The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:32 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:53 pm
Davidm keeps on semantic details, but doesn't explain how natural selection overcame the problems of probability with hemoglobin molecule.

Also, bear in mind that a hemoglobin molecule is nothing for a human being, you need much more things besides hemoglobin to have a human being.

BTW, Asimov calculated that the total number of human hemoglobin molecules on Earth was 10E31.

Of course, population grew a lot since he wrote that, so the number might be much larger now.

Davidm uses a [quite eristic, I'd say] rhetoric with little ethos, logos and pathos.

He distorts my words as "six second evolution", when I was talking about Cambrian explosion lasting 6 minutes in a 24H scale.

He offers youtube videos (very amusing, I concede) and obscure authors (that even talk about "theorems of natural selection") to oppose my articles from Nature and Scientific American, as well as texts from renown authors like Asimov and Thomas Morgan.

He offers 7-billion (7x10E9) lottery examples against probabilities upwards of 1 in 10E190 (even upwards of 10E619!), forgetting that the total number of atoms in Universe is calculated as 10E80 [how could he produce 10E190 tickets to make a lottery in same scale, given 10E80 atoms only?).

To compose that, he accuses me of misspellings he can't point concretely and of abstract fatal errors he can't substantiate.

And, most of all, he doesn't explain how dumb luck was it to create hemoglobin by natural selection.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:53 pm

PauLoL, you continue not to do research on haemoglobin yourself to answer that question. I note that you scoff as YouTube sources yet continue to refuse to locate and pay for quality research papers. But you don't want to know for sure, do you? Then you couldn't play the game of "nobody knows, nyah nyah". Why do Christians insist on playing these games???? Why can't you people just speak honestly without all the gaming? Why must you keep being so supercilious, manipulative and tricky rather than sincere?

There is nothing you speak of that provides any challenge to the obvious phenomenon of evolution.

Why don't you question gestation while you are at it? Shouldn't early human embryos look like little people rather than lumpy globs of protoplasm? C'mon, there's no way that all those changes could just happen via natural selection, right? Or the predictable changes from infant to adult. It must be just dumb luck!

Evolution could be thought of as the growth and development of the biosphere. As we grow we lose some structures and gain new ones. Ditto the Earth. It's not random, it's physics. That is, thresholds of pressure are reached resulting in sudden change. I mentioned this to you earlier but you seem to have disregarded it because then you couldn't play trivial word games with "Evolutionauts".

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:03 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:53 pm
Greta, you always spice your thoughts with asymptotic chromatic harmony.

I once told you that your superficial characterization of reality in general and life in particular, with your supreme expressions concealing shockingly voluptuousness, in a paradoxical way help us seeing daemon more steadily.

Always bear in mind that Catholic Church not only accepts Big Bang, but also accepts Darwinian Evolution [and that this is not a Theological thread].

But, maybe you can you help Davidm explain how dumb luck was it to create hemoglobin by natural selection?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:14 pm

PauloL wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:03 pm
Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:53 pm
PauLoL, you continue not to do research on haemoglobin yourself to answer that question. I note that you scoff as YouTube sources yet continue to refuse to locate and pay for quality research papers.
Greta, you always spice your thoughts with asymptotic chromatic harmony.

... But, maybe you can you help Davidm explain how dumb luck was it to create hemoglobin by natural selection?
Evasive much?

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:34 pm

PauloL wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:32 pm
davidm wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:53 pm
Davidm keeps on semantic details, but doesn't explain how natural selection overcame the problems of probability with hemoglobin molecule.

Also, bear in mind that a hemoglobin molecule is nothing for a human being, you need much more things besides hemoglobin to have a human being.

BTW, Asimov calculated that the total number of human hemoglobin molecules on Earth was 10E31.

Of course, population grew a lot since he wrote that, so the number might be much larger now.

Davidm uses a [quite eristic, I'd say] rhetoric with little ethos, logos and pathos.

He distorts my words as "six second evolution", when I was talking about Cambrian explosion lasting 6 minutes in a 24H scale.

He offers youtube videos (very amusing, I concede) and obscure authors (that even talk about "theorems of natural selection") to oppose my articles from Nature and Scientific American, as well as texts from renown authors like Asimov and Thomas Morgan.

He offers 7-billion (7x10E9) lottery examples against probabilities upwards of 1 in 10E190 (even upwards of 10E619!), forgetting that the total number of atoms in Universe is calculated as 10E80 [how could he produce 10E190 tickets to make a lottery in same scale, given 10E80 atoms only?).

To compose that, he accuses me of misspellings he can't point concretely and of abstract fatal errors he can't substantiate.

And, most of all, he doesn't explain how dumb luck was it to create hemoglobin by natural selection.
Greta, the question is here and in the posts before.

Where is evasiveness, except that answers are lacking? Much cry and little wool.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:47 pm

So look it up if you want to know. Do the research.

Is that outside of your skill set?

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:13 am

PauloL wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:03 pm
But, maybe you can you help Davidm explain how dumb luck was it to create hemoglobin by natural selection?
Perhaps you didn't read it, or maybe you are ignoring it.

"Post by davidm » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:23 pm
random mutation PLUS natural selection is NOT a "chance" event."

Natural selection does not involve "dumb luck", that seems to be your specialty, especially the "dumb" part.

davidm
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:19 am

PauloL wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:03 pm

But, maybe you can you help Davidm explain how dumb luck was it to create hemoglobin by natural selection?
Here, maybe we coin a little slogan to help your tiny little mind wrap itself around reality. Memorize this:

Hemoglobin did not evolve by dumb luck, you dumb fuck.

Now repeat that over and over again.

davidm
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:29 am

Let’s go back to my lottery example above — pure dumb luck. No selection involved.

The odds of winning the lottery are one in 7 billion. As we have seen, despite these astronomical odds, it is guaranteed that someone will win the lottery.

Now suppose we ran this lottery every second for a single day.

There are 86,400 seconds in a day.

This means, by dumb luck alone, a pure chance process will produce 86,400 winners in a single day! And each winner will have beat odds of one in 7 billion.

Of course, the number of losers will be vastly greater. If my math is correct, here is the number of losers in the single-day lottery as described above:

86,399,999,913,600

But so what? If we were to look at this from an evolutionary perspective, we would call this purifying selection — the selective removal of alleles that are deleterious (i.e., the lottery losers). The winners, no matter how small a subset of the total pool of entrants, win, and occupy the world.

But this isn’t purifying selection — it’s just dumb luck!

What, then, happens, when you introduce selection into the lottery — that is, rig it?

But as we have seen, even without rigging the lottery, you get 86,400 winners in a single day! Now what do you think will happen when we rig it?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:14 am

PauloL wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:52 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:31 pm

If 40 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle are missing does it negate seeing 100% of the puzzle?
No, it doesn't. But no one is negating Cambrian explosion, just asking for answers.
If paleontologists are having problems, I seriously doubt anyone around here could solve them. From what I understand, evidence of the Cambrian period is in short supply. But as the genome project has taught us, it's really more to do with epigenetics (environment).

Belinda
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Belinda » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:18 am

Paulol wrote:
Davidm keeps on semantic details, but doesn't explain how natural selection overcame the problems of probability with hemoglobin molecule.
Is the following any help?

Natural Selection

The struggle for existence

plus random mutations

plus geological time spans

= natural selection

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:53 pm
PauLoL, you continue not to do research on haemoglobin yourself to answer that question. I note that you scoff as YouTube sources yet continue to refuse to locate and pay for quality research papers. But you don't want to know for sure, do you? Then you couldn't play the game of "nobody knows, nyah nyah". Why do Christians insist on playing these games???? Why can't you people just speak honestly without all the gaming? Why must you keep being so supercilious, manipulative and tricky rather than sincere?

There is nothing you speak of that provides any challenge to the obvious phenomenon of evolution.

Why don't you question gestation while you are at it? Shouldn't early human embryos look like little people rather than lumpy globs of protoplasm? C'mon, there's no way that all those changes could just happen via natural selection, right? Or the predictable changes from infant to adult. It must be just dumb luck!

Evolution could be thought of as the growth and development of the biosphere. As we grow we lose some structures and gain new ones. Ditto the Earth. It's not random, it's physics. That is, thresholds of pressure are reached resulting in sudden change. I mentioned this to you earlier but you seem to have disregarded it because then you couldn't play trivial word games with "Evolutionauts".
I wish you wouldn't lump all Christians together this way, you're painting with a very broad brush and not all Christians believe the same way.

I think DavidM is correct, PauLoL is a creationist.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:44 pm

thedoc wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:43 pm
I wish you wouldn't lump all Christians together this way, you're painting with a very broad brush and not all Christians believe the same way.
Fair point, sorry Doc. I was fired up from another thread.

davidm
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:16 pm

The evolution of hemoglobin. It’s all there.

PauloL’s probability estimate is simply wrong, pathetically so. In addition to the fact that, as we have seen, low-probability events happen all the time even by dumb luck alone, natural selection is not dumb luck.

He seems to think that hemoglobin must have evolved all at once — from nothing to something. That’s not how it works. How many times has this been explained to him? Like anything else, it evolved incrementally over time, with successive modifying mutations that proved to be adaptive (were naturally selected for).

You might argue that even this process makes a hemoglobin outcome unlikely. But even if true, recall the lottery example. Any single person winning the lottery is exceedingly unlikely, but at the same time it is 100 percent guaranteed that someone will win.

But since evolution is a rigged lottery, the chances of hemoglobin “winning” the lottery are magnified exponentially by the need of organisms to cope with the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere.

The basic point, however, is that no matter how superficially “unlikely” it might seem for some structure or other to evolve, given the fact the organisms are constantly reproducing with variation, it is guaranteed that something will evolve — just as it is guaranteed that someone will win the lottery.

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:15 pm

Greta wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:44 pm
thedoc wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:43 pm
I wish you wouldn't lump all Christians together this way, you're painting with a very broad brush and not all Christians believe the same way.
Fair point, sorry Doc. I was fired up from another thread.
Which thread was that? I only look at a few threads. I can't always tell from the title what the thread is about till I read it.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests