strand nearly every year. Humans get about 64 mutations every generation. So we need to multiply that times the number of people per generation and then we have the number of total mutations. The chances of one of them being positive and impactful to the organism's ability to produce offspring is small but over the generations it becomes pretty regular that we achieve some sort of change almost at a semi-set interval.

I think one million is WRONG. I think it would be fair to start the math at 100 million. Let's be fair.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If I am right and each adaptive gene sequence is enough to equal one each Earth year, where, oh where, are all the modern adaptive mutations? Or, why has gene adaptation slowed so very much?

The problem isn't just the mutation itself. It has to spread to the whole species. The smaller the specie sthe fewer chances you have for positive allele mutations but the faster that allele spread throughout the species. When we see jumps in the evolutionary tree that happen rapidly after a relatively long period without change it is usually because the genes are mutating but not affecting the whole population enough to see it as a species wide change. Rather then you have a slow genetic drift within the species. However when a significant change happens in the enviroment that kills a large number of them only the best tend to survive. This gives us the best of both worlds. There is at any given point in time possibly several positive genes that are being passed around that have not become universal. But whent he population is put under stress only the ones with the "extra advantage" tend to survive. This means that the population is smaller but more elite in terms of survival. The genes are passed on during this bottleneck period and as the population grows again it is slightly different an slightly better at surviving than the old group.

 

[savagewind]

20,000 very powerful genes out of one million tries? It is laughable!

My math might be wrong, but it looks like you believe in one in fifty.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think one million is WRONG. I think it would be fair to start the math at 100 million. Let's be fair.

Actually its hard to predict. Since most mutations are change not addition to the DNA it becomes far more difficult to tell. But we can see the rate of change as we look through the evolutionary history. We can see and note when evolution kicks into overdrive and when it does not. My other post talked about this mechanism a lot more.

 

[savagewind]

I have heard that 1 in 100,000 is the best it can do......not one in fifty. And WE are gullible?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have heard that 1 in 100,000 is the best it can do......not one in fifty. And WE are gullible?

One in 100,000 mutations being good? Probably not even that high. But lets put things in persepctive.

In the united states 3,988,076 were born in 2016. We see roughly 62 mutations per child so that means in 2016 in America alone we have seen roughly 247,260,712. So even if we had a 1 in 100 million chance of having a single positive gene being mutated we would have averaged 2 1/2 in 2016 alone for humans alone not county the rest of all life on earth that is also constantly evolving at different rates.

20,000 very powerful genes out of one million tries? It is laughable!

My math might be wrong, but it looks like you believe in one in fifty.

I mean out of a million POSITIVE genes these are the ones that remain. Not total number of mutations. We only keep the best of the best. Our 20,000 mutations may only be the most recent results of millions of different POSITIVE mutations and nearly countless failed mutations.

 

[savagewind]

Why not multiply the number of Earth species that ever was with 100,000 and then subtract the years of which life has existed and what do you get? I think you get a negative number.

 

[savagewind]

One in 100,000 mutations being good? Probably not even that high. But lets put things in persepctive.

In the united states 3,988,076 were born in 2016. We see roughly 62 mutations per child so that means in 2016 in America alone we have seen roughly 247,260,712. So even if we had a 1 in 100 million chance of having a single positive gene being mutated we would have averaged 2 1/2 in 2016 alone for humans alone not county the rest of all life on earth that is also constantly evolving at different rates.

I mean out of a million POSITIVE genes these are the ones that remain. Not total number of mutations. We only keep the best of the best. Our 20,000 mutations may only be the most recent results of millions of different POSITIVE mutations and nearly countless failed mutations.

That's what I am talking about. Mutations that were saved and flourished PLUS all the failed ones.
How many in all the species?

 

[savagewind]

Another thing to consider. Beneficial changes might have happened but never passed to the next generation. You should count those too.

The number is staggering and it really isn't the Bible, religion or my mother which led me to believe it isn't possible.