Cells and entropy

When evolution is discussed, I get the impression from the proponents that the current model of evolution is already perfect and there are zero conceptual problems. This is unique to science. If that is true, that means there is no need to fund any additional evolutionary related studies, since it is already perfect, as is. There is nothing more to be done, with continued funding more like a gravy train.

Another thing I notice is the only people putting things on the table for discussion are those who do not believe in the theoretical perfection of evolution as written in the bible of evolution. The proponents of evolution act as critics, trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas. It is always appeal to emotion or lumping all ideas into a version of creationism, which is erroneous and irrational. There is no other area in science that circles the wagons in this way. This behavior told me, there was something wrong and that the perfection deluison needed to be challenged. Enough nagging.

One of the unwritten assumptions of statistics is there is sufficient energy to achieve full randomization. If we fully shuffle a new deck of cards, each hand has given odds. But say I cut a new deck of cards once (not enough energy for full randomization), the odds are totally different. If someone played cards and only wanted to cut the deck once between hands, and not fully shuffle the deck, they could cheat and/or alter the apparent odds.

The DNA does not fully randomize each shuffle. It is well documented that certain areas of the DNA change faster than others. The dice are loaded to some extedn. The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one said the theory was perfect.

What are you talking about with regard to randomization? You are refuting a strawman, as usual.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is good that you can see that evolution is not perfect. What areas of evolution need work and could new insight inot these areas help the current imperfect theory? Once you can see the problems, solutions are less threatening.

If there was sufficient energy for entropy, all the genes along any DNA would have equal likelihood for change. If there is not sufficient energy for that much entropy on the DNA, then not all genes will change at the same rate. This is observed. There is a level of order and direction (conserved) plus a layer of random change.

Where the conceptual problem lies is connected to a lack of a normalized standard. Say we had a deck of cards, if we fully shuffle the deck, each hand has certain odds. If we poorly shuffle the same deck, so there is less entropy, the odds will change for each hand. I place these side by side by normalizing to the full shuffle.

With evolution, rather than normalize these two scenarios to the fully shuffled deck, what we do in evolution is look at the partially shuffled DNA deck (areas change faster) as a separate phenomena, that is fully shuffled in its own way. This can work in terms of results. However, we are not comparing this to the standard of full randomization. By treating this as a separate phenomena, without normalization, it becomes defined by the odds of full randomization. You can't see order if you avoid normalization. I see only partial randomization in evolution with better odds than normalized random. There is a degree of order if you normalize. it is just a question of explaining how.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No theory is perfect and beyond tweaking. Like Newton's Laws of Motion, we now know they are not perfect, as they do not take into account quantum effects, but they are still used all the time, since on most scales for most purposes it works just fine.

Your strawman seems to be a misunderstanding whereby you assume that only perfectly random mutations everywhere along the genome is necessary to generate variation. Mutations are more or less random, which is all that is necessary. The point is that mutations are imperfectly controlled. They are not directed to any evolutionary goal other than preservation of core biological functions.

 

Then you have an incorrect impression. The science of evolution has progressed over the years and will continue to do so through research.

?? There is no "theoretical perfection" in evolution. There is no "perfect" to strive for. Evolution as a system merely aims for "good enough."

Quite true for a number of reasons. Telomere erosion, for example, means that the ends of each strand of DNA erode away with time.

There is plenty of energy for "full randomization" - but a great many mechanisms to prevent it. (Which is fortunate; we wouldn't be here if our DNA were "fully randomized", either during meiosis or over a longer time period.)

 

Again, we circle the wagons, because evolution is perfect, since nobody can think of any conceptual problems. It is all about memory of the evolutionary dogma with one not allowed to think under risk of blaspheme. This is why religion smells evolution as being a competing religion and goes after it. Religion does not go after other areas of objective science that can be objective to its limitations.

Maybe the fear within the evolutionary community is why point out areas of weakness to the enemy. It is better to pretend the castle walls are too strong to attack. But you have it backwards, it is this irrational defense that is not fooling anyone. Honesty and objectivity is all that is required to make peace.

 

Oh come now, give me an alternatively theory that better fits the evidence and I believe it, there is nothing different from evolution than from the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun, all of those are theories as well.

Can't think of any, give me some.

This is an ironic statement coming from a theist.

 

I'm just looking for some explanation for the fact that people like you don't seem to be able to comprehend even the basics of it.

You can obviously read and write, add numbers and tie your shoes. So what is the problem?

You have it backwards and creationist framed, as always. Perfection is not even an issue. Theories are not perfect or imperfect - they are useful and reliable and explanatory, or not.

It's not that we think that nobody can, possibly, think of any "conceptual problems" with "evolution" (the theory or the observed reality?). It's that nobody has, yet, established the significance or reality of any.

That doesn't make the theory "perfect", it makes it the current, well-established theory. It has been tested very, very thoroughly. It has been employed universally, with excellent and occasionally dramatic results, and no failures. So far, so good.

Religion has "gone after" every single branch, field, area, and discipline of objective science.

 

Saying that ten times will not make it so.

Religion smells evolution as a threat because evolution contradicts religious dogma.

They used to. They imprisoned Galileo and executed Bruno partly because they professed a belief that the world was round and orbited the sun like every other planet.

After, say, the first Mercury mission, it became impossible to maintain that stance; they would have been laughed off the world stage. So they gave up.

Religion has taken other positions they've had to back down on - blacks can't marry whites, people shouldn't fly ("if we were meant to fly God would have given us wings!") etc etc. They will eventually back down from their opposition to evolution, as they have on other topics. Heck, even the last Pope accepted evolution.

It would indeed be refreshing to see religions start to practice that.

 

Look, we can try again:

There is no bible of evolution.

No one who comprehends evolution believes in the "theoretical perfection" of it, or anything like it. It's science.

And here is the kind of garbage you are "putting on the table".

That's a written assumption, whenever it is made. It's called "independence" of events. You don't need it, to do statistics - people do statistical analysis of dependent or correlated events all the time. Routinely.

 

If every scientist were in one accord with this, you would have a strong case
for implimenting these restrictions.

jan.

 

I brought up the point that evolution is not perfect. This is nothing personal, just the nature of science theory as it evolves. That means there has to be at least some conceptual or practical problems, anomalies, etc., Yet nobody on the proponent side will dare bring up any specifics out of fear of being accused of blasphame and then given a theist label as the wagons circle; banishment by the goon squad. I have not seem one example, by those in the know out of fear of religious persecution.

If you look at other areas of science, such as cosmology, there are main theories, like big bang, which work well. But problems and anomalies are not swept under the rug out of fear of excommunication. It is OK to propose another theory since the phycista are all trying to be objective to the nature of theory. But evolution is different in that there is genuine fear that the evolutionary goon squad will assisinate your character if you dare say anything but yes dear.

Look at all my posts. Beyond challenging perfection, I have attempted to provide alternate mechanisms like an entropy boundary and an energy balance. This is not religion. But the goon squads assume, since this is not in the memory evolutionary bible, it has to be religion. That approach for a open discusssion is more tactical than rational, so I ignore the goon squads and fight back. Eventually they convince the staff, that theology, like entropy and energy do not belong in a science forum. The goon squads need to diversify their education to include basic physics and physical chemistry.

Selective Advantage:

What I would like to do is talk about selective or natural advantage. I have to admit, this is a good theory, because it is simple and has many applications. What is also good about this theory is it does not require full understanding of the chemical mechanisms of evolution to be useful. This flexibility allowed thistheory to be vuseful even before we knew anything about DNA. Knowledge of DNA was not even needed when selective advantage appeared; black box was good enough. Back in the day, one could have said what we now call genes was done with minuture squirrels. The theory of selective advantage would still work; better little squirrels will persist. Maybe I can see why adding water to the analysis is not needed, even if this is a more refined mechanisms; squirrels can work.

At this time I would to expand upon the theory selective advantage by showing some unique situations allow this theory to fluff. With humans there are some people who love the hot weather and summer. There are others peopl ewho love the cold and the winter. What that means, if this group were living in a place of four seasons, iover the process of a year, one group will have selective advantage in the summer and the other group will have selective advantage in the winter. The environment, in the case the changing of the season, will determine who will have the advantage at any given time of yea. Evolution may go two paths depending how busy the couples get different times of the year. Daytime and nocturnal critters each have selective advantage part of the day.

Say we add the brain as a wild card varaible to the above. Instead of just going with the ebb and flow of individual selective advantage, as the seasons change, let use use the brain. If I liked the cold, but was living in Florida, I would have selective disadvantage, since my body is always too hot. But if I was smart, I would sense by strengths and weakness and migrate to where the weather is colder. Using the same genes and a little brain power, I can migrate into selective advantage.

I like the idea that the migration of the first pre-humans out of Africa, was in response to needing to find a place that offered selective advantage. The other half of split in the tree, who would stay put, had selective advantage at that place. The pre-human group needed to find its advantage, which was much further north.

There is also another layer to selective advantage, besides using the brain to migrate where the weather suits your clothes. An animal can gain selective advantage by using the brain to alter the environment so that the altered environment can give them a selective advantage. The beaver builds dams that cause flooding. Animals that are good hunter, but who can't swim, will now have a selective disadantage; overnight.

Humans are the best example of changing the environment to create selective advantage. The final result may not be natural selection, but it will be still be selective advantage. Say I like the cold, but live in a hot place. I can use AC to keep by house super cold. Now, even though I am in the land of heat lovers, living in a warm place, in my cold house, I can have selective advantage.

 

To Wellwisher:

Your posts contain several misunderstandings or “false assumptions /presumptions.” For example:
Your post 256 states:

(1) {The start} “When evolution is discussed, I get the impression from the proponents that the current model of evolution is already perfect and there are zero conceptual problems. This is unique to science …”

(2) “The proponents of evolution act as critics, {of those challenging ToE} trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas. It is always appeal to emotion or lumping all ideas into a version of creationism …”

(3) “The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution. …”

Replies:
(1) No one well versed in the ToE would claim it is perfected. The ToE has a long history of being modified and even of long accepted frauds being exposed. That continues today. For example, on TV a few days ago there was story about a new Dinosaur Museum and some modifications to prior beliefs made possible by more recent fossil finds. Only ones I remember now had to do with how the “hands” were oriented on the arms and some details about the stance of some. I am old enough to remember when only a few were suggesting that the birds evolved from dinosaurs, but now that is widely accepted. Like the Theory of Gravity, there is little likely hood any revision that refute older general beliefs will emerge, but both theories are still being discussed and refined.

(2) Totally false. It is the “proponents of ToE” that are changing it with usually only minor modifications. Your (2) is based on your false (1) impression. You need to read more about the ToE to avoid making these false presumptions. The ToE has been changing since the start precisely because field research and DNA comparative studies have been discovering new facts.

(3) No one well versed in the ToE would dream of postulating your “full randomization” is needed by the ToE. We know many parts of the DNA re much more stable than others – rarely have copy errors, etc. Furthermore, many microorganisms are known to have sections of their DNA which have evolved to be quite likely to change, as that makes for more diversity in the next generation and permits some to resist man’s antibiotics, etc. – a real survival aid, from their POV, has been selected for. Only YOU in what seems to be great ignorance seem to think there is something special or required about “full randomization”

Post 273 repeats many of these errors, but does have a reasonable discussion of “selective advantage” but you also say:

(1) “I have attempted to provide alternate mechanisms like an entropy boundary and an energy balance."
Reply: Can you tell where and how this blocks evolution of is in conflict with the ToE? I.e. how it differs from the ToE?

Certainly, and more as physic than the ToE, energy is required to maintain anything separated from the environment in a non-equilibrium relationship with that environment. I.e. all life forms do at least part of the time need to import energy (and BTW, get rid of waste by-products produced as they use this energy.)

What more than that is part of your different theory? I suspect your false belief that “full randomization” is somehow required for a correct theory may be your theory’s starting point as at times you have, especially with poorly shuffled cards analogy, note that achieving “full randomization” may require more energy than is available – That could be, but so what as “full randomization” is not required by the conventional ToE, and in fact many examples are known where “full randomization” has been selected against – For example the specialized for rapid mutation sections of DNA in some microorganisms.

(2) “I like the idea that the migration of the first pre-humans out of Africa, was in response to needing to find a place that offered selective advantage. … The pre-human group needed to find its advantage, which was much further north. …”

Reply:This strongly hints that “purpose” instead of “chance variations and then selection” has a role to play, which in this case is obviously preposterous, given the total ignorance about average temperature vs. latitude existing in the “pre-humans.” I.e. they did NOT try to find “their nitch”, an environment which gave them an advantage.

Those that on average died further north than where they were born, slowly over thousand of generations were selected for different genetic characteristics than those that by chance drifted southward on average to die. Characteristic in the northern gene pool such as lighter color skin that allowed the weaker sun to make the vitamin D they needed, etc. were favored and those in the gene pool moving south gained more skin pigmentation to protect better against the UV and skin cancer, etc. None of these very ignorant “pre-humans” was finding their more naturally advantaged place. THERE IS NO PLAN OR INTENTION TO EVOLUTION. NO OBJECTIVES. NO GOALS.

Reading your post I (and many others) get the impression you are very false in your claims about wanting to be more scientific. You do a good job of hiding your anti-ToE agenda, but in sections like these suggesting purpose play a role (or other creationist ideas , such as God had a plan / a design in mind, etc.) do occasionally “slip out” despite your best efforts to hid your agenda.

 

And yet evolutionary scientists have very public arguments over details of evolution. Google "punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism" for an example, with people like Gould and Dawkins arguing quite publicly. Neither has, in your words, been "assassinated" or "excommunicated" - nor has either one said "yes dear."

So I fear your premise fails in the real world.

If "loving hot weather" meant "reproduced more successfully in hot weather" then yes, they would have a competitive advantage in hot weather. (Of course, in most climates on earth, a group that can tolerate BOTH will outcompete a group that can tolerate one or the other.)

Agreed. Intelligence (and later technology) can help people deal with the environments they are in and/or alter them to make them more survivable.

Yes, you can alter your environment to ensure you survive and pass on your genes. Evolutionarily this led to development of our brains, since groups that could do this well (make better clothing etc) did better that groups that could not.

 

I bet that means, it is pretentious of scientific men to remove God from creation, - Big Chiller's somewhat dishonestly hidden assertion - not clearly stated.

It is much like Wellwishers' repeated postings about how "full randomness" is never achieved in evolution so in DNA duplications, like hands dealt from a poorly shuffled deck of cards, (his often used analogy) there is a non-random effect operating - making part of the DNA changes non-random.*
This too is an unstated and dishonest hidden attempt to open a path for non-random guidance by some greater power.

Both Big Chiller and Wellwisher are intelligent and know there is no evidence supporting a "God creation" or "Greater power guiding" POV and "tons of evidence," in several unrelated fields, supporting ToE, so they avoid clearly stating their hidden beliefs, while attacking the only plausible theory, the ToE.
------------
* I.e. God or some great power has "stacked the deck" so while evolution has much of the story correct, it is not the full story. - I.e. Wellwisher has FAITH, but no evidence that: Evolution from single cells is not "fully random" - Evolution has a "sense of direction" - It had no choice but to produce man, etc.

By edit after this later post, 280, of Wellwisher's:

Thanks for finally becoming honest* that you have FAITH that evolution has a sense of direction.**
-------
* (after I exposed your purpose in my post above - I.e. why you were going on and on in many posts about "lack of full randomization")

** Now a little more honesty, please:
From where do the specified directions come? God? ETs? or what?

 

'Religion' does not 'go after' evolution. I dare say your religion may go after evolution but it is a bit presumptious to assume your religion is all religion.

The majority of christian churches for instance do not have a problem with evolution.

You posts are simply fraught with misconceptions and outright falshoods.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I invented an extension of statistics that can include systems that lack the full energy needed for randomization. The goal was to help expand the current thinking of random systems into a broader base model.

For example, a six sided dice has 1 to 6 odds for each side to appear. Say I loaded that dice. The loading will make it impossible to achieve the same dice odds as before, since you can't overcome the load using energy/entropy (roll faster) to achieve the full unloaded dice randomization. Certain sides will continue to appear more often, while others will hardly ever appear. The DNA behaves like it is loaded. The example of certain bacteria loading the DNA dice so certain sides appear more often, while there are others sides that hardly ever make mistakes.

This change is more about a conceptual POV. If you look at the entire phenonena, like the dual state dice above, there are nonloaded and loaded situations as part of the width of the model. The new model take into consideration both states by normalizing to full randomization. If we just focus on just the loaded dice, as a separate phenonena, without comparing to unloaded dice, we can still model the loaded as being random in its own unique way. This still get good results. Technically, this is oversimplified, since the model does not include the entire dice effect.

Bacteria have their DNA dice loaded, so certain aspects of the DNA will more easily change for the needs of evolution (lucky 7) while others are highly conserved (snake eyes). This does not refute evolution, but implies there is a partial sense of direction using the broader concept of both insufficient and/or sufficient energy to achieve full randomization on the DNA.


On a different note, the theory of selective advantage or natural selection is also a special case of a broader theory. The cell expends a lot of energy to segregate cations at the cellular membrane. This reduces the entropy at the membrane relative to a uniform solution of cations. Selective advantage and the induced membrane boundary both move in same direction with respect to entropy.

If you look at selective advantage, it lowers the degrees of freedom (lowers the entropy) within theorerical diversity that is created by the DNA in favor of a narrowed data set. In other words, natural selection moves in the same direction as the boundary induction within cells. The egg at the boundary is more fundamental than the selective advantage chicken.

This broader principle of lowering entropy, due to the energy intensive boundary induction also goes into the cell lowering the entropy on the DNA; it will load the dice, so there will not be sufficient energy in the cell for full DNA randomization. The membrane entropy induction goes outward and inward. The first tool will make this second tool easier to model. It is still evolution but 2.0, where the simplified assumptions get expanded into into lower entropy models (combine diversity into higher order).

 

As long as you confine your comments to vague generalities and personal judgments without basis, you can conceal the fact that you don't understand evolutionary theory. But you cannot contribute to a discussion about it.

When you attempt specific complaints or actual argument, as you have in the past, you reveal that.

It would been easier to take a basic stats course. What you have invented is long established routine, and used every day by evolutionary theorists as well as many other researchers in biological fields.

You have spammed this forum with garbage straight from creationist websites, goofy presumptions, and insulting assertions concerning people and theories you know less than nothing about. That's about it.

The problems you attempt to fix do not exist. You don't know what you are talking about. OK?