Random mutation, please, what is an example today in everyday circumstances?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You see, the theory of evolution has been with us over what, a hundred years already, and scholars don't seem to be determined to set up a definite terminology proper to the theory of evolution....

Absolute nonsense. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Like theories in other areas of science, it's terms are very precisely defined and unambiguous amongst evolutionary scientists. I don't know any links off the top of my head, but it should be an easy matter to find detailed information on the internet from a reliable academic source. In fact, if you're interested in precise terminology you should go "old school" and find a college-level evolution textbook as a first step rather than muck around on the internet.

[James R]

Please, I said I have not found a reference work on evolution like a glossary, a dictionary, an encyclopedia.

Did you try the simple google searches I suggested?

A biology dictionary is not exactly the same as a evolution dictionary.

Evolution is part of biology. Any biology dictionary will include definitions of terms used in evolution.

You see, the theory of evolution has been with us over what, a hundred years already, and scholars don't seem to be determined to set up a definite terminology proper to the theory of evolution...

But you wouldn't know, would you, because you haven't yet looked at any dictionaries or other references.

[Pachomius]

As I said earlier, I put this thread in the Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology board, because I thought that it is connected with cosmology.

My interest is really philosophical, and looking back I said that:

I like to ask the science experts here what is an example of a situation of random mutation today in everyday circumstances.

So, is the concept of random mutation in the theory of evolution a kind of generic idea that can be applied to say entities that are not life forms represented by species?

Consider that there are all kinds of man-made chairs and wheeled transport vehicles.

Is there an applicability of the concept of random mutation for an explanation to the appearance of all kinds of chairs made by man in contemporary history, and also wheeled transport vehicles?



Pachomius

[Hercules Rockefeller]

So, is the concept of random mutation in the theory of evolution a kind of generic idea that can be applied to say entities that are not life forms represented by species?

I would say yes. I suppose the broad concepts of random alteration and "survival of the fittest" can be applied to the development of many inanimate objects over time.

My interest is really philosophical....

Okay, I can see this now, so I'm moving this thread to a more appropriate forum.

[Oli]

Consider that there are all kinds of man-made chairs and wheeled transport vehicles.
Is there an applicability of the concept of random mutation for an explanation to the appearance of all kinds of chairs made by man in contemporary history, and also wheeled transport vehicles?
Pachomius

Yes of course there is:
Trial and error.
Empiricism (as opposed to deliberate design - which was not possible for a long time).
Aesthetics.
Read this and learn.

[spidergoat]

So, is the concept of random mutation in the theory of evolution a kind of generic idea that can be applied to say entities that are not life forms represented by species?

No, not really.

On-line reference for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Dub_]

So, is the concept of random mutation in the theory of evolution a kind of generic idea that can be applied to say entities that are not life forms represented by species?

Consider that there are all kinds of man-made chairs and wheeled transport vehicles.

Is there an applicability of the concept of random mutation for an explanation to the appearance of all kinds of chairs made by man in contemporary history, and also wheeled transport vehicles?

That's a good question. I would say that yes, it would be applicable in certain situations outside of strictly biology, but we'd have to be careful about the examples we chose.

For example, I would say that your example of the appearance of chairs would be an example of natural selection, but not random mutation. This is because while there is certainly order in the pattern of chairs that are successful and go on to become widely used and produced -- that is to say that "good" chairs will be favored and "poor" chairs will be disfavored -- the actually process of chair construction is anything but random, and thus would not represent a good example of random mutation.

A strikingly elegant description of these processes in the non biology domain is found in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene in Chapter 2, where he describes a particular theory of abiogenesis which happens to be fueled by mechanisms very similar (or even identical) to those that power evolution. The entire chapter is available free online as a book preview; see this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=go0...=PA254&pg=PA12
As Dawkins points out, "Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable" (p. 12).

[glaucon]

Well, Hercules didn't want this in B&G, and it clearly doesn't belong here either...

[Pachomius]

I read the sub-title of The Cesspool board, and it says: "unintelligent community."


If I may, what is an intelligent community, and what is intelligence, and who are the judges of intelligent thoughts?




Pachomius

[Pachomius]

What about any conscious intelligent beings of sub-atomic size seeing chairs, etc.?

As I said, I put this thread in the Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology board, because I thought that it is connected with cosmology.

My interest is really philosophical, and looking back I said that:

I like to ask the science experts here what is an example of a situation of random mutation today in everyday circumstances.

So, is the concept of random mutation in the theory of evolution a kind of generic idea that can be applied to say entities that are not life forms represented by species?

Consider that there are all kinds of man-made chairs and wheeled transport vehicles.

Is there an applicability of the concept of random mutation for an explanation to the appearance of all kinds of chairs made by man in contemporary history, and also wheeled transport vehicles?



Pachomius

That's a good question. I would say that yes, it would be applicable in certain situations outside of strictly biology, but we'd have to be careful about the examples we chose.

For example, I would say that your example of the appearance of chairs would be an example of natural selection, but not random mutation. This is because while there is certainly order in the pattern of chairs that are successful and go on to become widely used and produced -- that is to say that "good" chairs will be favored and "poor" chairs will be disfavored -- the actually process of chair construction is anything but random, and thus would not represent a good example of random mutation.

A strikingly elegant description of these processes in the non biology domain is found in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene in Chapter 2, where he describes a particular theory of abiogenesis which happens to be fueled by mechanisms very similar (or even identical) to those that power evolution. The entire chapter is available free online as a book preview, [etc.]

As Dawkins points out, "Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable" (p. 12).

You see, with random mutation in re theory of evolution, it is an explanation or part of an explanation for the origin of species, after the fact of species of course (because there has been no genuine strictly speaking account of how the first species came about, but with the advent of species then the theory of evolution or Darwin's Origin of Species seek to account for the rise of species from antecedent species), the proponents of the theory of evolution were not present when the very first species appeared from the first form of life in its most simplest stage i.e., before species came from it.

Now with chairs and wheeled transport vehicles invented and manufactured by man in their multiplicity and variety of forms, man has been already present to fellowmen inventors and manufacturers of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles; so man can say that random mutation is not exactly the right explanation or part of the explanation of the multiplicity and variety of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles.



Suppose there is an organism or a conscious and intelligent entity like man but only very very very small like a sub atomic particle which came much later than man, and it observes the variety of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles but it cannot see man or human beings who made chairs and wheeled transport vehicles...

Would this kind of a sub-atomic conscious intelligent entities not also come to the idea of random mutation to account for the existence in their multiplicity and variety of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles?




Pachomius

[Dub_]

Hi pachomonius,

It would be helpful if you could place text quoted from previous posts within a quote box. This is accomplished by encapsulating the text in [quote] tags (with a / preceding the word in the closing tag). As it is now, your posts are a little bit hard to follow without the clear demarcations.

I'm about to leave for a dinner date so I can't respond in full at the moment, but I'll try to when I get back. (Assuming I have anything to say .)

[spidergoat]

Would this kind of a sub-atomic conscious intelligent entities not also come to the idea of random mutation to account for the existence in their multiplicity and variety of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles?

Basically no. Designed things have different qualities than designoid things. Designoid is a term used by Dawkins to denote things that appear to be designed but in fact are not. Things that are designed have certain special qualities. Chairs do not gradually evolve from previous chairs. Humans are able to make leaps of intuition, so that when fiberglass was invented, suddenly we get radically different chairs than ever appeared before.

Evolved things are not able to make sudden and radical shifts in design, they cannot go backwards unless there is an environmental gradient of survival that leads them there. We can study any family of objects or animals and determine if they were designed or only designoid.

[Oli]

Basically no. -snip- Things that are designed have certain special qualities. Chairs do not gradually evolve from previous chairs.

Er, speaking (as someone who has been heavily involved in various design processes for at least 30 years: that's simply untrue.
Designs do evolve.

[Pachomius]

I mention some entities possessed of conscious intelligence like us humans but of very very very small size to the scale of a sub-atomic particle, which come very much later than us humans and cannot notice us humans still around with them, and we do not have notice of their existence.

But they see chairs and wheeled transport vehicles and tried to explain their origin, their multiplicity, and specially their variety.

I submit they could come to the idea of random mutation as understood by the proponents of the theory of evolution among us humans.

But they could also come to the idea that an intelligent entity much more intelligent by the nth power and much powerful by the nth power than themselves brought them about in ways and by means which really were used by this gigantic conscious intelligence and power.

And as they conclude by their intelligence to the existence of this gigantic conscious intelligent being maker of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles, they confess themselves to not be able to apprehend and comprehend what kinds of ways and means these were employed by this gigantic conscious intelligent being that fashioned the multiplicity and variety of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles.

Still however one of these sub-atomic particle of a being possessing conscious intelligence like use humans, this one sub-atomic particle of a conscious intelligence could come to the suspicion that the gigantic conscious intelligent being maker of charis and wheeled transport vehicles, it could be the whole bag of existence, bag and contents, and whatever outside of which bag and contents there is no other existing entity.

Such a whole bag of existence, bag and contents, that can really be the explanation for the appearance of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles as of themselves, the sub-atomic particle beings possessing in their limited way and extent also conscious intelligence.




Pachomius

[Oli]

I mention some entities possessed of conscious intelligence like us humans but of very very very small size to the scale of a sub-atomic particle, which come very much later than us humans and cannot notice us humans still around with them, and we do not have notice of their existence.

Nope, that's nonsense.
And the rest of your post is equal nonsense, but with the addition of being also largely incoherent.

[Pachomius]

[QUOTE=Dub_;2309821]Hi Pachomius,

It would be helpful if you could place text quoted from previous posts within a quote box. This is accomplished by encapsulating the text in

tags (with a / preceding the word in the closing tag). As it is now, your posts are a little bit hard to follow without the clear demarcations.

I'm about to leave for a dinner date so I can't respond in full at the moment, but I'll try to when I get back. (Assuming I have anything to say .)

Title of pm: Why I didn't because I couldn't yet then use the quote function.



I tried to but I still had not completed twenty posts which will then qualify me to use that feature.

So that was the way that I found to go around that restriction.


Glad to meet you and also Dennis here; but Dennis seems to have been discouraged from further posting in this forum.

And left, too bad.

I can't even send this pm to you, here's why:

To be able to send PMs your post count must be 20 or greater.

Your post count is 16 momentarily and you can send PMs to Staff only.

And you know what, I am already into post #35 with this present message.

I feel like some people are manipulating the software here to push out of this here forum, because they don't like me.


Being funny only, of course, not really being paranoid.



Pachomius

[spidergoat]

Er, speaking (as someone who has been heavily involved in various design processes for at least 30 years: that's simply untrue.
Designs do evolve.

But they don't have to. That's my point, designs aren't only based on previous designs, they can be entirely new. They can suddenly incorporate new features. The hand of the designer is evident in these things, while it is not evident in living things. This is a variation on the watchmaker argument, and evolution explains it.

[Oli]

But they don't have to. That's my point, designs aren't only based on previous designs, they can be entirely new. They can suddenly incorporate new features. The hand of the designer is evident in these things, while it is not evident in living things. This is a variation on the watchmaker argument, and evolution explains it.

Oh shit: I didn't see that. (The watchmaker argument).
I read it at face value - shoot me.
Yep, designs can (and do) come from nowhere, but the majority (my first guess - don't ask me to prove it) of things in use today are evolutions of pre-existing designs.
I thought it was a question about the philosophy of design.

And to prevent any misconception whatsoever: the above statements do not support or endorse the Watchmaker Argument, it's a design process argument.

And I missed this:

What about any conscious intelligent beings of sub-atomic size seeing chairs, etc.?

What about them?
They don't exist (as far as we know), and it's highly unlikely that they could.

Bugger, I think I'll just go to bed...

[Pachomius]

Oli says:

And I missed this:

“ What about any conscious intelligent beings of sub-atomic size seeing chairs, etc.? ”

What about them?
They don't exist (as far as we know), and it's highly unlikely that they could.

Well, of course you are knowing from as far as you know which is not far enough in terms of how much man is limited in knowing.

Meaning, you are talking from your own limit of knowing.

But the intrinsic possibility is there that there could be sub-atomic beings that can be conscious and intelligent, and who for being sub-atomic could miss seeing us humans, who compared to them are astronomically huge entities that we humans are to them.




Pachomius

[Oli]

Well, of course you are knowing from as far as you know which is not far enough in terms of how much man is limited in knowing.

Not quite true: what we already sets limits on what is possible.

But the intrinsic possibility is there that there could be sub-atomic beings that can be conscious and intelligent

Again, no.
What we know precludes that as a possibility*.

* Unless you want to talk about things like the 30-metre-long dragon in my back pocket also being "possible".