JerryL
Well-Known Member
Replication errors (which have a variety of influencing characteristics, mostly chemical), transposition errors, viral insertions, etc.Been there, done that. They don't know what modifies the genome. Is it cosmic rays?
Appeal to incredulity?That's mighty hard for me to swallow given that the rewrite has to be oh so very specific, and that there would also be tons of mistakes along the way.
Sickle-cell geneAnd since we've only ever seen damaged genes or deformities passed on
Evolutionarily speaking, when did the last "new" organ appear?[no new organs, and no, an extra finger doesn't count]
Mutation is said to be a random process. Probability is precisely the mathyou would use for describing a random process. That's what it was invented for [discovered actually, mathbeing independant of everything, even evolution]. Probability is my guide, not my proof. I was focusing in on things like the geometry problem because that's where probability steered me as you'll see a little later. I also applied probability specifically to the geometry problem [which is a seperate use of it] but that was just to say that the geometry is accurate or 'non-negotiable' [probability=0]...imo
Give me a specific, genetic, definition of "new". What alliel change is actually the "new" one?I'm having trouble believing in evolution. I'm talking dinos into birds, not the minor stuff. Whether the mechanisms are the same for big and little changes doesn't interest me. What interests me is identifying a naturally occuring accidental phenomenon that will safely rewrite the genome [of anything] to turn it into something NEW.
Tell me what the first used DNA strand contained. How long was it? How many failed attmepts to create it? What were the cules of chemestry governing it's creation? Were there certain sets inclined towards coming together? What influences were on it?I learn't a lot about mathematics from the work of Fred Hoyle. Yes Fade, he's got an alternative to evolution [no it's not my cup of tea either]. I understand that the creationist crowd credit him with saying that the first life/protein whatever could not have happened. That argument of his is widely dismissed, but also widely misunderstood in my opinion. Natural selection is not actually chance, and that's where they shot him down, but I believe the first self-replicator was subject to chance if you view it's coming together as a 'mutation': it was it's own genome, a genome that previously didn't exist, new info was added. Funny that, how little things slip away.
You don't know? Then you can't compute odds.
I'd say that he's wrong.Roger Penrose, the guy who proved [imo] you can't do true AI with binary computing, also taught me a lot through his profound writings.
You don't have enough information to conclude that.My conclusion, armed with data regarding proteins that Hoyle never had in his day, is that Hoyle was right [laugh, boo, whatever u do..]. Even with a single molecule the odds are against it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it wasn't very likely to have happened the way it is described.
Of coruse you were after abiogenesis. You discuss the odds of a single molecule forming.I'm detecting an assumption that in my earlier posts I was applying probability theory to abiogenesis, which is actually seperate from evolution, some say. I wasn't, but before I tell you what I was applying it to let's have a quick look at abiogenesis anyway.
Of course there isn't. That's why abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory.It has been estimated that something as simple as a single protein of maybe 24-36 amino acids in length constituted the first self-replicating lifeform. However [and it's abig one], there really is NO confirmation of this.
Eggs have no brains and "know" nothing. You really need to work on your biology.Luckily the egg was smart enough to know what a chicken looked like.
Again some basic mistakes of biology. I doubt pre-chickens felt "pride" and consider it unlikely that the pre-chickens noticed the difference anyway. You can't really have speciation in any one generation anyway, it's a problem with the fact that they are simply groupings.The eggs' mother must have been so proud, after all, she didn't know what a chicken looked like. Even though the eggs stopped replicating the chickens knew exactly how to make more anyway so everyone was happy! A biological tribar?
Why should I. If there's an anomoly, then it will pop up when the new species are studited and an attempt is made to integrate them.Not if you come to face the fact that once you accept the theory of evolution then any apparent change is automatically explained. For example, if a change is detected [ a new fossil perhaps?], nobody says "Hey, I don't think this one happened because of evolution, we'd better call in CSI to check it out". When you heard about the pocket of unique life in Papua the other day did you think of anything other than evolution?
When at 7am it gets bright outside, you assume it's the sun. Why don't you think that a second star just appeared?
We don't have an exact figure on the number of gense in the human body, so there's no way to tell if there are new genes popping up.Notice how the folks on the sub-continent are all mid-brown? They stayed in one area long enough for the gene pool to even out with the majority dominant genes winning. NO NEW GENES
New organs are extremely rare. For the most part, we have the same organs as the worms which are the earliest animals.This basic gene-mixing and unmixing does not make new genes that are encoded for new organs and so on. I still think it is sad that science has devolved to this. Somehow I get the feeling you still won't see it. That's OK, I admit I'm not a very good communicator.
Genetically speaking, what is "new stuff".I accept this kind of speciation, although it doesn't add the 'new stuff' to the gene pool.
If a replication error occurs which changes GATTACTTA to ATCATTTAG, was "new stuff" added?
I said "...in the time geologists say has passed". That's a very short time for so many original features, let alone all the variations. This one is pure math, it simply doesn't add up. Admittedly my numbers are my own, but I am being very conservative in my count of special features and very generous in my features per-generation numbers. Still does not compute. Guess that one is my personal opinion, there's no reason for you to trust my math. And Fade, this one is not probability, it's simply addition.
We've had 4,000,000,000 years of evolution, what are you setting as generation rate? (many organisms have generations in hours or minutes)?