by cofty 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi Cofty,
"I remember reading bits of "The Blind Watchmaker" in the public library when I was a JW. I quickly realised that this very point demolished every argument I had ever used against evolution. I was shocked and quickly put the book back on the shelf."
Too funny! I did something similar, once pulling an encyclopedia volume out and reading about evolution as a JW -- it made me feel very uncomfortable. Here's to not being afraid anymore!
Cheers,
-Randy
marked for tomorrow
We defo need a beer night, imagine how geeky we could all be! Ha ha... Maybe a museum trip... No JW guide this time? X
Beer and museums, loving that idea!
Cofty, I hesitated to contribute before reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' to which you referred, but having watched the Youtube video of Dawkins' lecture it's clear that the programme Dawkins uses does have a pre-determined target and so doesn't reflect natural selection at all (unless one maintains an intelligent being is using natural selection to accomplish his purpose).
I do understand that the point that Dawkins and you are making is that evolution works gradually over a long period of time. I understood that current thought is that it is a bit more jerky than that with sudden (relatively) quick changes. But regardless of that, I don't think the computer programme is an adequate response to shadow's example of the monkeys typing.
I look forward to your thread on how the first simple replicator came about, with lots on mitochondria and eukaryotes.
Earnest its a perfect response to the creationist challenge about Shakespeare, monkeys and typewriters.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. The creationist challenge assumes that complex things have to arise in a single leap. We hear variations on this all the time on this forum.
The computer programme illustrates the principle of cumulative selection.
As an analogy it is limited because it implies teleology as Dawkins points out in the lecture at 5:30. However the error is implicit in the creationists challenge.
The second example in the video of climbing Mount Improbable makes the same point without the teleological element.
Immense, mind-boggling complexity can and does inevitably arise through a combination of random mutation and non-random cumulative selection over long periods of time. Absolutely no intelligent designer required.
Its not until you get into the topic of Evolutionary Developmental biology, or Evo-Devo, that you see how simple mutations in control genes give rise to major changes in the phenotype.
Comatose said- I don't think anyone here in this discussion thinks only the best survives. There are lots of examples of slightly disadvantageous things evolving along with the good.
I've seen three posters in this thread alone who use language that conveys that evolution is an "upwards and onwards process": I'll leave it to you to figure out who. It's an idea I've seen in many other threads, and it's not the truth about evolution, but merely a child's version which actually interferes with understanding evolution based on the reality of what IS known about it.
Cofty said-
"Ratchet" as in the sense of accumulating mutations. In other words evolution doesn't have to do it all in one go. It is about the difference between single-step and cumulative selection. The "ratchet" of cumulative natural selection safeguards beneficial mutations in the gene pool - assuming the body that first hosts the mutation doesn't get eaten before it breeds.
That's utterly absurd, and yes, I'm aware that Richard Dawkins has used the "ratchet analogy" in his book, "Climbing Mt Improbable" (and in fact the analogy to climbing a mountian assumes a stepwise ratchet process). However, such a ratchet effect (i.e. one that prevents back mutations) hasn't been proven to exist, and where it HAS been shown, it only works by accumulation of deleterious mutations. NOT neutral or advantageous ones.
The closest concept in biology is "Muller's Ratchet", named after a geneticist who reported on the phenomena existing in asexual organisms where an accumulation of changes in genes via mutations could in fact demonstrate a "ratchet effect", except resulting in the accumulation of deleterious mutations within small populations; this could eventually lead to extinction, since it's a one-way ratchet, except running in reverse (unless positive mutations occurred to counteract).
In fact, that's why Muller proposed recombination of genes via sexual reproduction as a possible solution to overcome the "ratchet effect"; it's a way for organisms to AVOID a ratchet effect by weakening their impact on the organisms, due to infusion of alleles from the other person that don't code for the same trait.
And the fact is, bacteriologists will tell you that some species of bacteria avoid the "ratchet problem" by eg direct exchange of plasmids: it's basically a way to exchange genetic material with others (although no scientist has yet determined if the bacteria are enjoying swapping genetic material as much as with the sexual process, LOL!).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120810083613.htm
From the article on a computer simulation they ran, genetistist Richard Neher:
These findings could explain the long-term maintenance of mitochondria, the so-called power plants of the cell that have their own genome and divide asexually. By and large, evolution is driven by random events or as Richard Neher says: "Evolutionary dynamics are very stochastic."
Obviously there's a sufficient overall gradient in the "slightly more-adapted" direction for evolution to work over multiple generations, since we have evolved, but there is no "ratchet effect" to lock in the improvements (or at least, if there is, it's a pretty weak-effect at best).
In fact, Huntington's Chorea is a disease which resulted from a spontaneous mutation of a gene in a woman who lived 200 years ago in Venezuela:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_05
If there were a "ratchet effect" and evolution was all about getting "better", then such spontaneous mutations that result in diseases couldn't appear. The mutation is untouchable to elimination by natural selection, since it arises typically AFTER the individual has passed on the defective gene to their offspring.
Again, those looking for certainty in studying evolution might be better-advised to get comfortable with unpredictability and probabilities first, since that's what stochastic processes involve: random dumb luck and living with probabilities, not certainty.
Good news is we are ALL lucky to be the products of the one sperm to win the race to enter our mother's ovum, and we all are born with a first-place ribbon, LOL!
Cofty said- You have an uncanny knack of misrepresenting what others have written.
Misrepresenting? I don't think so....
Cofty said- When I complained about you being off-topic that was because you were waffling about ancient Hebrew culture.
I was responding to a challenge raised by Kate, and backing up the claim with references: do I have to seek your permission before doing so?
Adam
I am not going to respond to your post in any detail Adam. There is no point in talking to somebody who willfully misrepresents other's words.
The ratchet is a useful analogy but if you insist on taking it further than it is intended then of course it breaks down.
I have observed the erroneous "upwards" picture of evolution a few times on the forum and have always countered it when I see it.
The thread is about the cumulative or ratchet effect on increasing complexity.
I see Adamah is no more interested in conversation than King Solomon was.
Cofty said- I am not going to respond to your post in any detail Adam. There is no point in talking to somebody who willfully misrepresents other's words.
Get over yourself, Cofty: your words are in this very thread, and you can't counter, since you don't know of what you speak.
Cofty said- The thread is about the cumulative or ratchet effect on increasing complexity.
Yeah, and tell that organisms that have vestigial organs, or those who's genome has become LESS complex as a result of responding to selection pressure from their environment..
Like the fish who had evolved eyes, but LOST them, as a result of living hundreds of thousands of years in underwater caves:
You're just a bottomless pit of myths about evolution, aren't you?
Biologist Stephen Gould would disagree with you, too:
“There is no progress in evolution. The fact of evolutionary change through time doesn't represent progress as we know it. Progress is not inevitable. Much of evolution is downward in terms of morphological complexity, rather than upward. We're not marching toward some greater thing. The actual history of life is awfully damn curious in the light of our usual expectation that there's some predictable drive toward a generally increasing complexity in time. If that's so, life certainly took its time about it: five-sixths of the history of life is the story of single-celled creatures only.”
Adam
