| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Evolution is NOT random...
Page 4 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Virgil... |
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.
If you want to replay the tape and allow all manner of macroscopic
contingencies to change, then Gould's thought experiment becomes
vacuous. Of *course* then evolution would be different. Nobody could
could disagree with that.
I'm looking for intrinsically random events that could affect the way
life evolved. Meteors and volcanic erruptions and continental drift and
global climate change are not random events. They would repeat in any
replay.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Can electron spins count as butterfly wings? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cj... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Virgil" <Virgil at (no spam) gmale.com> wrote in message
news:g2bs1b$2jqs$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: In article <g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years
ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same
way.
If you want to replay the tape and allow all manner of macroscopic
contingencies to change, then Gould's thought experiment becomes
vacuous. Of *course* then evolution would be different. Nobody could
could disagree with that.
I'm looking for intrinsically random events that could affect the way
life evolved. Meteors and volcanic erruptions and continental drift and
global climate change are not random events. They would repeat in any
replay.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Can electron spins count as butterfly wings?
Only if singular quantum events can cause macroscopic effects.
Cj |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cj... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years
ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.
The "tape of life" is a very poorly chosen metaphor since a tape replay
theoretically produces identical results to the original sequence. On the
other hand a fresh rerun of the history of life would absolutely be
different because of the enormous effect of random events on
multiple processes operating over a very great time span. I think that the
"tape of life" rerun was an unfortunate choice of words and given their
context different results would be guaranteed rather than exact recreation
of events. Even the most sophisticated of authors can choose an incorrect
metaphor when thinking of something slightly different. I don't think that
the metaphor confused many readers since they understood the context. I
think the argument is a non-starter.
Cj |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Entertained by my own EIMC... |
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Cj" <Cj at (no spam) mist.net> wrote in message
news:g2fo1m$1fdq$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: "dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years
ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same
way.
The "tape of life" is a very poorly chosen metaphor since a tape replay
theoretically produces identical results to the original sequence. On the
other hand a fresh rerun of the history of life would absolutely be
different because of the enormous effect of random events on
multiple processes operating over a very great time span. I think that
the
"tape of life" rerun was an unfortunate choice of words and given their
context different results would be guaranteed rather than exact recreation
of events. Even the most sophisticated of authors can choose an incorrect
metaphor when thinking of something slightly different. I don't think
that
the metaphor confused many readers since they understood the context. I
think the argument is a non-starter.
Cj
I don't wish to defend this the tape metaphor, but neither would I like to
throw out a certain "baby" of mine ("with the bathwater"), either.
I have found it is possible to cut and look through an all-in-one
[corrective/protective/magnifying/panoramic] system of "lenses" [one cut
from science-aligned lingual logic rather than mathematical logic] to allow
a marginally unprecedented integrative insight into, and a permanent unified
understanding of, the evolutionary patterning that produced especially our -
the human - lineage.
If one looks at our evolution this way, one can (or at least I have) come to
accept that from and during the multicellular (more precisely the
'neuromuscular') period and aspect of the "evolutonary patterning tendency"
(within this universe) can be fruitfully interpreted as involving a
universal subprinciple of Darwin's most simple heuristic 'super principle'.
This subprinciple is one that have summarized as (something to the tentative
tune of) "AEVASIVE" or - more simply - as per the pragmatic expression from
which the first to capitals of AEVASIVE was no less pragmatically derived;
namely, "ambiadvantageously evolved" [or "ambiadvantageously adaptive
effects via actention selection involving (amongst else but nevertheless a
both an acronym-building and highly instructive example) various endorphins
[or "endoopiates" - if a more inclusive but 'not kosher' (=unconventional)
category of some centrally involved neurotransmitters is considered].
What the concEPT of "ambiadvantageous" mutations (or ditto new or improved
adaptations) is referring to is not something so simple and trivial that it
is easy to absorb.
[I bet that the most important part of this difficulty (that people have
with digesting what I mean by it) is anchored in the fact that the forms (or
broadly defined class) of adversity referred to by this conEPT is a common
conditioning co-factor in the development of people's personalites, and that
it also commonly get neurophysiologically converted into a largely constant
source of *automatically defensively selective* "actention" (what I mean by
"actention" does *also* comprise the content of people's
cognitive-intellectual activities and awareness).]
"Ambiadvantageous" is also a 'concEPT'. By this very capitalization I make
sure that the only fairly philanthropical origin and in some respects
'homeopathically off-putting' character of some more or less etymologically
pioneering terms contrived by me are identified, qualified, and/or warning
flagged.)
I use "ambiadvantageous" (in whatever suitable grammatical form) for
referring to
1. that ('on one side of the sides of an *ambi*_dextrous hand')
"specific/synaptic hibernation" [i.e., how one may (far from inEPTly / in an
thoroughly justifiable way) refer to an inhibitory function that pre or
post-synaptically "gates" the excitatory output from neurons that most
centrally, would otherwise directly and specifically cause fear/pain-type
"actention modules" to become fully activated/energized or "paid" (since
vital neurometabolic resources would then be spent rather than adaptively
saved)] is the only adaptive inibitory self-regulatory function possible in
respect of selection pressures in the form of non-seasonal or irregularly
occurring and non-climatic predicaments that are not completely physically
restrictive (i.e. prohibitive of outward muscle-driven motility) but
nevertheless inescapable; and,
2. (on the other {*ambi*_dextrous} hand), that this function is frequently
naturally required to be performed (else not survived) against a likewise
naturally selective background of 'evolution-encouraging' environmental (and
procreation promoting) "opportunities" (of course they can also occur in
parallel with in principle avoidable, or escapable, environmental threats,
but in this explanatory context this fact carries no point-making weight
whatsoever) that can be internally COMBINED with REWARD-based LEARNING and
the possibility of "opportunistically adaptive/advantageous" (in contrast to
primarily defensively adaptive/advantageous) "REROUTING" [made possible by
genetically predisposed neural plasticity and brain-fuctural proximities] of
the central excitatory signal-generating "cores" (consisting of by "Synaptic
Hibernation Inducing Type" predicaments long-term potentiated excitatory
neurons) of the corresponding CURSES (or CURSES type memories).
The only very marginally unprecedented concEPT of "CURSES" is the result of
the shortest possible spelling of a thus-required-to-be-pronounced acronym
that is derivable from something along the lines of: "conditioned-in,
chronically kept 'hibernated', hence unconscious, regardless repercussively
retained, stressful situations (specifically SHI-type such), effecting
symptoms". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dkomo... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Cj wrote:
Quote: "dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years
ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.
The "tape of life" is a very poorly chosen metaphor since a tape replay
theoretically produces identical results to the original sequence.
I use the term "tape of life" as shorthand and because it was Gould's
original proposal. What I'm really proposing is a follows:
Start with a trillion (or some other large number) of identically
prepared earths. The starting conditions for these earths would have to
include all aspects of the surrounding physical environment, for example
the solar system with the sun, asteroids and comets, all with identical
starting conditions. Now start time going at the same instant on all
these earths. Now you can ask, "what could possibly be different on
each earth to cause evolution to diverge?" *That's* the question I'm
asking. Where could the randomness, if any, be coming from?
Quote: On the
other hand a fresh rerun of the history of life would absolutely be
different because of the enormous effect of random events on
multiple processes operating over a very great time span.
I think your "random" events are nothing more than "pseudorandom" events
that are repeatable and deterministic and would not change the history
of life on any of the trillion earths. They would occur the same way on
each earth. Certainly, there is nothing random about volcano eruptions,
asteroid strikes and climate change that would cause these events to
differ from one earth to the next.
Quote: I think that the
"tape of life" rerun was an unfortunate choice of words and given their
context different results would be guaranteed rather than exact recreation
of events. Even the most sophisticated of authors can choose an incorrect
metaphor when thinking of something slightly different. I don't think that
the metaphor confused many readers since they understood the context. I
think the argument is a non-starter.
Cj
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cj... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <decoy at (no spam) mindyaown.biz> wrote in message
news:g2jpdu$gue$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote:
"Cj" <Cj at (no spam) mist.net> wrote in message
news:g2fo1m$1fdq$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years
ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same
way.
The "tape of life" is a very poorly chosen metaphor since a tape replay
theoretically produces identical results to the original sequence. On
the
other hand a fresh rerun of the history of life would absolutely be
different because of the enormous effect of random events on
multiple processes operating over a very great time span. I think that
the
"tape of life" rerun was an unfortunate choice of words and given their
context different results would be guaranteed rather than exact
recreation
of events. Even the most sophisticated of authors can choose an
incorrect
metaphor when thinking of something slightly different. I don't think
that
the metaphor confused many readers since they understood the context. I
think the argument is a non-starter.
Cj
I don't wish to defend this the tape metaphor, but neither would I like to
throw out a certain "baby" of mine ("with the bathwater"), either.
I have found it is possible to cut and look through an all-in-one
[corrective/protective/magnifying/panoramic] system of "lenses" [one cut
from science-aligned lingual logic rather than mathematical logic] to
allow
a marginally unprecedented integrative insight into, and a permanent
unified
understanding of, the evolutionary patterning that produced especially
our -
the human - lineage.
snip
Quite a compost of postmodernist "logic"you have excreted. Anyway to say it
in English?
Cj |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dkomo... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
Quote: dkomo,
Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man. If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random. If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same". Nobody
would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
so. Don't pretend to have an argument supporting that notion when all you
have is a very simple tautology based on assuming the conclusion you claim
to support.
Problems with newsgroup access last night and this morning are causing
my replies to be somewhat disjoint. This is a follow-on to my previous
reply to your post earlier this morning.
Here is an archetypical example of what I mean by "pseudorandomness".
It is a superficial randomness which I think is similar to the type of
randomness most people refer to when they talk about evolution.
The digits of pi pass every statistical test for randomness, no matter
how stringent. Does this really mean that the digits are truly random?
Hardly. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of numerical algorithms
that can generate the digits of pi going out as far as we want. That
means that those digits are repeatable and deterministic, not
intrinsically random. The best way to describe them is that they are
"pseudorandom".
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dkomo... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[This reply of mine evidently was lost so I'm reposting it. It should
have preceeded my reply mentioning the digits of pi. -- dkomo]
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
Quote: dkomo,
Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man.
YOu know as well as I do that the tape metaphor was orginated by Gould.
Quote: If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random.
Quantum events are the only events which in science are truly random in
the sense of being absolutely non-repeatable and acausal.
Quote: If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same".
This is not a truly "random" event. Since I've started this thread, I
have seen replies using the term "random" in about half a dozen
distinctly different ways. For example, epistemological randomness,
which results from our lack of knowledge of all the causes which go into
determining an event. Or relative randomness, which really is a lack of
causal connection between processes. Relative randomness describes the
lack of connection between an organism's needs and mutations within it.
These are examples of what I would call "pseudo-randomness". They
appear to be random, but only on a superficial level. In any replay of
the tape, they are actually perfectly repeatable.
Quote: Nobody
would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
so.
I recognize quantum events such as occur in radiation to be random. At
present I'm analyzing how much of a difference quantum events such as
mutation causing radiation make to evolution in the large.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Entertained by my own EIMC... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Cj" <Cj at (no spam) mist.net> wrote in message
news:g2md66$1uq8$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote:
Quite a compost of postmodernist "logic"you have excreted. Anyway to say
it
in English?
Cj
No perfectly ordinary (old or recent) English grew out of a largely
deliberate effort to express precisely and poignantly [and perversely -
that's for sure (and not just because I am more peeved off than put off by
parts of the personality of so many people)] that our evolution did make us
almost completely generally deficient (and 'blind-spotted') in the
department of in-depth self awareness and, by automatic extension, in
relevant fields of scientific searches for (not excluding many philosophical
pursuits of) understanding, and in our ability to self- (and socially)
regulate.
So --- if you don't like listening to, learning from, and/or laughing at,
the basically perfectly science-aligned explanatory philosophical tonality
of my concEPT of AEVASIVE (or its constituent, and some complementary,
concEPTs), it is NOT AT ALL NECESSARILY your loss.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guy A Hoelzer... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So it seems to me that you are asking a much more general question than
"where is the randomness in evolution?" You seem to be questioning whether
there is any real randomness of any form in the universe. With the
exception of a possible ontological separation between quantum mechanics and
macroscopic dynamics, which I don't personally accept, any source of
randomness in the universe would do. If anything changes in your "tape of
life", then everything could change (butterfly effects).
Guy
in article g2md66$1upa$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote on 6/10/08 10:21 AM:
Quote: Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
dkomo,
Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man. If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random. If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same". Nobody
would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
so. Don't pretend to have an argument supporting that notion when all you
have is a very simple tautology based on assuming the conclusion you claim
to support.
Problems with newsgroup access last night and this morning are causing
my replies to be somewhat disjoint. This is a follow-on to my previous
reply to your post earlier this morning.
Here is an archetypical example of what I mean by "pseudorandomness".
It is a superficial randomness which I think is similar to the type of
randomness most people refer to when they talk about evolution.
The digits of pi pass every statistical test for randomness, no matter
how stringent. Does this really mean that the digits are truly random?
Hardly. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of numerical algorithms
that can generate the digits of pi going out as far as we want. That
means that those digits are repeatable and deterministic, not
intrinsically random. The best way to describe them is that they are
"pseudorandom".
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John W Edser... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:-
Quote: If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random.
Quantum events are the only events which in science are truly random in
the sense of being absolutely non-repeatable and acausal.
JE:-
It was and remains epistemologically invalid to propose that an event is
not caused. The only way non causation can make rational sense is to
suppose that it means we remain ignorant of any cause/causes so we have
to come up with falsifiable inductive guesses. The scientific method
employs controlled experiments in an attempt to eliminate all the causes
except the one proposed and being tested. While most controls remain
imperfect, in most cases this can be allowed for and a sufficiently
objective result obtained (a result within an acceptable error range).
Quote: If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same".
This is not a truly "random" event. Since I've started this thread, I
have seen replies using the term "random" in about half a dozen
distinctly different ways. For example, epistemological randomness,
which results from our lack of knowledge of all the causes which go into
determining an event. Or relative randomness, which really is a lack of
causal connection between processes. Relative randomness describes the
lack of connection between an organism's needs and mutations within it.
JE:-
You will find that all the others remain a nested subset (not just an
intersecting subset) of "epistemological randomness". IOW, is is just
"epistemological randomness" which predicates the others including
unrelated (which may be correlated) events. Randomness is a much nicer
mathematical way of expressing total rational ignorance. Mathematics is
not a science because it remains entirely logically reversible, i.e. it
does not incorporate i.e. actually use a single non reversible nested
(proper)sub set allowing cause and effect to be reversed.
Nested sets of fitness remain absolutely essential for evolutionary
theory which remains rational only because they are used. Nested sets of
fitness are proposed, incorporated, _fitness dependent_ sets forcing
just the one same, fitness maximand to represent the fitness of each and
every proposed nested sub set. This only allows a monocentric theory of
fitness e.g. Darwinism which is not Neo Darwinism. This includes and
does not exclude the fitness of single genes which were and remain a
proper fitness subset of Total Darwinian Fitness (as I have previously
defined it) on an entirely FALSIFIABLE basis.
Quote: I recognize quantum events such as occur in radiation to be random.
JE:-
All this proves is that quantum theory is not a theory but a valid,
critical observation of nature which urgently requires a falsifiable
theory to explain it.
Quote: At
present I'm analyzing how much of a difference quantum events such as
mutation causing radiation make to evolution in the large.
JE:-
"Quantum events such as mutation" can only provide ubiquitous, random,
heritable variation within and not outside of, a falsifiable
evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, Mutation has been routinely misused
as Neo Darwinian random evolution e.g. Morand et al, which only presents
a mathematically justified contradiction in terms.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cj... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
Quote: dkomo,
Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man. If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random. If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same". Nobody
would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
so. Don't pretend to have an argument supporting that notion when all you
have is a very simple tautology based on assuming the conclusion you claim
to support.
Guy
in article g2974b$13du$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote on 6/5/08 10:18 AM:
Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.
If you want to replay the tape and allow all manner of macroscopic
contingencies to change, then Gould's thought experiment becomes
vacuous. Of *course* then evolution would be different. Nobody could
could disagree with that.
I'm looking for intrinsically random events that could affect the way
life evolved. Meteors and volcanic erruptions and continental drift and
global climate change are not random events. They would repeat in any
replay.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
In a replay of a tape everything would be the same because the tape is a
repeated record. If things were restarted from scratch almost
everything is intrinsically a random event. What's your point?
Cj |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guy A Hoelzer... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dkomo,
Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
to be essentially random, then your (or Gould's) "tape of life" would surely
take evolution in a different direction when replayed. Genomic evolution of
populations and species is little more than mutational dynamics extending to
a grander scale. Some selective filtering certainly happens, but Neutral
Theory and the empirical evidence strongly link the processes of mutation
and evolution. Are you arguing that natural selection is so much in control
of evolution that the dynamics of neutral population genetics is irrelevant
to the evolution of organismal form? Do you think that neutral evolution,
and/or drift-induced maladaptive evolution, would replay differently,
whereas adaptive evolution would proceed the same way? If so, I disagree
because I think that directions of adaptive and non-adaptive evolution are
inextricably linked.
Cheers,
Guy
in article g2p1u1$crc$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote on 6/11/08 10:27 AM:
Quote: [This reply of mine evidently was lost so I'm reposting it. It should
have preceeded my reply mentioning the digits of pi. -- dkomo]
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
dkomo,
Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man.
YOu know as well as I do that the tape metaphor was orginated by Gould.
If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random.
Quantum events are the only events which in science are truly random in
the sense of being absolutely non-repeatable and acausal.
If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same".
This is not a truly "random" event. Since I've started this thread, I
have seen replies using the term "random" in about half a dozen
distinctly different ways. For example, epistemological randomness,
which results from our lack of knowledge of all the causes which go into
determining an event. Or relative randomness, which really is a lack of
causal connection between processes. Relative randomness describes the
lack of connection between an organism's needs and mutations within it.
These are examples of what I would call "pseudo-randomness". They
appear to be random, but only on a superficial level. In any replay of
the tape, they are actually perfectly repeatable.
Nobody
would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
so.
I recognize quantum events such as occur in radiation to be random. At
present I'm analyzing how much of a difference quantum events such as
mutation causing radiation make to evolution in the large.
--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cj... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
Quote: "Cj" <Cj at (no spam) mist.net> wrote in message
news:g2md66$1uq8$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quite a compost of postmodernist "logic"you have excreted. Anyway to say
it
in English?
Cj
No perfectly ordinary (old or recent) English grew out of a largely
deliberate effort to express precisely and poignantly [and perversely -
that's for sure (and not just because I am more peeved off than put off by
parts of the personality of so many people)] that our evolution did make us
almost completely generally deficient (and 'blind-spotted') in the
department of in-depth self awareness and, by automatic extension, in
relevant fields of scientific searches for (not excluding many philosophical
pursuits of) understanding, and in our ability to self- (and socially)
regulate.
So --- if you don't like listening to, learning from, and/or laughing at,
the basically perfectly science-aligned explanatory philosophical tonality
of my concEPT of AEVASIVE (or its constituent, and some complementary,
concEPTs), it is NOT AT ALL NECESSARILY your loss. :-|
Yes, it's postmodernist.
Cj |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John W Edser... |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Guy A Hoelzer <hoelzer at (no spam) unr.edu> wrote:-
Quote: Some selective filtering certainly happens, but Neutral
Theory and the empirical evidence strongly link the processes of mutation
and evolution.
JE:-
Hi Guy,
Please provide at least one example of this empirical evidence.
I propose that gene fitness epistasis (critical, non additive gene
fitness associations), which were and remain deleted from
oversimplified, uncorrected, Neo Darwinian Models of fitness, _removes
all fitness neutrality_.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 4 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:08 pm
|
|