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

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Pachomius, Jul 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828

    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.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Did you try the simple google searches I suggested?

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

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



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Is there an applicability of the concept of random mutation to the kinds of chairs...

    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2009
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    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.


    Okay, I can see this now, so I'm moving this thread to a more appropriate forum.
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No, not really.

    On-line reference for evolution:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/
     
  10. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    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=go0e5sBRznYC&lpg=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).
     
  11. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Well, Hercules didn't want this in B&G, and it clearly doesn't belong here either...
     
  12. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Well, if I may, what is an intelligent community, and what is intelligence?

    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
     
  13. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    What about any conscious intelligent beings of sub-atomic size seeing chairs, etc.?

    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
     
  14. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    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
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  16. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.
     
  17. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Things will get emotional at this point of the thread, but notwithstanding...

    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
     
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Nope, that's nonsense.
    And the rest of your post is equal nonsense, but with the addition of being also largely incoherent.
     
  19. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Title of pm: Why I didn't because I couldn't yet then use the quote function.

     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  21. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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 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...
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2009
  22. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Oli says:


    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
     
  23. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Not quite true: what we already sets limits on what is possible.

    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".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page