1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI disagree. If the argument is correct, then all it says is genetic mutations are not a mechanism for TOE. If it is invalid, it's claim is inconclusive. (Meaning the conclusion may be correct, but the argument does not support the conclusion.)
I'm not sure what you mean. If this argument is correct, then the TOE is impossible. ...
Other mechanisms for adding "new information" could be theorized.
What do you think the author means by "new information"?
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy is evolution a movement toward complexity in your and Coletti's arguement? Its a red herring.
If evolution or TOE is a movement towards complexity and new
information, what is de-evolution something heading the other
way? We see loss of information; we see decay that is something
that is clearly shown throughout the entire universe. If one can be
shown and the other not, why is the one that is not shown is the
one that is believed in?
Kelly
TOE is described by its detractors as progresive; from bugs to humans. That is only part of the story. Humans have evolved from Archaean bugs. Modern bugs have evolved from Archaean bugs. One thread involves and increase in 'complexity' (whatever we want that to mean today) the other does not. Both threads are evolution. De-evolution (a new term on me) is a process of adaption by inherited changes so it is infact evolution! Evolution is not a directional process. Why should it be? The only reason you are framing evolution as an ascent is due to your arrogant assumption that you are the crown of creation.
Originally posted by ColettiYour just being silly now
I disagree. If the argument is correct, then all it says is genetic mutations are not a mechanism for TOE. If it is invalid, it's claim is inconclusive. (Meaning the conclusion may be correct, but the argument does not support the conclusion.)
Other mechanisms for adding "new information" could be theorized.
What do you think the author means by "new information"?
Originally posted by ColettiYou're the smoke blower.
And that would be what? I challenge you to show how the post was nonsensical. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
Your criticism of TOE seems to hang on whether or not there is directionality towards an increase in complexity and an increase in 'information' within the genetic system.
this is patently rediculous. The greatest part of evolution has been among simple single celled organisms (by virtue of their greater numbers). There has been little increase in complexity yet there has been change.
Yet you keep banging on about complexity. Why?
By the way, I no longer smoke, it causes cancer!
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeHow does any change necessitate evidence of evolution? Evolution is not defined as "things change".
You're the smoke blower.
Your criticism of TOE seems to hang on whether or not there is directionality towards an increase in complexity and an increase in 'information' within the genetic system.
this is patently rediculous. The greatest part of evolution has been among simple single celled organisms (by virtue of their greater numbers). Ther ...[text shortened]... t you keep banging on about complexity. Why?
By the way, I no longer smoke, it causes cancer!
Also, you have not said anything about my post you commented on. You better stop blowing smoke before you get hooked again.
(I used to have a pack-and-a-half per day habit myself.)
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThe term is survival of the fittest, not survival of the most complex.
How does any change necessitate evidence of evolution? Evolution is not defined as "things change".
Also, you have not said anything about my post you commented on. You better stop blowing smoke before you get hooked again.
(I used to have a pack-and-a-half per day habit myself.)
"evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation."
As you see, the definition of evolution above defines evolution in terms of change.
The original post I commented on was one among a series of equally irrelevant posts obsessing on complexity and increase in information.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeSo then you are saying we can "evolve" into fish? Funny, I have never seen that diagram in a book on evolution.
The term is survival of the fittest, not survival of the most complex.
"evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic te ...[text shortened]... among a series of equally irrelevant posts obsessing on complexity and increase in information.
Since you assert evolution is change without direction - why would things continue along any path at all? A life form could bounce back and forth between two or three states at random. Either change is random, or it is directed. Which is it?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCould it be possible that longer wavelengh emr might cause mutations to take place at a slower and therefore less destructive to the organisms than the short-wavelenghts we base random mutation on?
So you think the author meant by the word 'information':
[b]clear indication or proof of the theory of evolution.'
Here is the claim I dispute:
[i]Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutioni ...[text shortened]... k that was his definition after looking again at the original use of the word 'information'?
Originally posted by ColettiSilly boy, you're seing things, nowhere have I said that we can evolve into fish. But as you mention it, it cannot be ruled out that among our descendants, several geological epochs hence, there may be fish like beings. Even more implausibly, there may be intelligent life in Texas.
So then you are saying we can "evolve" into fish? Funny, I have never seen that diagram in a book on evolution.
Since you assert evolution is change without direction - why would things continue along any path at all? A life form could bounce back and forth between two or three states at random. Either change is random, or it is directed. Which is it?
There you go again; direction, path etc etc. Genetic change is random at a molecular level. The proportions of different forms within a population will remain the same unless there is a selective pressure. Examples of selective pressures might include disease pressure, environmental change, competition in an ecological niche for resources, availibility of new resources, reduction in predation levels etc etc. If there is selective pressure the proportions of different forms within a population will change in favour of the forms best adapted to the current environment.
consider a population covering a lagre geographic range. If in one area there is a change that exerts a selective pressure then the proportions of different forms will change in that area. The population outside that area will remain the same. If the two populations are isolated from each other the proportions of different forms might chane until there comes a point where the two populations are no longer able to breed with each other. At that point the two populations would be considered by biologists as different species.
Google for Hardy Weinberg equilbrium., there will be better explainations than mine out there
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou are merely arguing the evolution is directed. I don't know why you keep contradicting yourself by saying it has nothing to do with direction. Selective pressures (according to the TOE) are the directing forces.
Silly boy, you're seing things, nowhere have I said that we can evolve into fish. But as you mention it, it cannot be ruled out that among our descendants, several geological epochs hence, there may be fish like beings. Even more implausibly, there may be intelligent life in Texas.
There you go again; direction, path etc etc. Genetic change is ra ...[text shortened]...
Google for Hardy Weinberg equilbrium., there will be better explainations than mine out there
Now, how is that change manifested. Is it by moving towards simplified genetics or more complex? Does the TOE not say? Is that direction random over time, or does it lead in a specific direction?
You have already said it is directed so lets go on from there. Would the "future fish-like creatures be genetically more complex or will they be as complex as todays minnow? And if it is the direction is nuetral regarding genetic complexity - then how does the TOE account for the existence of complex creatures?
Did they appear instantly????? Poof! There's monkey. Poof! There's a whale. Poof! There is a man!! Doe the TOE not say? Or maybe it can not say.
Originally posted by ColettiNo. Mutational changes are not directed in any sense. The directionality of selection pressure is relatively short term and may change in effective direction within a relatively small number of life cycvles of a population. (eg selective pressure imposed by climate fluctuations)
You are merely arguing the evolution is directed. I don't know why you keep contradicting yourself by saying it has nothing to do with direction. Selective pressures (according to the TOE) are the directing forces.
Now, how is that change manifested. Is it by moving towards simplified genetics or more complex? Does the TOE not say? Is that directio ...[text shortened]... of! There's a whale. Poof! There is a man!! Doe the TOE not say? Or maybe it can not say. N
You seem to want direction in a long term, selective pressure acting over hundreds of thousands of life cycles, well, it just is not so. Environments change within afew centuries, disease pressure from novel strains of vrius can be relatively short term but can have a radical effect on a population. So as long as you accept that any directionality there may be is short term (relatively) and inconsitent then you can have directionality but directionality as I have defined it does not help your agrguement.
Will the future of life be as complex as it is today and as it was in the past. Hmm, more or less! Most life forms, both in terms of numbers of species and numbers of individuals are simple single celled beings. that has been tru in the past and may well be tru in the future. The complexity of higher life forms may increase or on the otherhand there may be mass extinctions where nett complexity may decrease.
Complex forms will increase if complexity gives a reproductive advantage.
I don't like to predict the future beyond saying that the processes by which change (evolution) occurs will continue to act.
Originally posted by ColettiInstant creatures, no, thats creationism.
Did they appear instantly????? Poof! There's monkey. Poof! There's a whale. Poof! There is a man!! Doe the TOE not say? Or maybe it can not say. [/b]
In geological timescales the man and the monkey appeared in the blink of an eye.
Who are you calling a poof, thats fighting talk where I come from