Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[leibowde84]

Weighing in that sense is subjective, but subjectivity operates by choosing. So your explanation of choosing is....even more choosing.

Your understanding of choosing is false, you confuse choosing with sorting, this is why you refer to weighing when the issue is just choosing, because weighing involves sorting.

Oh, of course. There is always choosing, and choosing is always subjective. There is no possible way around that. We only experience anything through our senses and filter that through our mind. As a result, we all see the world differently (at least somewhat). I never mentioned sorting, so you are wrong about that. What makes you mistakenly believe that I am referring to "sorting?" I surely am not, but I would like to hear what led you to this incorrect assumption. I never knew sorting was even part of this conversation until you brought it up.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh, of course. There is always choosing, and choosing is always subjective. There is no possible way around that. We only experience anything through our senses and filter that through our mind. As a result, we all see the world differently (at least somewhat). I never mentioned sorting, so you are wrong about that. What makes you mistakenly believe that I am referring to "sorting?" I surely am not, but I would like to hear what led you to this incorrect assumption. I never knew sorting was even part of this conversation until you brought it up.

Because you accept evolution theory. Because you completely ignore the surprise in the predator prey relationship in response, and begin to talk about how unpredictable behaviour just doesn't occur with animals. Because you bring up weighing when the issue is only choosing. etc.

 

[Valjean]

There's a lot more to evolution than predator evasion.

 

[dust1n]

did the scientists succed to make a living cell from Bacteria ?

So the human science could not making self-living cell , yet .

who had that science which let firs self-replicating cell before 3.5 millions of years ?


let's suppose that your betting get right :
i mean , let's suppose that scientists succed to creat living cell , lived for 1 hour or one day or one year , then what , could they suceed to program it to reproduce and creat body ?

Yes, scientists did make a living cell, which successfully reproduces, and it's made entirely out of plastic.

 

[dust1n]

...you need the mutations to be many, so that you get new things to select, and get a new specie. But then many mutations mean lots of corruption. The model doesn't work out.

Suppose for a moment that a computer's password is 12 letters long. Simple math dictates that because there are 12 characters in the password and 26 letters in the alphabet, there are approximately 10,000,000,000,000,000 (26 to the 12th power) possible iterations of the password.

One way to hack this password would be to guess a random string of 12 letters and keep doing so until the right combination was found. That process, however, would take an extremely long time.

A better strategy, Wilf said, would be to use a "spy." After each guess, the spy could tell the hacker which, if any, of the 12 letters were correct. If, for instance, the spy told the hacker that two of the 12 letters were correct, it would leave only 10 letters to be discovered. Extrapolate that spying-and-guessing process over the entire hack attempt, and it's clear that the amount of time required would be greatly reduced.

"When you have this spy inside, it means that each letter is essentially operating independently in the [password] you're trying to guess," Wilf said. "Instead of trying to worry about the whole word, you just have to worry about each letter individually. When you get it right, it stays there; it doesn't change."

But what does hacking have to do with the evolution of species?

Simple, Wilf said. In the case of evolution, the hacker is evolution itself. The password is the string of codons that describes, for example, a butterfly. And the spy is natural selection.

"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.

"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.

“In the paper, these ideas are precisely quantified, according to this model, and the extent of the speedup is found. It is enormous, and shows that there is indeed plenty of time for evolution."

New mathematics research proves there's plenty of time for evolution


Such an old pointless objection.

If you have math that is meaningful, show your work.

 

[David M]

did the scientists succed to make a living cell from Bacteria ?

So the human science could not making self-living cell , yet .

who had that science which let firs self-replicating cell before 3.5 millions of years ?


let's suppose that your betting get right :
i mean , let's suppose that scientists succed to creat living cell , lived for 1 hour or one day or one year , then what , could they suceed to program it to reproduce and creat body ?

At this point I have to point out that yes, scientists have made a living cell (in that they have created a wholly synthetic genome for a cell). And yes it lives and reproduces.

But a more important point is that you do not need human science to make things that appear through natural phenomena. Science is a way of understanding how the natural world works. Self replicating molecules occur naturally, no intervention is needed. The first replicating cells needed no "science", they were just chemistry that crossed over the line into what we have called biology.

 

[David M]

...you need the mutations to be many, so that you get new things to select, and get a new specie. But then many mutations mean lots of corruption. The model doesn't work out.

But it does work out. No matter what maths you (won't) provide the simple truth is that species do have many, many mutations and they don't get "lots of corruption".

One little fact, in the living members of the human species alone there are over 300 Billion novel mutations that were there at Birth i.e. not later ones that happen sporadically in some cells in the body.

Go read the papers related to the Lenski Long Term E-Coli experiment than consider the staggeringly large number of mutations that will have occurred over tens of thousands of generations each of millions upon millions of bacteria. Those bacteria are still going strong which means that YOUR model that says it won't work out is in fact wrong.

The models that evolutionary science use say that it will work out, which is in line with observed reality. That is the clue that the models are roughly correct.

 

[David M]

As I was saying, the essence of choosing in a predator-prey relationship, in the sense of natural selection, is surprise in attack and escape.

You on the other hand mangle what I say into "weighing". Weighing will result in very predictable actions, 10 will always weigh more as 5, predictable organisms are eaten, or they starve.

See, you don't understand evolutionary theory or how the natural world works. "Predictable" does not mean "always" when it comes to organisms. Evolution is about possibilities and probabilities, there is no certainty when looking at the possible futures of any organism.

You read what I write better, instead of reading a page from your book of assumptions about what I write.

Learn to write more clearly and more concisely and you wont make so many errors or confuse others (one important part of common discourse is being comprehended, not that you are using that term correctly either).

When so many people can't understand you its a clue that the problem does not lie with your audience.

Because you accept evolution theory. Because you completely ignore the surprise in the predator prey relationship in response, and begin to talk about how unpredictable behaviour just doesn't occur with animals. Because you bring up weighing when the issue is only choosing. etc.

No, its because "Sorting" is not a relevant term and you should not have introduced it in the first place.

"Weighing" (in the sense that it was originally used) is a prequel of "Choosing". Just to reiterate you do seem to be ignoring the fact that it is your imprecise understanding and use of English that is causing problems, not the comprehension of your audience.

 

[Bunyip]

Just word games -very tiring -accomplishing nothing (except wearing us out -ahem)

It is not a word game, it is a fact. If you think evolution is accident, you don't know what evolution is.

 

[Valjean]

Natural Selection

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Suppose for a moment that a computer's password is 12 letters long. Simple math dictates that because there are 12 characters in the password and 26 letters in the alphabet, there are approximately 10,000,000,000,000,000 (26 to the 12th power) possible iterations of the password.

One way to hack this password would be to guess a random string of 12 letters and keep doing so until the right combination was found. That process, however, would take an extremely long time.

A better strategy, Wilf said, would be to use a "spy." After each guess, the spy could tell the hacker which, if any, of the 12 letters were correct. If, for instance, the spy told the hacker that two of the 12 letters were correct, it would leave only 10 letters to be discovered. Extrapolate that spying-and-guessing process over the entire hack attempt, and it's clear that the amount of time required would be greatly reduced.

"When you have this spy inside, it means that each letter is essentially operating independently in the [password] you're trying to guess," Wilf said. "Instead of trying to worry about the whole word, you just have to worry about each letter individually. When you get it right, it stays there; it doesn't change."

But what does hacking have to do with the evolution of species?

Simple, Wilf said. In the case of evolution, the hacker is evolution itself. The password is the string of codons that describes, for example, a butterfly. And the spy is natural selection.

"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.

"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.

“In the paper, these ideas are precisely quantified, according to this model, and the extent of the speedup is found. It is enormous, and shows that there is indeed plenty of time for evolution."

New mathematics research proves there's plenty of time for evolution


Such an old pointless objection.

If you have math that is meaningful, show your work.

That was high school math from a university huhuh. Not that I can do university math, but I can recognize it. A beneficial mutation is still subject to mutation again. NS has no absolute power to preserve the beneficial mutation. Many balls for ns to keep juggling in the air, while they all have the chance to mutate again in any direction. A slightly beneficially changed organism does not provide a much larger chance for reproduction than an unchanged organism. And natural selection slowly working, over millions of years, will drop all the balls, in the model.

 

[Bunyip]

That was high school math from a university huhuh. Not that I can do university math, but I can recognize it. A beneficial mutation is still subject to mutation again. NS has no absolute power to preserve the beneficial mutation. Many balls for ns to keep juggling in the air, while they all have the chance to mutate again in any direction. A slightly beneficially changed organism does not provide a much larger chance for reproduction than an unchanged organism. And natural selection slowly working, over millions of years, will drop all the balls, in the model.

Natural selection does have the power to preserve beneficial mutations, that is what natural selection means. Beneficial mutations increase the survivability of the organism and are hence preserved by being passed on.

 

[Sapiens]

That was high school math from a university huhuh. Not that I can do university math, but I can recognize it.

That was from a "popular" article not the peer reviewed journal article "There's Plenty of Time for Evolution," which will appear in an upcoming issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A beneficial mutation is still subject to mutation again.

True, though unlikely ... it's the lightning striking twice question.

NS has no absolute power to preserve the beneficial mutation.

You have a disconcerting ability to tell bold-faced lies with a completely straight face, but this time you're tripped up. Preserving that which NS finds to be a beneficial mutation is the definition of NS.

Many balls for ns to keep juggling in the air, while they all have the chance to mutate again in any direction.

That is the beauty of NS, it operates simultaneously on any number of mutations, not just that, it also operates on the interactive terms that may amplify or reduce the effect of a mutation or suite of mutations on the organisms' fitness. As I pointed out earlier, back mutation is possible, though unlikely.

A slightly beneficially changed organism does not provide a much larger chance for reproduction than an unchanged organism.

Do your sums ... it does not take a "much larger" change in fitness to give one genome an advantage over the other. Gross examples (such as: Natural selection ) are often used because they are easier for people to understand, but even very small differences (similar to the margin between two Olympic sprinters that determines who wins the race by hundredths of a second) can be quite telling.

And natural selection slowly working, over millions of years, will drop all the balls, in the model.

All of modern biology says that you're stuffed full of meaningless arguments.

 

[dust1n]

That was high school math from a university huhuh. Not that I can do university math, but I can recognize it. A beneficial mutation is still subject to mutation again. NS has no absolute power to preserve the beneficial mutation.

Well, provide your source for the math.

A beneficial mutation is still subject to mutation again. You are right. But wrong about the conclusion.

"Mutation is a natural process that changes a DNA sequence. And it is more common than you may think. As a cell copies its DNA before dividing, a "typo" occurs every 100,000 or so nucleotides. That's about 120,000 typos each time one of our cells divides.

Most commonly, a single base is substituted for another. Sometimes a base is deleted or an extra base is added. Fortunately, the cell is able to repair most of these changes. When a DNA change remains unrepaired in a cell that will become an egg or a sperm, it is passed down to offspring. Thanks to mutation, we all have some new variations that were not present in our parents."

What Is Mutation?

Natural preserves beneficial mutations, because beneficial mutations are the ones that allow individual organisms to reproduce, while malicious mutations are the ones that prevent people from reproducing.


Example: Let's say my grandparents conceive my father. During the conception, a DNA mutation occurred that gave my father, just as an example, fast twitch muscle fibers. This gave him an advantage when fighting from malaria. However, my father goes on two rear two children, myself and my brother. My brother retained this gene from my father, and thus has fast twitch muscle fibers. My genes however, mutated back to the original gene, or to a completely new gene, causing me to die from malaria at the age of 12, before I procreate with a lady. However, my brother does have prodigy. Perhaps 8 of them, half of which get the fast twitch muscle fibers, half of which don't. Out of the 4 that don't get the gene, two die from malaria, but the other two don't. However, none on the four with the fast twitch muscle fiber die from malaria.

You could see that after a while, even if some people without the fast twitch muscle fiber live, there are going to be far, far more people with after just a few generations.

So yes, natural selection does have power (not absolute power, but enough power) to eventually preserve beneficial gene mutations, until that is, the environment changes in some way that causes those particular genes to no longer be advantageous.

 

[Valjean]

And sometimes a single, small variation can have major survival value, such as conferring disease resistance.
11.18.2003 - Smallpox selected for genetic mutation that today confers resistance to HIV

 

[Etritonakin]

It is not a word game, it is a fact. If you think evolution is accident, you don't know what evolution is.

I'm cool with that. Right on schedule.

Antonyms for accidental

• deliberate
• expected

• intentional
• planned

• decided
• designed

• essential

 

[LuisDantas]

Try "selected".

Natural selection is selection still.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm cool with that. Right on schedule.

Antonyms for accidental

• deliberate
• expected

• intentional
• planned

• decided
• designed

• essential

You forgot 'selected'.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But it does work out. No matter what maths you (won't) provide the simple truth is that species do have many, many mutations and they don't get "lots of corruption".

One little fact, in the living members of the human species alone there are over 300 Billion novel mutations that were there at Birth i.e. not later ones that happen sporadically in some cells in the body.

Go read the papers related to the Lenski Long Term E-Coli experiment than consider the staggeringly large number of mutations that will have occurred over tens of thousands of generations each of millions upon millions of bacteria. Those bacteria are still going strong which means that YOUR model that says it won't work out is in fact wrong.

The models that evolutionary science use say that it will work out, which is in line with observed reality. That is the clue that the models are roughly correct.

It is bogus, you are referring to nature working to mea

Well, provide your source for the math.

A beneficial mutation is still subject to mutation again. You are right. But wrong about the conclusion.

"Mutation is a natural process that changes a DNA sequence. And it is more common than you may think. As a cell copies its DNA before dividing, a "typo" occurs every 100,000 or so nucleotides. That's about 120,000 typos each time one of our cells divides.

Most commonly, a single base is substituted for another. Sometimes a base is deleted or an extra base is added. Fortunately, the cell is able to repair most of these changes. When a DNA change remains unrepaired in a cell that will become an egg or a sperm, it is passed down to offspring. Thanks to mutation, we all have some new variations that were not present in our parents."

What Is Mutation?

Natural preserves beneficial mutations, because beneficial mutations are the ones that allow individual organisms to reproduce, while malicious mutations are the ones that prevent people from reproducing.


Example: Let's say my grandparents conceive my father. During the conception, a DNA mutation occurred that gave my father, just as an example, fast twitch muscle fibers. This gave him an advantage when fighting from malaria. However, my father goes on two rear two children, myself and my brother. My brother retained this gene from my father, and thus has fast twitch muscle fibers. My genes however, mutated back to the original gene, or to a completely new gene, causing me to die from malaria at the age of 12, before I procreate with a lady. However, my brother does have prodigy. Perhaps 8 of them, half of which get the fast twitch muscle fibers, half of which don't. Out of the 4 that don't get the gene, two die from malaria, but the other two don't. However, none on the four with the fast twitch muscle fiber die from malaria.

You could see that after a while, even if some people without the fast twitch muscle fiber live, there are going to be far, far more people with after just a few generations.

So yes, natural selection does have power (not absolute power, but enough power) to eventually preserve beneficial gene mutations, until that is, the environment changes in some way that causes those particular genes to no longer be advantageous.

"Repair" is not in the model. It does not say preservation of favoured variations by repair.

 

[dust1n]

It is bogus, you are referring to nature working to mea

I don't know what you meant about mea here.

"Repair" is not in the model. It does not say preservation of favoured variations by repair.

DNA repair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia