Evolution works in mysterious ways

[Matthew Faithfull]

The Central Limit theorum contradicts basic arithmetic, it's a fudge invented by an alchemist who couldn't fully express his own insight. Also as a theorum it proves nothing but you already knew that being so smart. The Law of Large Numbers is a new one on me, is that like large numbers follow exactly the same rules as small numbers because size is a matter of human perception and has no relevance in mathematics? Maybe if you give a reasonable answer I'll let you into the secret of how to count the Real numbers :laugh:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Stan Shannon]

You're absolutely correct. However, just because evolution provides a better explanation of certain observable phenomenon, doesn't actually make it correct. It just makes it a better explanation. And it certainly does not imbue science with a more reasonable means for social order.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[73Zeppelin]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The Central Limit theorum contradicts basic arithmetic

No it doesn't. But it's not surpise to me that you're in denial of reality[^]. Law of large numbers[^]. Why do you make these discussions like pulling teeth?

[Haydn Chapman]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

As I've said many times, in practice, the mechanisms proposed by biologists to cause evolution, don't. They cause de-evolution.

So are you saying that everything started of as being Perfect? Every organism at the beginning of time (whenever that is supposed to be), was as good as it could possibly be? Other that God putting them there, how did they all start off? And does that mean we are getting more and more sickly, unhealthy, weaker etc.... as the years go on because we lose certain parts of our dna making us less human so to speak? I just want to know what the theory of de-evolution actually is, because I'm not too familiar with it and it doesn't seem to be as intuitive to understand as evolution.

[Matthew Faithfull]

Fisticuffs wrote:

Point mutation - change of one nucleotide to another

Can constitute information loss, has a high probability of disrupting any exisitng gene function.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Insertion - insertion of 1+ nucleotides

Has a high probability of disrupting any exisiting gene function. This along with the above is the 'traditional' model of gene mutation driven evolution which has been shown to be inadequate to explain observation.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Deletion - removal of 1+ nucleotides

Information loss, has a high probability of disrupting any exisitng gene function.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Translocation - a gene can be placed under the control of another promoter

Information neutral. All necessary information gain must already have occured to form the potentially useful gene.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Inversion - can have weird and interesting effects, but does appear to occur regularly

Information neutral over a population as nothing is added or removed, will be destructive or neutral in the majority of cases where a gene is functional.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Transformation/Conjugation

Information neutral?

Fisticuffs wrote:

Infection/Transduction

Do non destrcutive casses occur in nature? If so could they ever occur to any effect in a multi cellular organism. Not a lot of information increase there. Granted we probably have different concepts of information. None of the mechanisms you mention is capable of producing the observed species even given the unrealistic time frames usually quoted. You might also want to note that these are the ways we know of that a genome can change. Especially as you're going to need to find some new ones to hold on to your evolutionary delusion. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

I feel much the same about you.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

Oakman wrote:

Hard to think of Adam and Eve with single eyebrows, unbridged noses, and weak chins.

You've been talking to the wrong neanderthals my friend. I guess even you'd swap a bridged nose for a larger brain and a 1000 year life span. :laugh:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Lost User]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

he pathogens already have within their populations a proportion that are immune due to genetic variations.

Wrong. De novo mutations conferring resistance over time and appropriate exposure has been demonstrated in the lab.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

When you look into how these immunities actually work you find they usually fall into the catagery of de-evolutionary specialisations, for example having damaged protiens causing slower metabolism making them more tolerant of toxins.

Wrong. In certain cases, the mutations confer a higher growth rate and stability to the organism. This would also be true by definition - mutations that enable an organism to survive in a stressor (artificial or not) still means they survive, even if there is a cost.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

This however doesn't change the fact that a bacteria remains a bacteria and can't ever become anything else. It can't grow legs because the set of information required for legs is too large complex and interrelated to come about through truly random changes.

Misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Bacteria do not become horses, bacteria and horses share a common ancestor. The distinction is critical.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

s I've said many times, in practice, the mechanisms proposed by biologists to cause evolution, don't. They cause de-evolution.

As Ravel has pointed out, your semantic distinction between evolution and "deevolution" is nothing but rhetoric, devoid of meaning.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

It does not follow the scientific method of proposing an idea, attempting to falsify it and on succeeding replacing it with a better idea.

Untrue. Evolution could be falsified easily by never finding any fossil variation, never seeing any extinct species, finding an ancestral species and a modern species in the same dated strata, not seeing any variation in population genomes that are differentially selected on, not being able to demonstrate the development of new features under selective pressures in a lab in the expected timeframe, etc etc etc. So far, evolution has not been falsified, despite best efforts.

- F

[Matthew Faithfull]

I can believe in what the evidence shows, is consistent with the rest of science and makes logical sense. If some 70's band members can do the same then good for them. :cool:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

If you really want to understand information theory I suggest you look at this guys[^] books. You will definitely learn something, probably more than me with your mathematical bent.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Lost User]

That's kind of disingenuous, don't you think? Ignore the one absolutely clear event that causes information gain? The one that happens all the time, as I said? Which you ignored?

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Do non destrcutive casses occur in nature? If so could they ever occur to any effect in a multi cellular organism.

Yes. As I said, look how ERVs have been adapted to new functions in the human genome. Look it up.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Fisticuffs wrote: Transformation/Conjugation Information neutral?

No. Bacteria A shares features with bacteria B. Bacteria B now has both A and B's gene. Those genes are then adapted to new function. Information gain. Also, while most mutations may be deleterious over enough time (as has been demonstrated) beneficial mutations can occur and accumulate after selection. So basically, you ignored most of what I said. Well, this has been productive. :rolleyes:

- F

[Lost User]

That makes sense. :rolleyes:

- F

[Matthew Faithfull]

John Davids wrote:

So are you saying that everything started of as being Perfect?

Yes.

John Davids wrote:

Every organism at the beginning of time (whenever that is supposed to be), was as good as it could possibly be?

Yes, God, who's standard is perfection, examined what he had made and declared that it was good.

John Davids wrote:

Other that God putting them there,

There is no other.

John Davids wrote:

And does that mean we are getting more and more sickly, unhealthy, weaker etc.... as the years go on because we lose certain parts of our dna making us less human so to speak?

Yes. We are less than our ancestors and if we were to continue as a species for a very long time we would be much less. The diminishing is mitigated to an extent by massive population growth preserving genetic information by duplication but in the end entropy will have its way.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

Fisticuffs wrote:

Wrong. De novo mutations conferring resistance over time and appropriate exposure has been demonstrated in the lab.

In bacteria as I freely conceeded.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Wrong. In certain cases, the mutations confer a higher growth rate and stability to the organism. This would also be true by definition - mutations that enable an organism to survive in a stressor (artificial or not) still means they survive, even if there is a cost.

If the cost makes the species more prone to extinction then there is no species evolution only specialisation towards a dead end.

Fisticuffs wrote:

Bacteria do not become horses, bacteria and horses share a common ancestor. The distinction is critical.

Drivel, the distinction is an irrelevance unless the ancestors of the bacteria contained the information necessary to grow a horse, i.e. an extreme de-evolutionary scenario.

Fisticuffs wrote:

As Ravel has pointed out, your semantic distinction between evolution and "deevolution" is nothing but rhetoric, devoid of meaning.

And he was wrong just as you are, de-evolution is unidirectional, to derive a mouse it requires a better mouse, evolution cannot create the better mouse or the mouse without having a mouse, it is nodirectional. :)

Fisticuffs wrote:

Evolution could be falsified easily by never finding any fossil variation

Double negative, is gravity falsifiable by never finding anything falling, no.

Fisticuffs wrote:

never seeing any extinct species

Extinct species are evidence of de-evolution.

Fisticuffs wrote:

finding an ancestral species and a modern species in the same dated strata

Happens frequently usually followed by a redating of the strata, ancestoral speicies is of course a derivative concept and cannot be used as evidence for evolution, that would be a circular argument. :laugh:

Fisticuffs wrote:

not seeing any variation in population genomes that are differentially selected on

Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

Fisticuffs wrote:

not being able to

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

You're absolutely correct.

:omg: :wtf: :wtf: :omg: :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

a larger brain and a 1000 year life span

And where did you learn about these creatures?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Ilion]

Oakman wrote:

Remember, when you eat crackers in bed, you wake up with crumbs

[Oakman]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

but there is nothing false in it as there is nothing false in its author

You have, of course, read it in the original Aramaic?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Gee now that you have shown up, someone is running around voting me all ones - Does it help you feel like you're a real man? Those exhibiting a superiority complex commonly project their feelings of inferiority onto others they perceive as beneath them, possibly for the same reasons they themselves may have been ostracized, i.e. viewing most, possibly all others as "ugly" or "stupid", and beneath oneself. Behaviors related to this mechanism may include an exaggeratedly positive opinion of one’s worth and abilities, unrealistically high expectations in goals and achievements for oneself and others, the persistent attempt to correct others regardless of whether they are factually correct or not, vanity, extravagant style in dressing (with intent of drawing attention), excessive need for competition, pride, sentimentalism and affected exaltation, snobbishness, and a tendency to try to discredit others' opinions, as well as forcefulness and hostility aimed at dominating those he has convinced himself are weaker or less important.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

and a 1000 year life span.

Stop... you're killing me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: