Spirituality
16 Aug 10
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlso, according to evolution that modifing nature of the process means this is
Well you are incorrect in your beliefs. If you randomly add letters of code into a working program, it may or may not crash (depending on what you mean by 'crash'😉.
There is always a small chance that you might change Microsoft Word, into Microsoft Excel via random changes.
But typical computer programs are not a good analogy for life. You expect a comp ...[text shortened]... le without crashing in the final product. It may even be less crash prone than the original!
an on going process. Do not think of this as just adding or subtracting code within
a program a few times, but several times, everywhere at any time, and these
modifications are on going it would never stop. If you think this process will add to
a healthy program we will just have to stop here and disagree.
Kelly
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you say, but you have no evidence to that effect. I, as a programmer, claim otherwise.
You can add letters, lots of letters, but if that is the process that random letters
are added and that always happen over time, you will not end up with a new
improved program, it will error out and stop functioning. Actually it is more than
just adding letters, because random changes mean that you could lose some
too, again this will not cause a program to remain healthy.
Kelly
I also note that with living things, every human being has a different program, yet we all seem to function to some degree. Every time we have children, a new unique program is created, but somehow, it seems that in the vast majority of cases, it continues to function. What is going on here?
31 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“…I believe you can add A letter inside a line of code and it NOT cause a system to
I believe you can add a letter inside a line of code and it not cause a system to
crash, I do not believe you can randomly add letters of code into a working
program and not have that program crash, UNLESS you design it too.
Kelly
crash,…” (my emphasis)
Agreed.
“…I do not believe you can randomly add LETTERS of code into a working
program and not have that program crash…” (my emphasis)
-I take it what you mean by a “working program” in the above is “working genome” (else you are deliberately avoiding the question)
-therefore your answer to the question of:
Is possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly?
Is “yes” if it is a single-DNA-base mutation BUT “no” if it is a multiple-DNA-base mutation! –the latter being an absurd answer!
For starters, if you can have a single-DNA-base mutation without causing something to NOT work properly then why can you NOT have, later on, another single-DNA-base mutation without causing something to NOT work properly in the same species and then another and so on thus the series of mutations being collectively a multiple-DNA-base mutation without causing something to NOT work properly?
In addition, there are plenty of examples of advantageous mutations that have occurred within recorded history where whole new genes have been created (not just single-DNA-base mutation) in living things that give an advantage but without causing something to NOT work properly. -Examples include the gene for penicillin resistance in bacteria and DDT resistance in mosquitoes.
In addition, just as basically twhitehead pointed out, when two people produce a child, that child had its genes combines in a totally unique way that is totally different from the two parents and from anyone else –so why doesn't that genetic change always result in something not working properly?
31 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“…Do not think of this as just adding or subtracting code within
Also, according to evolution that modifing nature of the process means this is
an on going process. Do not think of this as just adding or subtracting code within
a program a few times, but several times, everywhere at any time, and these
modifications are on going it would never stop. If you think this process will add to
a healthy program we will just have to stop here and disagree.
Kelly
a program a few times, but several times, everywhere at any time, and these
modifications are on going it would never stop…”
I am not sure what you are saying here but if you are saying that evolution means mutations are occurring literally all the time in every gene in every individual then that is simply false. The theory of evolution doesn’t say that the mutation rate must be so high that living things mutate themselves to death! In fact, evolution says nothing about the mutation rate!
Living things don’t mutate themselves to death but rather the mutation rate occurs at a sufficiently low rate to generally give natural selection time to weed out each bad mutation out before it has time to spread to the whole genome of the whole species. -so what is the "problem" you see here?
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are spouting the belief of evolution your not looking at what your saying.
“…Do not think of this as just adding or subtracting code within
a program a few times, but several times, everywhere at any time, and these
modifications are on going it would never stop…”
I am not sure what you are saying here but if you are saying that evolution means mutations are occurring literally all the time in every gene in every indiv ...[text shortened]... me to spread to the whole genome of the whole species. -so what is the "problem" you see here?
You change code fast or slow the code changes, you do it anywhere at anytime
that means that no part of the code is safe or static. You have key areas that
are required to be untouched and working together with other areas that are
also required and mutations occur between them, timing could be off and a
host of other things could go wrong. If you started doing that in your operating
system to your computer every so often, soon and very soon depending on what
you changed where your computer would stop functioning as it should and will
stop all together, it will not have a chess program added to your selections of
choices.
Kelly
31 Aug 10
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“…you do it anywhere at anytime
You are spouting the belief of evolution your not looking at what your saying.
You change code fast or slow the code changes, you do it anywhere at anytime
that means that no part of the code is safe or static. You have key areas that
are required to be untouched and working together with other areas that are
also required and mutations occur between th ...[text shortened]... stop all together, it will not have a chess program added to your selections of
choices.
Kelly
that means that no part of the code is safe or static. You have key areas that
are required to be untouched and working together with other areas that are
also required and mutations occur between them, timing could be off and a
host of other things could go wrong. If you started doing that in your operating
system to your computer every so often, soon and very soon depending on what
you changed where your computer would stop functioning as it should and will
stop all together,…”
My god, the above is an awfully long tedious way of just saying “there can be bad mutations”.
Yes, I already know that “there can be bad mutations” and I basically said this myself many times –so we agree (yet again) that most mutations are bad.
But this is irrelevant for the reasons I just said in my last post.
Reminder:
“… rather the mutation rate occurs at a sufficiently low rate to generally give natural selection time to weed out each bad mutation out before it has time to spread to the whole genome of the whole species…”
So bad mutations play no long-lasting part in evolutionary change but the good (and only the occasional and comparatively rare compared with the bad ones) DO have a long-lasting part in evolutionary change.
You are only talking here about the disadvantageous mutations in your posts which is irrelevant to evolution
-so what about the advantageous mutations –you know, the ones that ARE relevant to evolution?
Why do you ignore the relevant good mutations in your reasoning process about evolution?
Do you deny that advantageous mutations are possible?
Or have you got the misconception that they are not relevant? –or what?
“…it will not have a chess program added to your selections of
choices…”
bad analogy –evolution isn’t about adding intelligent choices and, as far as I am aware, Darwinian natural selection doesn’t operate in a computer. So obviously I wouldn’t expect a chess program to spontaneously evolve regardless of whether evolution theory is correct/incorrect.
My original question remains:
Is possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly?
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't know, maybe they did, never gave them much thought.
I'm trying to ascertain what degree of evolution you think is possible.
Do you accept that penguins derive from birds that could fly?
I imagine it'd be easier to lose an ability than to acquire one as unique as flight.
Kelly
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMutations occur and they stay or go, in your magical world of evolution the theory
“…you do it anywhere at anytime
that means that no part of the code is safe or static. You have key areas that
are required to be untouched and working together with other areas that are
also required and mutations occur between them, timing could be off and a
host of other things could go wrong. If you started doing that in your operating
syste ...[text shortened]... for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly?[/b]
says that only the good ones stay over time. I'm saying I don’t believe it can
work that way to that degree when you have systems with such huge
interdependences. Tweaking these systems mean you put all the systems at risk
that requires useful products or information that needs be to be given in the right
amounts, at the right times, with the proper durations, and so on. The rate of
change does not matter, fast or slow if you do something wrong things break down
speed does not add to you argument in my opinion it weakens it, because if the
changes are very slow in coming then you have halfway developed systems trying
to hook up with other systems when parts are not quite fully developed, all the
while everything must stay alive and thrive.
Kelly
01 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Is possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly?"
“…you do it anywhere at anytime
that means that no part of the code is safe or static. You have key areas that
are required to be untouched and working together with other areas that are
also required and mutations occur between them, timing could be off and a
host of other things could go wrong. If you started doing that in your operating
syste ...[text shortened]... for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly?[/b]
yes
Kelly
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd Natural Selection weeds them out. That is how evolution works.
The rate of change does not matter, fast or slow if you do something wrong things break down.....
The problem is you cannot maintain your argument yet simultaneously accept that all dog breeds are related. If your argument was valid, the range of dog breeds we see would not be possible.
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe dogs you have a problem with, but you don't seem too going from worms to
And Natural Selection weeds them out. That is how evolution works.
The problem is you cannot maintain your argument yet simultaneously accept that all dog breeds are related. If your argument was valid, the range of dog breeds we see would not be possible.
whales? Okay, you can breed dogs to be almost anything in a short time and
you think that is an issue, the family remains the same, they are just different
in some small manner. Yet, you can go buy into the notion of major changes over
time?
Natural Selection weeds out issues, that which does not get the advantage, correct?
What about some change, some mutation, that may not add an advantage, yet does
not take away from the current status by much if at all, would those remain? This
is sort of important, would a mutation that does not add a disadvantage not get
weeded out due to natural selection?
Kelly
01 Sep 10
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you have just agreed (in your other post) that it IS possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly –so now I am confused with exactly what you DO have issue with;
Mutations occur and they stay or go, in your magical world of evolution the theory
says that only the good ones stay over time. I'm saying I don’t believe it can
work that way to that degree when you have systems with such huge
interdependences. Tweaking these systems mean you put all the systems at risk
that requires useful products or information that ...[text shortened]... rts are not quite fully developed, all the
while everything must stay alive and thrive.
Kelly
“…in your MAGICAL world of evolution the theory
says that only the good ones stay over time….” (my emphasis)
what is “MAGICAL” about it?
-only the “good” mutations (“good” in the purely extremely narrow sense in this narrow context of evolution of the mutations increasing the probability of passing on the genes) would be selected by natural selection in the long run. You confuse me here; are you saying there is something stopping this from happening? –if so, what is stopping this from happening? If not, then what are you saying here?
“…I'm saying I don’t believe it can
work that way to that degree when you have systems with such huge
interdependences….”
The above implies to me that the answer to my question above is that you ARE saying there is something stopping evolution from selecting and keeping only the good mutations in the long run –specifically, the “huge interdependences” within the living system –am I right in assuming that? is that what you are saying? –if not, then what are you saying?
-if you ARE saying this, then, GIVEN you don’t deny that there CAN BE and occasionally ARE good mutations (so we are NOT talking about the BAD mutations here –only the good) then how would you say these “huge interdependences” within the living system prevent natural selection from continually selecting the good mutations in the long run? –I mean, these “huge interdependences” would explain why most mutations are bad –but what does that got to do with what natural selection will select in the long run? If we are at last only talking about the “good” mutations here, then, surely, these “good”, those mutations will ALWAYS be “good” and so they will ALWAYS would be continually selected by natural selection in the long run –right?
“…The rate of
change does not matter, fast or slow if you do something wrong things break down
speed does not add to you argument in my opinion it weakens it, because if the
changes are very slow in coming then you have halfway developed systems trying
to hook up with other systems when parts are not quite fully developed, all the
while everything must stay alive and thrive….”
Have you now gone back to talking about “bad” mutations here or are you still talking about “good” mutations here?
-if you have gone back to talking about “bad” mutations here because they prevent a living thing from staying “alive and thriving” because the mutations interfere with independencies then, as I said, those bad mutations are irrelevant to evolution because they are weeded out rather then selected.
-if you are still talking about “good” mutations here then how can a “good” mutation prevent a living thing from staying “alive and thriving” because the mutations interfere with independencies? Those so called “good” mutations would in fact be “bad” by definition! I thought you just agreed that “it IS possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly”? surely this implies that you agree that you can have a “good” (i.e advantageous) mutation without it interfering with the independencies within a living system?
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayPenguins were birds that could fly, they had to, because what's the point of a bird with a wing?
I don't know, maybe they did, never gave them much thought.
I imagine it'd be easier to lose an ability than to acquire one as unique as flight.
Kelly
Penguins have now evolved to the point where they can't fly, but have become specialised swimmers instead. Half their life is on land, the other in the sea. They've evolved from flying, to swimming.