Denial of evolution IV

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Oct 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I think I figured out the unsettling paradox of evolutionary theory, which others, besides myself, have sensed. On the one hand, there is an orderiong principle called natural selection. This also a random principle based on the DNA that makes evolution also dependent on chance.

    The way to see how this paradox works, is with an example. Let us look back at the history of WWII, from 1920-1945. Using 20/20 hindsight we can create a logical and reasonable sense of perspective, that can explain that sequence of events. But on the other hand, nobody in 1920, looking into the future, could have predicted the same level of certainty as the 20/20 hindsight.

    With 20/20 hindsight, the mind will try to create a determinsitic explanation for those series of events; sense of order. But when we looked into the future, there is far more uncertainty, with the future seeming better defined by chance events.

    Evolution used the same thinking method, with natural selection the 20/20 hindsight using historical fossil data. The random aspect of evolution uses the future chance POV. This same method was also done by others with concepts such as fate, destiny and determinism, which by looking at the past, with 20/20 hindsight we can find a sense of causual order. The critics to these POVs, will tend to fixate on the the uncertainty of the future and say the opposite is true.

    Evolution fell into that same mental trap. Free energy is different since it works in the 20/20 hindsight past, as well as with the future without the mental trap paradox. Good theory should be able to make predictions and not have to wait for 20/20 hindsight so it appears to fit a theory.

    Evolution, as is, only knows we can fit the future to the 20/20 hindsight curve, but have to wait until there is 20/20 hindsight. But until there we can only see random and chance for that future.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Gobbledygook. Word salad.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is correct but misapplied.
    It is not so much 1980 vs. 1920 difference as it is difference in confirmed information and guesses or predictions.

    In the case of evolution there were many guesses about what was at the time not known. (sort of the 1920s position). For example, a guess that someday dinosaurs with feathers would be found. Many details in evolution were not known, but the overall ideas were well understood. This allows people to speculate about what would be found.

    I.e. the impressive thing is that as time progresses and more (literally 10s of thousands now) of independent observations in many different fields are made, never does one developed that disproves the theory. (It only takes "one ugly fact" to destroy any theory.)

    If evolution were false, finding one "ugly fact" in tens of thousands of observations would be very easy. For example finding a fossilized bird's bones in a layer of UNDISTURBED sedimentary rock at lower level than the fossilized dinosaur bones would disprove a major part of evolution, if not all of it.

    Based on the fact that whales are mammals and other details about their biology, it was predicted a long time ago that they evolved from a large land animal, and not too long ago on evolutionary time scales. As more fossils were found, every one of the intermediate fossil forms have now been found. Go to this old post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2718741&postcount=478 or to it journal source at: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ to see some more discussion.

    " Whales, which evolved from four legged land animals not too long ago by evolutionary time scales, have left a complete set of fossil remains of all their transition steps to creatures that can only live in the oceans.


    First the stage with large and strong hind legs more important for swimming than the tail. Probably an amphibian, which could still walk on land;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Then more recent fossils of evolving whales have greatly reduced leg bones, but they are still an attached part of the main skeleton;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This fossil was not complete (arms and shoulder bones were missing - possibly eaten by a shark - perhaps even why this small guy, a baby, died.)

    And finally just tiny useless calcium "leg bone" deposits (of the modern whale) that are just loosely floating inside the flesh, which is still red meat of its land animal ancestor, not fish-like flesh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Come back in some what more than 10,000 years and these tiny useless calcium deposits will be gone, if whales have not become extinct.

    Evolution is a still continuing and continuous process.* - Each generation is very much like the parents, but not exactly like the parents. "
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    An interesting observation has to do with Americans being, on the average, ten pounds heavier since the early 1990's.

    Say we were not aware of all the marketing and liberal programming that helped create this extra weight, we might assume it was due to evolution. In other words, if we were collecting fossils and has had little else in terms of historical data, and we noticed that fossil changed, based on two carbon dates 1990 and 2010, indicating larger collective mass, we might assume evolution and genetics.

    But according to medical science, based on all the data, this is not natural selection but artificial selection.

    Don't get me wrong, I can see and appreciate gradual change in life over long periods of time. I was trying to show that without all the data, but only bits and pieces, there is no guarantee the explanation is 100% correct. We tend to conform all to the 20/20 hindsight theory of evolution. To suggest otherwise means you have to be a Creationists or one of those ID quacks. If I suggested, it was due to too much food and not genetic, I would be called a quack.

    To avoid this blindness, I my approach away from conformity to 20/20 hindsight methods, by using a two laws of science combined in the concept of Gibbs free energy. Even life has to conform to this.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    No, we wouldn't, because that would be dumb. Most mammals get fatter during times of plenty and thinner during times of scarcity. Prolonged plenty results in fatter organisms overall.

    Obesity is not preserved in skeletal fossils.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    You again miss the point due to 20/20 hindsight conformity. Like I said, you do not have all the data and may only notice slightly higher leg bone density between the two dates, implicit of more weight in the young. Again, I am not saying life did not evolve, just the explanation is based on a 20/20 hindsight template.

    One way to prove me wrong it to make a future prediction with existing evolutionary theory that we can verify in say ten years. We will use the 20/20 hindsight and extrapolate that to the future to get the same detail as the rest of the 20/20 hindsight. The model does not have that much utility.

    The analogy would be a model for gravity that cannot predict what the ball will do, after it is thrown. We need to wait until it lands and comes to a stops, than we can add it to the 20/20 hindsight pile and conform its explanation to all the rest using the same 20/20 hindsight.

    The current theory is sort of like an armchair quarterback, who is always right after the play is over. But ask him what he should do before the play begins and he is not as full of conviction. I thought evolution needed an upgrade to a model that allowed one to make a wider range of predictions like a quarterback.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Yes. And you would say to yourself "hmm, that looks just a lot like the change in the fossils of mastodons we see during years of good climate; the most reasonable explanation is that they are heavier because they have a lot of food."

    You could try that. But since evolution works via random mutation it would have no value. You cannot predict random events - although you can predict in general which random changes will survive in a new environment.

    You cannot predict it, because it is random. However you can make some very good guesses about overall odds, likely survival etc.

    Compare it to an expert poker player. They cannot predict what card will be drawn next, or indeed whether or not they win. But a good player can, to some degree, stack the odds in his favor by predicting what other players will do.
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The analogy to gambling also means there is an addictive element to this approach, based on a past jackpot, to the point where one begins to lose their rationality at the casino. If someone tries to intercede, the gambler will not be able to see their reasons since he is playing based on a feeling.

    I am not a gambler so I can't fully appreciate the feeling the theory must give those who are. I suppose putting a few dollars in the evolution slot machine and hitting jackpot much feel good enough to justify all those off days. I did think a sober approach would be useful, but to each their own.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope. Statisticians use random events all the time to come up with future likelihoods. Much of nuclear physics relies on understanding random events. So unless you are going to claim that nuclear physicists cannot be rational because they are so addicted to jackpots that they can't see straight, your analogy holds no water.

    (Indeed, thermodynamics is the ultimate in randomness - it is the attempt to express what happens when millions of random events sum to a net flow of energy. So if you are going to claim that physicists are addicted to gambling, people who go on about thermodynamics and entropy are even more so.)
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Randomness and probability is a useful tool, since it allows us to simplify a complex situation by averaging a wide range of events. But don't be fooled into thinking the simplification assumption needed by the tool, is now reality. The gambler does hot care if his lucky rabbits foot is irrationals, as long as the results work out.
     
  14. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    We don't really know for sure what happened during the Cambrian explosion, but I suspect it had to do with the evolution of evolvability. Something like the hox genes made possible a modular approach to body design. In this case mutations would not affect something small but would affect how certain modules were assembled, thus resulting in a new creature that was still fully functional.
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The Cambrian explosion could be classed as the 'original' diversification. It marked the transition from single cell body plans to multicellular body plans. Consequently, a huge number of niches opened rather suddenly that had been previously unavailable. And what does modern history teaches occurs when that happens..?

    And there are some markers of a mass extinction event prior to the cambrian explosion.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Tell her to make me a CAMBRIAN shirt
    Parsley, sage rosemary and TIME



    Anyway like I was saying the Cambrian explosion is just a really great subject for the Denialists because they seem to think there is some formulaic process that Natural Selection skirted, jumping its tracks, leaving only the the silver tongued Devils in lab coats to invent spin to cover their sordid little schemes of defrauding public intelligence and polluting the Library of Babel.

    Uh...anyway, it was quite refreshing for me to notice that one of the publications cited above for supposedly advancing the truth about science teachers going AWOL from Darwin's navy - Science Daily, a matter o' fact - they have some good relevant links to this subject. Here is an anecdote:


    so is this the kind of diabolical lie that has been spun to advance the notion that evolution is monotonic, if not flat, with time?

    Discuss.
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The explanations for the Cambric explosion have emotional appeal. Let me add another to show how easy it is. Consider the hive of bees or the army of ants, which have family genetics in common, but also differentiations, allowing them to act as a larger group entity, composed on many units. Say we had mother stem critters, with a wide range of genetic diversity in her offspring. They become more of ab\n eco-system team, instead of different critters in competition, allowing more room for natural selection. Emotional appeal is easy to create with evolutionary theory.

    This is why free energy is important. Chemical reactions, such as photosyntheis are temperature dependent. As such, one could predict thatg there would be fluctuations in O2 by the temperature profile associated with the geological change. One might even infer the state of the art of the carbon fixation reactions by O2 profile as a function of temp. Other biochemical reactions would also be temperature dependent.

    Because free energy G = H -TS, colder would mean less TS or less entropy contribution. One would need a warm up before the TS entropy diversity expands into the Cambric explosion.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One of the logical inconsistencies in science that led me to question evolution has to do with the natural human instincts, as set forth by atheism and science. The choices are inconistent with natural selection but are consistent with genetics.

    If you assume we evolved from the apes, we should be genetically close which we are. However, these same behavior, when copied by humans require too much social and medical prostheis to be consistent with natural selection. In nature, there is no social safety net or corner pharmacy to get medications to compensate. Natural selection means efficiency that is very cheap and free.

    If apes behave a given way, this is part of evolution and natural selection for the ape, since it does not require external support to compensate for disease and other factors so it can be propped up. If humans copy this behavior, many medical and social costs appear that need science to compensate. This means this is not natural selection, since it is not cheap. Therefore the choices of science are not natural human instinct as define by natural selection. However, there is a genetic link but these links depart from the requirements of natural selection for humans.

    The genetics are assumed to be random and will create mutations as well as progressive advancements. Naturtal selection weeds this to define natural selection, which require minimal artificial additives. What science defines as natural human instincts, sides with a retro genetic mutation associated with the genetics of the ape, which can not meet the requirements of natural selection as applied to humans; no prosthesis needed.

    The fact science would not apply evolution and natural selection properly made me assume they thought it could be ignored for a genetic order theory; ape to human was a straight line.
     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What the hell does that mean?
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The videos were well chosen, clear, and they nail the quintessential fallacies of Creationism. They will leave the Denialist with a pile of incontrovertible facts representative of those you have been quick to point out, on this and related threads.
    The recent publication of geologic and atmospheric changes, and its chaotic effect on the primordial biosphere was given to you as an example of the dangers of oversimplifying, relying on one or two elementary concepts to explain a billion year eon of unfathomably complex interactions, leading up to the rapid diversification in the Cambrian.

    You continue to assert entropy without showing a closed system. This is fundamentally flawed, and pseudoscience at best. You might as well go ahead and declare the Earth 6,000 years old. At least that claim has a purported basis.

    You fail to address the initial conditions that precipitated the Cambrian: the end of the era of the reducing atmosphere, and the end of the oxygenated atmosphere-building era, which placed pressure on the fundamental apparatus of respiration. You also are not addressing the advent of sexual reproduction, an aspect of evolution that involves a new way to mix traits genetically as opposed to the oversimplified pseudo-entropy model of you keep referring to. Nor do you address the residual effect, that sexual trait-sharing requires a tendency for creatures to cooperate, leading to almost every conceivable configuration of clusters and colonies, with new functional needs for anchoring to the sea bed for brooding and feeding, then becoming motile for gene exchange with remote colonies. You also do not address that evolution is the process of filling niches. The number of niches that opened in the Cambrian was huge. You miss this altogether.


    Perhaps you are not aware that species may evolve backwards if that is the pressure placed on them. Genetics does not produce advancements. You are muddying the concept, which is Natural Selection. It is an advancement to evolve adaptations to pressure, regardless of a person’s idea of what advancement means.

    Which humans, and which behavior do you mean? Humans evolved the ability to track their prey, which required the heightened sentience of space and time, and the ability to make inferences, that we call human intelligence. This single innovation gives you the ability to argue against the cause of your capacity to argue. And you are using it to argue against the process of making correct inferences. Does that make you less evolved? No, not in a genetic sense, obviously, just in another sense, that you are refusing what has been revealed to you.

    This became almost unparseable for me, beginning with the digression, something about a drug store, somehow connecting apes to humans. As for your assumptions, what I see is a kind of tunnel vision that is often call confirmation bias. You are latched on to your ideas of entropy so firmly that you have failed to notice how it colors your interpretation of the science that is on clear display all around you. You seem to have decided that it’s all wrong because it doesn’t address entropy, for example. But of course that has nothing to do with Evolution. You may feel very strongly that it does, but it is a false belief, on par with superstition. The world seemed flat to ancient people but has been proved round. Your flat word of Evolution Science is a survey done through the lens of entropy. Just over the hill, beyond your point of view, is a thriving throng of enthusiastic and industrious scientists who live on the round Earth of formal Science, replete with the lush fields and complex jungles of endeavor, not the least of which is Evolution.

    All you need to do is take off the blinders. I recommend the videos Arioch posted.

    If you need additional information to confirm that your entropy model is incorrect, don’t hesitate to ask. You probably are not receptive to understanding why it is fallacy, so considerate it a standing offer.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    What is the Cambric explosion? Do you mean Cambrian?

    In what way?

    Please explain this point in detail. What is G, exactly? What is H? what are T and S?

    Why does colder mean less entropy contribution? Contribution to what?

    What is entropy diversity?

    How can entropy diversity expand into the Cambric explosion?

    Which "same behavior"? Same as what? What are you talking about?

    What do medical prostheses have to do with this?

    To compensation for what?

    Are you saying that human beings need to be "propped up" in a way that animals don't? What kind of "external support" are you talking about. Explain.

    Which behaviour? Compensate for what?

    So you're saying that natural selection is cheap. In what way? Explain.

    How can science make choices? Explain.

    A genetic link between what and what else?

    How, exactly, do these links depart from the "requirements of natural selection"? For that matter, what are the requirements of natural selection as you understand them. Explain.

    Who assumes that genetics are random?

    How do genetics create mutations?

    How can natural selection define itself?

    Explain.

    What does science define as natural human instincts?

    How does that side with a genetic mutation?

    How, exactly, is that associated with the genetics of the ape?

    What does not meet the requirements of natural selection?

    What are the requirements of natural selection, as you understand them?

    Why do you think a prosthesis would be needed? What kind of prosthesis?

    Explain.

    So you're saying you can ignore science for a "genetic order theory"?

    What is a genetic order theory?

    In what way was ape to human "a straight line"?

    How does science not apply evolution and natural selection properly?

    Explain.

    I look forward to your detailed answers explaining your post.
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me explain the free energy equation so it makes more sense. I use it so much it seems self evident to me. But it is confusing when this is new.

    The equation for Gibbs free energy is G = H - TS. where G is the Gibbs free energy, H is the enthalpy , T is temperature and S is entropy.

    Let me begin with H or enthalpy. Enthalpy is a measure of the energy within a system. For example, the enthalpy in gasoline would be the energy we can get out of it when we burn it. However, enthalpy is more than combustion energy. It can also be the energy with secondary bonding that has not yet formed. It can be potential energy within steric hindrance such as DNA trying to uncoil but inhibited until an enzyme is present. Life is made of carbon and nitrogen compounds most of with can be burnt, so life is full of enthalpy. When a cell builds membrane it is causing enthalpy to increase. Growth tends to accumulate enthalpy, which is a condition of life. Metabolism tends to lower enthalpy burning it as fuel.

    In the free energy equation, if the cell is storing energy the enthalpy is increasing so the H becomes plus. If enthalpy is decreasing, such as burning food via metabolism the enthalpy is negative since is decreases. The cell builds enthalpy when it stores energy and also lowers when it metabolizes. Some parts of the cell are designed for +H and others for -H.

    Entropy is harder to explain since entropy is less tangible than enthalpy. The best explanation I could come up with is degrees of freedom. Random processes tend to increase entropy, since they add new degrees of freedom to an otherwise routine system. Entropy is often a measure of inefficiencies in machines that create lost or irretrievable energy. Again there are additional degrees of freedom beyond the strict requirements of the efficient work cycle. Entropy is also connected to the information needed to define a system. Higher entropy needs more information due to more degrees of freedom in the system, including random events.

    The entropy of the universe tends to increase or become more positive. This is why there is a minus sign before TS in the Gibbs free energy equation. The Gibbs free energy, like any energy, will tend decrease naturally. The minus sign makes sure the G goes down when S increases naturally.

    The temperature T, which is the multiplier of entropy tells us that entropy tends to increase with temperature. The hotter it is, the more energetic things tend to become, so there is more likelihood for entropy to increase or gain extra degrees of freedom. If we heat a gas, it expands so there is more degrees of freedom for the entropy; more room to free style. Often heating also means expansion allowing more room for change.

    The total equation G = H - TS says many things that are possible in terms of spontaneous reactions, as long as G decreases (free energy lowers). This can occur with many combinations of H -TS, as long as this term is negative.

    For example, if we add a protein to water, instead of spreading out and doing a random hula dance to maximize entropy or degrees of freedom, the H or enthalpy of hydrogen bonding and Van der Waals bonding is too strong. The result is the protein lowering enthalpy in the bonding and, entropy relative to spread out, and forming a ball with a specific surface and core.

    The G = H -TS equation has H decreasing as the free energy is lowered in water. The S is decreasing into order losing degrees of freedom. The creates a double minus in the equation ( -T (-S) ) which makes the equation H + TS. This keeps the free energy higher, since there is now potential energy in entropy potential. Entropy potential is potential to increase entropy given the chance. The enzyme has potential to add more degrees of freedom via the remaining free energy. This is used in catalytic reactions.

    An analogy is stuffing a spring into a bag. The spring wants to increase degrees of freedom and spread out. But the stuffing into the bag lowers entropy into a type of order. We have entropy potential or potential to increase the degrees of freedom. We can use that to scare people. We sort of slanted the free energy G, on the TS side of the equation and will use it later. All we need is an ATP trigger that will cause the bag to open up. This change of free energy can be used to increase enthalpy (push a reactant up an activation energy hump).

    The free energy analysis is very flexible and can also be applied to evolution. It can tell us qualitatively what is possible and what is not and what is likely. It is hard to always create a closed system, but this can be overcome by layering several semi-open systems. The enzyme above is also a function of the free energy in the bulk water. The bulk water is another layer one would add to the enzyme layer to make sure we use all the available free energy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page