What evolution is NOT, Installment 1: "How coud it all happen by chance?"

by seattleniceguy 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Hi Golf,

  SNG's analogy was meant to be a simplification. It just aimed to highlight the impact of environment as a seletive pressure on organisms. It wasn't a thorough modeling of the process, but it nicely did what it set out to do. Showing how randomness coupled with selection can result in what looks like intelligent/deliberate outcomes.

  You had a good question on Eskimoes for example. Humans are not considered to be a specialist species (highly fitted to a particular ecological niche or environment) but a generalist one. Our intelligence and adaptability makes us flexible. Organisms can be placed on a continuum of generalist to specialist ecological niches.

  So I wouldn't get too caught up with the analogy's specifc details. If you like to address real details then you'll have to look into population genetics. Theodosius Dhobzansky (hope I spelled that right) is the classic authority on that.

  Take care Golf

  SNG,

  I'm enjoying all your installments.
• 

  Golf

  MS, I appreciate your comments. As a high steel construction worker, we gotta work with a blueprint or else nothings gets assembled. Its known that blueprints have been misread, this also applies to steel being marked at the wrong ends,thus causing confusion and needless labor.
  
  I realize its a lot deeper subject to talk about so I try to make it as simple as possible for myself.
  
  
  Golf
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Golf,

  The white tiles are the real tiles in your analogy, right? If so, then were dealing with imaginary tiles, one is and one is not. These tiles do not really represent tiles at least not the black ones.

  The nature of the tiles really doesn't matter. The point was that the there are some places on the floor where cards can live and some where they cannot. Whether the black tiles are liquid hot magma or ferocious card-eating gremlins doesn't really matter.

  You are assuming that as you 'hurl' these cards across the room that half will fall on the white and the other half on the black tiles, right? That's an assumption, correct?

  No, it's not an assumption. It is a simple fact that some of the cards will land on black squares and some on white.

  Can I assume that the person who 'hurled' the cards was once upon a card that landed on the white tile? If so, how, where and when does this person enter the picture?

  That is not necessarily a valid assumption. I'll leave it to you to think about why. And you may be asking about the question of origins, which evolution does not address. (See my discussion with Bas earlier this thread.)

  About this environment thing, am I to assume that if 'you' grew up in a warm environment you wouldn't be able to adjust to a cold climate? Am I to underatnd that an Eskimo wouldn't be able to survive in Jamaica and a Jamaican can't survive in the Arctic?

  No, that would be totally misunderstanding how evolution works. Evolution is based on hereditary change. Evolution never occurs - ever - inside a single individual. Evolution is based on reproducton and heredity.

  So, mankind was 'randomly' thrown into an environment and 'if' he so happens to land on the black tile, he's unfit? This person is not given a chance to adjust to the environment, that explains evolution?

  If an organism can adjust to an environment, it means it is fit to survive. It may not be as fit as one that does not have to adjust, so in the end, it may lose out because the naturually fit ones survive better.

  Here's an example of how natural selection could change humans. Right now HIV is ravaging Africa. In some countries, up to one third of people are infected. Barring any scientific breakthroughs, this could decimate the population. However, a very small percentage of humans can carry HIV with no ill effects whatsoever. They weren't designed to be immune to HIV (unless God has one hell of a sick sense of humor). They just are, because of random mutations in their DNA.

  If HIV is not brought under control, those naturally-immune people will survive much, much better than the non-immune ones. The environment will have "selected" them. They will then pass on the immunity genes to their children, who will in turn survive better than the non-immune ones, and so on. Soon (over generations), the percentage of immune humans will be much higher than it is now. Since these people carry HIV but show no effects, HIV could become even more prevalent in human populations, further ravaging non-immune humans. This could in turn eventually result in the feature of being immune to HIV becoming a prerequisite for human life.

  Of course, this may not happen because of human intervention and other factors, but it is one possibility, and it should illustrate how natural selection would choose some humans and kill off (or severely disadvantage) those that don't have the feature.

  Personally, I can't 'imagine' liking people to a deck of cards in this scenario. I'm trying to follow your reasoning and that's why I'm asking questions.

  The card example was meant to illustrate that something that appears well-designed and perfectly suited to the environment can occur via the sister mechanisms of chance and selection. Chance distributed the cards, environmental selection chose the fit ones. The end result appears to be designed, but it was not.

  SNG, as an ironworker since 1962, I can't imagine having a unified structure assembled together without a 'blueprint.

  No offense, Golf, but I notice that you really like to play the ironworker card. Buildings are so incredibly different from biological organisms that I hope you'll put your experience aside and consider the evidence I have been presenting.

  SNG
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Carmel,

  Your last sentence is not supported by exclusive evidence.

  I'm not sure what you mean by "exclusive evidence," but I think you're right about my last sentence. I said, that it was in fact only by randomness that evolution can work.

  I have been considering this statement and I think technically it may be slightly incorrect, although we will never be able to know for sure. That is to say, if all organisms reproduced in a totally deterministic manner so that chance mutations never occurred, but diversity still did, then evolution would still occur, even though chance had been removed from the equation.

  As it stands, however, chance is a part of the equation, and it provides an extra boost for diversity.

  SNG
• 

  Golf

  SNG, I like to play the ironworker card because I am one just as being a professional competitive golfer, I'm not your ordinary week-end golfer. We erect steel with a blueprint. You better have a game plan when you play golf.
  
  What I do is planning, not blind faith. I'm not dealing with 'if's or assumptions. When your dealing with 'if's' its an assumption. If I didn't know what I was doing I could kill myself or others and that is a 'fact.' I've seen it happen before my eyes. So, when I talk about being an ironworker, I'm talking about the seriousness of life, its not a game.
  
  Like I said in the begining of your thread, I'm just asking questions. I also believe that whatever a person believes is his/her choice. I'm not here trying to convince anyone about a God or my way of thinking. For me to understand another person's view I need to ask questions. What I find is that everyone quotes from different sources, now, who decides which souces are the correct ones? Do you get my drift?
  
  
  Golf
• 

  Golf

  SNG, In one quote you said, "...expect that half the cards land on black squares and half on white squares."
  
  You then replied to me saying, "No it's not assumption. It is a simple fact that 'some' of the cards will land on black squares and some on white."Do you find a difference between these quotes?
  
  How is it that you used the 'card' analogy to prove your point, and yet, my use of erecting steel without a blueprint isn't good enough?
  
  
  Golf
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Golf, I appreciate what you say about trying to understand others' positions. I think perhaps you're getting hung up on all the wrong parts of the post.

  The card post did not make any assumptions. I mentioned that we might expect roughly half the cards to fall on black squares and half on white, but that really doesn't matter. Even if it somehow was a 90/10 split, it doesn't affect the point, which is that some of the cards land on black squares and some land on white. And that is not an assumption. The cards have to fall somewhere.

  Your blueprint analogy is fine. In fact, all living organism contain blueprints. No problem. The interesting aspect is that in reproducing organisms, those blueprints are in a constant state of flux from generation to generation. It would be like if buildings could have children that were different from themselves. Some of the buildings would be better than others at staying upright, and those ones would go on to have more buildings.

  You're right that deliberate design would be a much more effeciient way to create organisms. That's why evolution takes so long. It doesn't have any end goals. A cat living in a snowy environment doesn't try to have furry kittens. Some of the kittens just are furrier, because of chance. The furrier ones live and the non-furry ones die, because they live in a cold environment. When those cats have offspring, again, they will not try to have any particular kind of kittens. But since they themselves are furry, their kittens are more likely to be furry as well. Again, the environment chooses the furriest ones to survive better. So over many generations, the cats adapt to snowy conditions.

  However, there is no goal. No one is pulling strings trying to make a certain kind of cat. It's just that the environment punishes one cat and rewards another. If global warming occurred and changed the mountains into a desert, the tables would be turned and the furry cats would be at a severe disadvantage. Now in order to survive, cats would have to evolve less hair, or some other means of living in hot conditions.

  Hope that helps.

  SNG
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Okay, I thought of an illustration that might make sense to you. I'm going to take the building and blueprint analogy and run with it.

  Let's say all buildings have blueprints in them, and that buildings can reproduce. That is, two buildings get together and through a somewhat random combination of their blueprints, they produce new buildings that have totally new sets of blueprints. There are also copying errors that create random changes.

  Now, being a building isn't all fun and games. There are hazards. Sometimes you have to face an earthquake. Sometimes if the foundation isn't right you can list (like the tower of Pisa). If you're not an attractive building, you might not be able to find tenants. Or worse, you might not be able to find a mate with which to produce your own children. The environment isn't completely benign.

  So let's say that mom and dad building have a few children. Since the children are different than mom and dad, being based on slighly different blueprints, we don't know for sure how they'll make it in the world. The only way is to watch and find out. The first building is strong like dad but he has new features that no one has seen before. These make him extra resistant to earthquakes. The second building is an attractive building and quickly gains lots of tenants, but unfortunately she is not built on a strong frame. The third building is pretty much an average of mom and dad.

  Now the environment starts coming into play. An earthquake hits! The second building is severely affected so it has to be torn down. Its blueprints will not be passed on. They have been weeded out by the environment. The first building is totally fine thanks to its new feature. It attracts the attention of strong young female building across town and they soon have kids. Through genetics, these kids have blueprints which contain variations on the father and mother's features. Some of those variations turn out to be ever better, and some turn out to be worse.

  In this way, gradually the strongest, most attractive blueprints are chosen by the environment, while the weaker ones are destroyed or are unable to reproduce.

  Hope that makes sense.

  SNG
• 

  stillajwexelder

  SNG I am really enjoying these posts of yours thankyou
• 

  Golf

  I'm on supper break and watching golf, I'll catch you later, this is more important right now.
  
  Golf