Evolution

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:23 pm UTC

Yet another post, that wikipedia-scientist wont like to have it in science.

Here is how you play "god" or "evolution":

You create an animal "jumping cat". (A cat, that jumps 20 meters to catch a mouse , how awesome is that ? )

You encode in dna sequence its size, shape, behaviour, and put 2 colors: color_1: white, color_2: rock_pattern.

And you put reasonably good amount of individuals on this planet. So lets say color white are 50% and color rock pattern are 50%.

Lets assume its snowy. The white jumping cat is nearly invisible , both for the pray and for large predators. Eating all day as much as it has, and fucking every female it meets.

The rock-colored cat, looks like someone took a dump on the snow. CLEARLY visible even for a pray that doesnt pay attention, and also easy pray for predators. It barely have time to "stay alive", cannot hunt good, and the last thing in its mind is to fight the fat-ass white cat for females.

So, after a while its 85% white jumping cats and 15% rock pattern.

But, environment changes:

Snow melts,rock cat is now hidden, roles are reversed.
So after some time, its 85% rock cats and 15% white cats.

What does this tell us?

Natural selection helps to preserve the species , by keeping up the most useful part of your code, taking environment into account.

Now, why evolution is a shitload of lies.

If you have noticed, the cats run from almost all white, to almost all rock pattern color.
They dont go red or pink, or anything , that was not allready in the code.

A fried of mine explained random mutations like that: you put sticks in a bottle, the glue and some fabric. You shake it, and hope that you get exactly that ancient galleon, you have in mind.

Some people say: but you have chance.

Random mutation, exactly when you need it. With the ability of the host to have offsprings with the unmutated pecies. With the ability thouse genes to be dominant.
If you ask me , you have to do ALOT of shaking to this bottle.

I know , that this is against what people are teaching thouse days. Against science in general.

But ive seen this code. I dont know how it works. I am average programer.
But I cant tell you, that its too long. Too complex to have anything random in it.

With all the protocols there: how to copy it, when to copy it, error checking and repairing errors.

The "evolution" , as the scientist explain it today, is a crap.
I have no answer, where we came from, I am just sure, where we didnt.

Again, please tell me what do you think about it. Without copy-paste. As simple as possible.
Lets have a discussion, not just pages and pages of information posted.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Evolution

Postby Mokele » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:25 pm UTC

"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:33 pm UTC



If I promise to read it, from cover to cover, will you answer every question I have after it?

If you say yes, Im starting tommorow.

Btw, thanks for trying not to communicate with links, as I requested. At least it wasnt the main page of wiki.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:48 pm UTC

But ive seen this code. I dont know how it works. I am average programer.
But I cant tell you, that its too long. Too complex to have anything random in it.

You don't know how it works, so you telling us anything is irrelevant.

The "evolution" , as the scientist explain it today, is a crap.
I have no answer, where we came from, I am just sure, where we didnt.

Again, as you don't know how it works, anything you tell us is irrelevant.

Again, please tell me what do you think about it. Without copy-paste. As simple as possible.
Lets have a discussion, not just pages and pages of information posted.

I think, as we went over with you this morning, you don't understand how biology works, and having a discussion with you about it when you're unwilling to learn from people who know about it, will prove extremely difficult. I think your ideas are not 'ideas' as much as 'ignorance of how biology works', and I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm saying that to underline that you are only, ONLY, putting forth an incomplete understanding of something and asserting some kind of claim about things.

It would be as if I said 'CPUs cannot possibly handle all the calculations of a computer, and while I don't know what does, I assure you, it isn't a CPU' and then refused to acknowledge any and all posts linked that showed how CPUs work, insisting we only talk about cats and rocks.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:56 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
But ive seen this code. I dont know how it works. I am average programer.
But I cant tell you, that its too long. Too complex to have anything random in it.

You don't know how it works, so you telling us anything is irrelevant.

The "evolution" , as the scientist explain it today, is a crap.
I have no answer, where we came from, I am just sure, where we didnt.

Again, as you don't know how it works, anything you tell us is irrelevant.

Again, please tell me what do you think about it. Without copy-paste. As simple as possible.
Lets have a discussion, not just pages and pages of information posted.

I think, as we went over with you this morning, you don't understand how biology works, and having a discussion with you about it when you're unwilling to learn from people who know about it, will prove extremely difficult. I think your ideas are not 'ideas' as much as 'ignorance of how biology works', and I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm saying that to underline that you are only, ONLY, putting forth an incomplete understanding of something and asserting some kind of claim about things.

It would be as if I said 'CPUs cannot possibly handle all the calculations of a computer, and while I don't know what does, I assure you, it isn't a CPU' and then refused to acknowledge any and all posts linked that showed how CPUs work, insisting we only talk about cats and rocks.


Dont get offtopic. Thank you.

We are talking about where DNA chain was perfected , to the point of modern human.
Not how the DNA code works.

Thanks alot for not posting the main page of wiki, or a whole book!

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:00 am UTC

The DNA chain is far from perfect.

And how do you explain how a self-replicating object came to be without explaining how it works?
Last edited by Whizbang on Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:02 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:02 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:The DNA chain is far from perfect.



Read it "significantly improved". If you like that better.

Again, please stay on topic.
How a replication object came to this world is topic for another discussion.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Evolution

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:12 am UTC

Ithink you'll find that in General there are a lot more lax rules about staying ón topic'.

But, anyway, there are some cool ideas about how life originated. My favourite has to one to do with using clay as a backbone. There is also some stuff about how certain DNAand RNAsequences seem to preferentially bind to amino acids at a chemial level or something.

Sadly, I am posting from my phone in a foreign country, so any specific searching for this stuff isn't going to happen. Every time I open a pdf it downloads automatically, and Iwant to keep memory for awesome photos instead.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:23 am UTC

Angua wrote:Ithink you'll find that in General there are a lot more lax rules about staying ón topic'.

But, anyway, there are some cool ideas about how life originated. My favourite has to one to do with using clay as a backbone. There is also some stuff about how certain DNAand RNAsequences seem to preferentially bind to amino acids at a chemial level or something.

Sadly, I am posting from my phone in a foreign country, so any specific searching for this stuff isn't going to happen. Every time I open a pdf it downloads automatically, and Iwant to keep memory for awesome photos instead.


This was the most useful post for me till now.

Can I ask you something? Do you believe that a cat can jump on your keyboard few hours every day. And after years you end up with written copy of romeo and juliet?
What about all the books you ever read. Jumping over and over, and at the end you have all your books you have read in that exact order, word by word :)

Do you find this belieavable if someone tells you that this happened?

Edit: Im gonna love General :)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Evolution

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:30 am UTC

Sure, Iguess it could happen eventually. Espcailly if the cat got a treat everytime it happened upon typing a real word of something.

DNA is extremely messy though. Like seriously, it's all over the place. You've got code that turns genes on and off that may or may not be next to one another. You've got loads of code that doesn't do anything anymore. You've got lots of stuff that is basically just viruses encoded in our dna, but don't cause problems because you've got lots of stuff that works to stop it from doing anything.

Personally, I know enough about the way biology stuff and dna stuff works that it all arising messily and over billions and billions of years makes the most sense, and it's pretty amazing.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Evolution

Postby Weeks » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:30 am UTC

twinsen wrote:Do you find this belieavable if someone tells you that this happened?
Well for instance take the Ayn Rand's Socioeconomics. If we are to believe that a) all cats are real and b) all keyboards are real, you must first demonstrate what you mean by jumping :)
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
SurgicalSteel
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:18 pm UTC
Location: DMV, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby SurgicalSteel » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:35 am UTC

twinsen wrote:Can I ask you something? Do you believe that a cat can jump on your keyboard few hours every day. And after years you end up with written copy of romeo and juliet?
What about all the books you ever read. Jumping over and over, and at the end you have all your books you have read in that exact order, word by word :)

Do you find this belieavable if someone tells you that this happened?
Using that as a metaphor for evolution disregards two fundamental principles: selection pressure and combination. The cat jumping on the keyboard metaphor only takes into account mutation.

A better metaphor would be:
A cat jumps on a keyboard for a while and produces a large population of books. You look over all the books and set aside the books that look the most like Romeo and Juliet (this is selection). You take two books from the pile that were set aside and randomly take a page from each book until you've constructed a new book for each pair of the last generation of books (combination). Now the cat jumps on the keyboard for a short while and changes each of the new generation of books very slightly (mutation). Repeat from selection for the latest generation billions and billions of times, and yes, there is a strong chance you will approach something that looks like Romeo and Juliet.
"There's spray paint on the teleprompter
Anchorman screams that he's seen a monster (mayday)
There's blood stains on his shirt (mayday)
They say that he's gone berserk."
--Flobots "Mayday"

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby Shro » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:37 am UTC

Luckily, the forums are filled with people from all kinds of different educational backgrounds. You mention that you're a programmer. So am I! I also happen to be a biologist. A bit of a unicorn, but a perfect unicorn to answer your questions.

You want people to explain to you very simply why evolution works the way it does. You think the "simple" questions you ask deserve simple answers.

They don't. I have spent years getting a degree in biology and understanding the basis of evolutions and other details of the human body, just as both you and I have spent years learning about programming. If I asked you, very simply, to explain to me all of these data structures: arrays, stacks, queues, linked lists, double linked lists, red-black trees, vectors, and what different kinds of data they were good for, and their implementation, and why they were implemented in the ways they were, what would you do?

These are both difficult subjects, and they both require lots of study to become proficient enough at them to posit theories or question the validity of their arguments. You are demanding that people make this very difficult subject easy for you to understand; which is, incidentally, something people pay thousands of dollars at a university for.

The following statement is not just for you, but for anyone who thinks they are so smart, and that if they don't get something, it's clearly the explainers fault for not teaching them correctly:

No-one owes you shit. Get some respect for the people who are trying to teach you things. Knowledge is not easy. If you think you're smart, but you don't understand a subject, it is not the "teacher's" fault for not teaching you correctly. If you truly wanted to understand the subject, you would be motivated enough to learn it on your own, with the resources that already exist, just like everyone else who is learned about that particular subject. If you are complaining that your teachers aren't smart enough to teach you, then it's more likely that you are, in fact, a narcissistic dumbass who expects everyone to cater to your every whim. You are not entitled to anyone's time. These are complicated subjects with difficult answers and solutions, and your putting down everyone who tries to answer your questions does not endear you at all to the community. This in no way precludes anyone from asking a "dumb" questions; there really is no such thing. But when you try to tell the people trying to answer your question that they're dumb for not making it so you can understand them perfectly it is incredibly disrespectful. So you should probably not do that thing.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:41 am UTC

The 'cat on a keyboard' metaphor is inappropriate, because that's not how evolution works. It does not add, base pair by base pair, until you get a human.

Can you plainly state what your theory is? You've just said 'i can tell you how this doesn't happen and what scientists know is wrong', but you've also professed to not being a biologist, and not understanding this stuff, so... Frankly, given that you just reposted this in general, I see no reason to really give you the benefit of a discussion.

Angua wrote: clay as a backbone
Yeah, there are a bunch of chemical substrates that are favorable for certain biomolecule synthesis in the wild! It's a neat concept.

Weeks wrote:
twinsen wrote:Do you find this belieavable if someone tells you that this happened?
Well for instance take the Ayn Rand's Socioeconomics. If we are to believe that a) all cats are real and b) all keyboards are real, you must first demonstrate what you mean by jumping :)
This is the most on point post in the thread.

Shro wrote:No-one owes you shit. Get some respect for the people who are trying to teach you things.
Ok just kidding, this is.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Evolution

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:52 am UTC

BTW, anyone else remember the gun control thread?

Image
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:55 am UTC

As I said in the PM I sent to the OP:

We are perfectly glad to explain things step-by-step to novices who request help from people who've spent years or decades learning this stuff.

We are less glad to explain things to novices who think they're experts who demand help from people they call "stupid".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Evolution

Postby Mokele » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:17 am UTC

twinsen wrote:


If I promise to read it, from cover to cover, will you answer every question I have after it?

If you say yes, Im starting tommorow.

Btw, thanks for trying not to communicate with links, as I requested. At least it wasnt the main page of wiki.


Sure, go for it.

Cover to cover, every single word.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Evolution

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:28 am UTC

Image
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6493
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Evolution

Postby ucim » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:10 am UTC

twinsen wrote:If you ask me , you have to do ALOT of shaking to this bottle.
How much is "ALOT"?

You're talking cats. Ok, cats live for ten years or so. How many ten-year periods are there in six million years? (Cats (though not domestic ones) were around at least that long.) That's a lot of shaking.

twinsen wrote:If you have noticed, the cats run from almost all white, to almost all rock pattern color.
They dont go red or pink, or anything , that was not allready in the code.
If you put something in the environment that favors pink, you'll see pink emerge. Go to a fish store and ask them about fancy guppies. Better yet, get a few tanks yourself. When I was a kid, my brother had guppies, and starting from the plainest guppies around, inside of a few years we had very fancy tailed guppies. You can get a lot of shaking in very little time with fish.

twinsen wrote:A fried of mine explained random mutations like that: you put sticks in a bottle, the glue and some fabric. You shake it, and hope that you get exactly that ancient galleon, you have in mind.
Your friend is wrong.

Something to consider - life does not start from random atoms every time something is born. It already has a pattern that has been successful, which is (usually) made up from two other successful patterns that were mixed and matched willy nilly. Everything being born already has a head start of billions of years. And early life forms did not live long. That's a lot of shaking!

If you want a better analogy of the galleon, it's a little more like this.

You put a few sticks together, a million times. Does it float? Pick the best ones and make a million copies.

Add a few sticks to each one. Do they float? Pick the best ones and make a million copies.

Repeat until you have something that can not only float, but can carry a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage. Across the ocean.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:07 am UTC

ucim wrote: When I was a kid, my brother had guppies, and starting from the plainest guppies around, inside of a few years we had very fancy tailed guppies.
Wait, seriously? Mine are getting drabber. I think I mixed too many exotic lines in, and like a kid pouring all the paint on his spinning canvas, just ended up with mud brown.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9990
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Evolution

Postby addams » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:53 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
ucim wrote: When I was a kid, my brother had guppies, and starting from the plainest guppies around, inside of a few years we had very fancy tailed guppies.
Wait, seriously? Mine are getting drabber. I think I mixed too many exotic lines in, and like a kid pouring all the paint on his spinning canvas, just ended up with mud brown.

The black and white Dalmatian guppies stay true to form.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26209
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:48 am UTC

twinsen wrote:A fried of mine explained random mutations like that: you put sticks in a bottle, the glue and some fabric. You shake it, and hope that you get exactly that ancient galleon, you have in mind.

The analogy is flawed. It's more like putting sticks, glue and fabric in a bottle, shaking it, pouring it out, letting it set and then running some math on the probability of it achieving that exact configuration, seeing the probability is astronomical and concluding that obviously there must have been an invisible actor shaping it when you weren't looking.

Or if you want to be really stupid, assuming bananas have their shape so as to perfectly fit the human hand.

If you want to get a galleon output, then you test various bottle designs, glue consistencies, stick shapes, fabric textures and so on, reshaping the bottle, changing the glue etc whenever the output is more galleon-like and, after hundreds of thousands of bottle genrations.. Doing just that - inserting raw materials, shaking, and getting a galleon.

That's evolution. You don't go zero to galleon. You have hundreds of thousands (maybe more) steps in between.

Also, read that book people are talking about.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:31 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
twinsen wrote:A fried of mine explained random mutations like that: you put sticks in a bottle, the glue and some fabric. You shake it, and hope that you get exactly that ancient galleon, you have in mind.

The analogy is flawed. It's more like putting sticks, glue and fabric in a bottle, shaking it, pouring it out, letting it set and then running some math on the probability of it achieving that exact configuration, seeing the probability is astronomical and concluding that obviously there must have been an invisible actor shaping it when you weren't looking.

Or if you want to be really stupid, assuming bananas have their shape so as to perfectly fit the human hand.

If you want to get a galleon output, then you test various bottle designs, glue consistencies, stick shapes, fabric textures and so on, reshaping the bottle, changing the glue etc whenever the output is more galleon-like and, after hundreds of thousands of bottle genrations.. Doing just that - inserting raw materials, shaking, and getting a galleon.

That's evolution. You don't go zero to galleon. You have hundreds of thousands (maybe more) steps in between.

Also, read that book people are talking about.


Im having a question. I understand your logic, but can you explain me this: Why do you check at every step:
"Does it flooat"?

Did you think that when you started shaking the bottle, the environment was similar, or in other words: you were aiming to get galleon?
If you aimed for submarine, why didnt you go for something that sink? Or perhaps aiming for something that fly? Do thouse parts you were constructing earlier, are supposed to be of use, when you finaly decide you want galleon?

And perhaps another question?

If you aim for more than one quallity. I will give you few examples:

You need cells that secrete something that will disolve proteins. Placed at exact location in a plant.
You need leaves with the shape of cones.
You need some mechanism of cells for closing this cones.
You need some cells that will absorb the proteins, and lead the food supply into the plant system.

It is clear, that none of thouse cells have any value for organism for survival, if they are not all together.

So im asking, is your "shake a bit - take what is good" a viable method here? As long as I can understand, your logic for step by step evolution,
(I am 90% ready to agree with you for this matter),
I am having difficulties, how a complex system can emerge, when its obvious, that the parts themselvs have no value.
More about it: The parts themselvs may have NEGATIVE influence on the organism's survival.

As in this example: There is no use for me to create cone (or pocket) shape leaves, as the surface that gets sun rays will be significantly less....

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:48 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
ucim wrote: When I was a kid, my brother had guppies, and starting from the plainest guppies around, inside of a few years we had very fancy tailed guppies.
Wait, seriously? Mine are getting drabber. I think I mixed too many exotic lines in, and like a kid pouring all the paint on his spinning canvas, just ended up with mud brown.


I had 12 of them , and my friend Catherine ate them all.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:13 am UTC

Angua wrote:Sure, Iguess it could happen eventually. Espcailly if the cat got a treat everytime it happened upon typing a real word of something.

DNA is extremely messy though. Like seriously, it's all over the place. You've got code that turns genes on and off that may or may not be next to one another. You've got loads of code that doesn't do anything anymore. You've got lots of stuff that is basically just viruses encoded in our dna, but don't cause problems because you've got lots of stuff that works to stop it from doing anything.

Personally, I know enough about the way biology stuff and dna stuff works that it all arising messily and over billions and billions of years makes the most sense, and it's pretty amazing.


I cant believe you put that "treat", for my friend Catherine example.
You ruined it to the point, that I believed its possible. And I guess.. like that guy with "see if it floats", you have right...

Can I ask you something else. How much of our DNA is not a nonesense. I mean, dont tell me what part is not protein encoding sequences. Tell me what part of our dna has any use at all? 2%? 50%? 98%? Dont post me wiki, I want to read your toughts about it...

Even if you dont answer, thank you for what you said till now.
You were most useful.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:32 am UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:
twinsen wrote:Can I ask you something? Do you believe that a cat can jump on your keyboard few hours every day. And after years you end up with written copy of romeo and juliet?
What about all the books you ever read. Jumping over and over, and at the end you have all your books you have read in that exact order, word by word :)

Do you find this belieavable if someone tells you that this happened?
Using that as a metaphor for evolution disregards two fundamental principles: selection pressure and combination. The cat jumping on the keyboard metaphor only takes into account mutation.

A better metaphor would be:
A cat jumps on a keyboard for a while and produces a large population of books. You look over all the books and set aside the books that look the most like Romeo and Juliet (this is selection). You take two books from the pile that were set aside and randomly take a page from each book until you've constructed a new book for each pair of the last generation of books (combination). Now the cat jumps on the keyboard for a short while and changes each of the new generation of books very slightly (mutation). Repeat from selection for the latest generation billions and billions of times, and yes, there is a strong chance you will approach something that looks like Romeo and Juliet.


Extremely good example for selection, combination and (slightly) mutation.
Thank you man.
(For this im 100% with you)

I want to ask you something, and I will be even more thankful if you answer me?
About this jumping on keyboard/writing a book/ generation of code.

How does the cat jump? (skip answering if you have to post links from wiki)

More interesting to talk about:
Why do you think that the "book" will be readable? Look at it as a whole system, not just paragraph or word.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:45 am UTC

ucim wrote:
twinsen wrote:If you ask me , you have to do ALOT of shaking to this bottle.
How much is "ALOT"?

You're talking cats. Ok, cats live for ten years or so. How many ten-year periods are there in six million years? (Cats (though not domestic ones) were around at least that long.) That's a lot of shaking.

twinsen wrote:If you have noticed, the cats run from almost all white, to almost all rock pattern color.
They dont go red or pink, or anything , that was not allready in the code.
If you put something in the environment that favors pink, you'll see pink emerge. Go to a fish store and ask them about fancy guppies. Better yet, get a few tanks yourself. When I was a kid, my brother had guppies, and starting from the plainest guppies around, inside of a few years we had very fancy tailed guppies. You can get a lot of shaking in very little time with fish.

twinsen wrote:A fried of mine explained random mutations like that: you put sticks in a bottle, the glue and some fabric. You shake it, and hope that you get exactly that ancient galleon, you have in mind.
Your friend is wrong.

Something to consider - life does not start from random atoms every time something is born. It already has a pattern that has been successful, which is (usually) made up from two other successful patterns that were mixed and matched willy nilly. Everything being born already has a head start of billions of years. And early life forms did not live long. That's a lot of shaking!

If you want a better analogy of the galleon, it's a little more like this.

You put a few sticks together, a million times. Does it float? Pick the best ones and make a million copies.

Add a few sticks to each one. Do they float? Pick the best ones and make a million copies.

Repeat until you have something that can not only float, but can carry a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage. Across the ocean.

Jose


Sorry, you were first, but that guy have exactly the same idea so, I will have to copy paste my question to him, to you too:

Im having a question. I understand your logic, but can you explain me this: Why do you check at every step:
"Does it flooat"?

Did you think that when you started shaking the bottle, the environment was similar, or in other words: you were aiming to get galleon?
If you aimed for submarine, why didnt you go for something that sink? Or perhaps aiming for something that fly? Do thouse parts you were constructing earlier, are supposed to be of use, when you finaly decide you want galleon?

And perhaps another question?

If you aim for more than one quallity. I will give you few examples:

You need cells that secrete something that will disolve proteins. Placed at exact location in a plant.
You need leaves with the shape of cones.
You need some mechanism of cells for closing this cones.
You need some cells that will absorb the proteins, and lead the food supply into the plant system.

It is clear, that none of thouse cells have any value for organism for survival, if they are not all together.

So im asking, is your "shake a bit - take what is good" a viable method here? As long as I can understand, your logic for step by step evolution,
(I am 90% ready to agree with you for this matter),
I am having difficulties, how a complex system can emerge, when its obvious, that the parts themselvs have no value.
More about it: The parts themselvs may have NEGATIVE influence on the organism's survival.

As in this example: There is no use for me to create cone (or pocket) shape leaves, as the surface that gets sun rays will be significantly less....

Again, I generally agree with you, but what can you say to me for the insect-eating plant?

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Evolution

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:57 am UTC

Don't double post, you can quote multiple people when forming a reply.

Especially, don't double post then copy and paste the exact same thing as an earlier post. This may be surprising to you, but the rest of us do, generally, read posts not exactly directed to us.

Maybe give reading the forum rules a try.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:07 am UTC

Angua wrote:Don't double post, you can quote multiple people when forming a reply.

Especially, don't double post then copy and paste the exact same thing as an earlier post. This may be surprising to you, but the rest of us do, generally, read posts not exactly directed to us.

Maybe give reading the forum rules a try.


How can you quote two or more together? Rofl, nvm I got it.

Its a bit crappy , that you cant quote someone, than decide to quote another one. When I click Edit, its not the same as clicking for new post.
So it makes it impossible , to quote 2 people and then 2 more, instead of 4 together.

But its kinda ok :)

What about my question, tell me what part of the DNA is useful"?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:20 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:What about my question, tell me what part of the DNA is useful"?
Whats with today today?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:54 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
twinsen wrote:What about my question, tell me what part of the DNA is useful"?
Whats with today today?


Your raichy just evolved to charmeleon.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:57 pm UTC

Well, according to the Wikipedia page for Noncoding DNA that I will paraphrase below rather than link or quote as per the OP's ridiculous need to be spoonfed...

In 2012 the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking". Other scientists, however, strongly criticize this, and a 2014 article claims that "8.2% of the human genome is likely to be functional, while only 2.2% has maintained constraint in both human and mouse since these species diverged".

So, there you go. Two numbers to cherry pick, if you wish. 80% if you want to make a case for how good evolution/god is at keeping nonfunctioning DNA out of the genome, or 8.2% if you want to make the case that the human genome is a wasteland of false starts and random mutation going wild. Keep in mind, however, that the first number comes with the stipulation "biochemically speaking" meaning the DNA may lead to some sort of result, but this may not have any effect on the functionality or survivability of humans.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Evolution

Postby Azrael » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:00 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:Can I ask you something else. How much of our DNA is not a nonesense. I mean, dont tell me what part is not protein encoding sequences. Tell me what part of our dna has any use at all? 2%? 50%? 98%? Dont post me wiki, I want to read your toughts about it...

This, short and easily consumed article covers some relevant research. Their answer in 2012 was "maybe none of it is 'waste', but it's so much of a mess it's going to take a while to figure out because non-coding for proteins does not necessarily mean non-useful". And two years later after critique and further research, they came back with this handy illustration:

Image

The tricky part is that "biochemical evidence" chunk. Some of it might be entirely useless. Some of it might have been super useful once, but now not so much. Either way, they make the case that the broad (and broadly accepted) estimates that 12-15% of DNA is functional are likely low.

For what it's worth though, none of us are DNA researchers. When you are linked to relevant work by experts in the field (or summaries of it), and your response is to dismiss the information, you're more or less living out the interchange where people listen to their lunch room cohort about medical advice rather than a doctor. If you actually want to understand this, you're going to have to read more than can be adequately conveyed by non-experts in a series of short posts on a forum.

Oh, and guess where I found the paper with that illustration? From the linked sources on Wikipedia. Out of hand dismissal of relevant and readily provided information on a topic you are actively working to understand (assuming that is the case) is just foolish.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:25 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Well, according to the Wikipedia page for Noncoding DNA that I will paraphrase below rather than link or quote as per the OP's ridiculous need to be spoonfed...

In 2012 the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking". Other scientists, however, strongly criticize this, and a 2014 article claims that "8.2% of the human genome is likely to be functional, while only 2.2% has maintained constraint in both human and mouse since these species diverged".

So, there you go. Two numbers to cherry pick, if you wish. 80% if you want to make a case for how good evolution/god is at keeping nonfunctioning DNA out of the genome, or 8.2% if you want to make the case that the human genome is a wasteland of false starts and random mutation going wild. Keep in mind, however, that the first number comes with the stipulation "biochemically speaking" meaning the DNA may lead to some sort of result, but this may not have any effect on the functionality or survivability of humans.


Your explaination is worth 1000 pages of wiki. Thanks man.
Not only for sharing, but for the troubles for that "spoonfed" thing.

So we agree , that the biggest part of our code, does in fact something. Proteinseq, RNA , switches, chromosome structure, something in general...

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26209
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:26 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:Im having a question. I understand your logic, but can you explain me this: Why do you check at every step:

"Does it flooat"?
All analogies break down at some point when converting from the analogy to the actual. That yours breaks down pretty much halfway through step 1 is not my fault - you picked shaking bottles to make galleons, I'm just running with it.

Let's start simple. You're the one who brought up galleon specifically, so that's what I used. You didn't say a damned thing about seagoing vessels in general, so along the way to galleon, it's both possible and likely that submarine, caravel, trireme, aircraft carrier, destroyer, hovercraft and at the early stages, automobile, motorcycle, biplane, pogostick, sneakers and so on were outputs, or at least lines that would lead to them. We just didn't select for those.

Whether or not they were useful is another story entirely.

As evolution's only goal is to fill an empty niche, it doesn't start out with a single goal in mind. Evolution never says "You know what this place needs? Giant two-legged deer with pouches who move by jumping". Evolution says "Hey, if this thing was bigger, it could fight off/escape predators" or "If we did fetal development outside of the uterus and in another environment, it would work out better in the long run" and after time passes you have a kangaroo, because that's what was missing.

Of course, at the same time the critter's line is becoming a kangaroo, it's predators are becoming... whatever the hell feeds on kangaroos (land trains?). So there never was a kangaroo shaped hole, there was a hole that became kangaroo shaped and.. oh hey, it's filled by a kangaroo. Imagine that.

One part of evolution is finding a niche not overly exploited by anything else, then exploiting it. Too many grass eaters and someone's going to start eating leaves. Too many grass and leaf eaters, someone's going after stems too. And along the lines, somebody is going to skip the eating plants thing, and just eat the other plant eaters. Some are going to do both because both is awesome.

Since our hypothetical bottle shakers were looking specifically for the galleon, anything that wasn't closer to the galleon than before was not seen as useful, so it was discarded. If a line to a submarine started, unless it was surprisingly galleon-shaped, we threw it out in favor of the caravel line.

What I was trying to say about your analogy was that you cannot start with an end result and state that the odds of that exact result appearing are too high, so it can't have evolved. You're skipping the hundreds of thousands of iterations that lead to the end result.

It also doesn't explain random mutation at all. Random mutation would be more like everyone showed up at the galleon factory to make a galleon one day and - oh shit - they're out of those wood fasteners they use. So the workers figured out some other way of doing it. Lots of times it's not as good, so the workers vow to never do that again. But there's also lots of times when whatever they use instead works out better... so they start doing that instead.

With hundreds of galleon factories running for thousands of years with only the instruction of "Make good quality" and nothing at all about "keep it a galleon", most of them aren't going to be making galleons after a couple dozen years, and after a few hundred some aren't even going to be making ships anymore, but airplanes or houses.

So we agree , that the biggest part of our code, does in fact something. Proteinseq, RNA , switches, chromosome structure, something in general...


Who's "we" ?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Evolution

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:54 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:
Whizbang wrote:Well, according to the Wikipedia page for Noncoding DNA that I will paraphrase below rather than link or quote as per the OP's ridiculous need to be spoonfed...

In 2012 the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking". Other scientists, however, strongly criticize this, and a 2014 article claims that "8.2% of the human genome is likely to be functional, while only 2.2% has maintained constraint in both human and mouse since these species diverged".

So, there you go. Two numbers to cherry pick, if you wish. 80% if you want to make a case for how good evolution/god is at keeping nonfunctioning DNA out of the genome, or 8.2% if you want to make the case that the human genome is a wasteland of false starts and random mutation going wild. Keep in mind, however, that the first number comes with the stipulation "biochemically speaking" meaning the DNA may lead to some sort of result, but this may not have any effect on the functionality or survivability of humans.


Your explaination is worth 1000 pages of wiki. Thanks man.
Not only for sharing, but for the troubles for that "spoonfed" thing.

So we agree , that the biggest part of our code, does in fact something. Proteinseq, RNA , switches, chromosome structure, something in general...


Actually, it was worth exactly 1 page of wiki. Also, good job ignoring half of the post you quoted.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:55 pm UTC

Azrael, I kinda do foolish stuff, not verry rare too...but do you know how good it feels, to read something like that, instead of browsing 10 pages in wiki.
Thank you, and sorry for your troubles. (saving graphics and stuff)

I see that evidence for evolution:
Part of coding dna + part of high function dna ( each of thouse parts partially determine the fenotype of specific individual ), are able to be found in a different animals, wich means that they have been preserved across time.

And after all, you , wizz and me ( I am counting the people , just for you SecondTalon, so you dont ask me who is WE again... ) agree that biggest part of DNA does something, and small part does particulary important things.

Edit: Thx Polako, you too :)

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Evolution

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:00 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:Azrael, I kinda do foolish stuff, not verry rare too...but do you know how good it feels, to read something like that, instead of browsing 10 pages in wiki.
Thank you, and sorry for your troubles. (saving graphics and stuff)

I see that evidence for evolution:
Part of coding dna + part of high function dna ( each of thouse parts partially determine the fenotype of specific individual ), are able to be found in a different animals, wich means that they have been preserved across time.

And after all, you , wizz and me ( I am counting the people , just for you SecondTalon, so you dont ask me who is WE again... ) agree that biggest part of DNA does something, and small part does particulary important things.

Edit: Thx Polako, you too :)


Could you point out where did any of the people you listed agree with your claim that the biggest part of the DNA does something useful? Whizbang showed you TWO studies, one claiming 8% usefulness in the DNA, and the other one 80%. Azrael posted a graph showing that we have good evidence on just a small part of the DNA doing things we know well, with a huge chunk possibly doing stuff. Maybe. And I just called you out on ignoring what people write.
Last edited by PolakoVoador on Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Evolution

Postby Azrael » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:02 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:And after all, you , wizz and me [...] agree that biggest part of DNA does something, and small part does particulary important things.

... I can't even begin to explain how little a seeming consensus between any number of people in this thread matters. We aren't voting for prom king.

The basic decoding of the human genome is only 10 years old and there is still significant ongoing research -- that, if you were reading closely, sorta contradicted itself over the course of 2 years -- trying to answer the question regarding the purpose of the bulk of the information.

So no, I (personally) don't agree that the biggest part of DNA does something. I agree that a small part is well understood and that the useful portion of the remainder is not well established.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: Evolution

Postby twinsen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:12 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
twinsen wrote:And after all, you , wizz and me [...] agree that biggest part of DNA does something, and small part does particulary important things.

... I can't even begin to explain how little a seeming consensus between any number of people in this thread matters. We aren't voting for prom king.

The basic decoding of the human genome is only 10 years old and there is still significant ongoing research -- that, if you were reading closely, sorta contradicted itself over the course of 2 years -- trying to answer the question regarding the purpose of the bulk of the information.

So no, I (personally) don't agree that the biggest part of DNA does something. I agree that a small part is well understood and that the useful portion of the remainder is not well established.


So you think that BIGGEST part of the DNA does nothing at all ? Please just confirm if I understand you correctly this time.]

We are getting somewhere after all...
Last edited by twinsen on Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Steeler [Crawler] and 17 guests