The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12164
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:11 am

PauloL wrote: ... Now we want to know how hemoglobin came to existence, given its virtual impossibility as put by Asimov.
Except that the how is called Evolution so I doubt you'll ever be accepting anything other than a 'God' did it.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3739
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by attofishpi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:17 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:38 pm
PauloL wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm
Yes, Asimov was.
No, Asimov wasn't.
Asimov didn't
Now we want to know how hemoglobin came to existence, given its virtual impossibility as put by Asimov.
Somehow, I've lost confidence in Asimov.

PS. How many times do you need to be told? It's Haemoglobin. This place gets more like the US every day.

I think he's talking about Homo Goblin.
Attachments
homo-goblin.jpg
homo-goblin.jpg (8.39 KiB) Viewed 2031 times

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:29 pm

It’s truly astonishing. He still keeps pushing this wholly false dichotomy that evolution is either (a) purely random (Asimov’s number for hemoglobin*) or (b) teleological.

It’s neither. How thick can any one person be?

I can only conclude that he supposes everything has been poofed into existence out of nothing! Cells, hemoglobin, whales … all poofed into existence out of nothing! Then, having made this startlingly stupid assumption, he asks himself: What are the odds that hemoglobin was poofed into existence out of nothing (Asimov’s number) vs. that an intelligent poofer poofed hemoglobin into existence?

As a matter of Bayesian probability, our prior probabilities on these assumptions would be: It is not likely that an intelligent poorfer poofed hemoglobin into existence. But it’s far less likely that hemoglobin arose by random chance. Therefore our prior probabilities should favor an intelligent poofer.

But, of course, as Asimov himself explained, his number does not apply to evolution, because evolution is not random! It is NOT a theory of “poofing into existence” but a theory of descent with modification of pre-existing forms, as was so brilliantly illustrated in the whale evolution video I posted upthread. Creationism is a theory of “poof” — not evolution!

And the whale example also shows why evolution is not teleological. The whale was not the end goal of a process that started with a land animal. It came about contingently (though not randomly!) as successive generations of the evolving animal were slightly modified by environmental conditions that could have been different. Had they been different, the land animal would not have evolved into a whale, but into something else — who knows what? As Gould argued, if you could rewind the tape of life and play it back, you’d get something completely different.

Humans, while not a random product of evolution, were not a goal of evolution, either. By pure circumstances, a meteor struck the earth that wiped out most of the dinosaurs. This allowed early mammals to spread and fill the niche left behind the dinos. Humans than evolved from early mammals. No meteor, no humans.

Does anyone (apart from PauloL) not get this elementary stuff?

*"Hemoglobin" is the perfectly valid American spelling of the word.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:57 pm

PauloL wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm

Now we want to know how hemoglobin came to existence, given its virtual impossibility as put by Asimov.
No the hemoglobin evolution was a virtual certainty in that some means of transporting oxygen to the cells and this is the one that we ended up with. It was a certainty that some chain of nucleotide's would have evolved, just like it is certain that someone will win a lottery.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:03 pm

Actually, dinos did not completely vanish -- those that survived eventually evolved into birds. The next time you feed the pigeons in the park, remember their lordly ancestors! :)

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:04 pm

thedoc wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:57 pm
PauloL wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm

Now we want to know how hemoglobin came to existence, given its virtual impossibility as put by Asimov.
No the hemoglobin evolution was a virtual certainty in that some means of transporting oxygen to the cells and this is the one that we ended up with. It was a certainty that some chain of nucleotide's would have evolved, just like it is certain that someone will win a lottery.
Exactly. The oxygenation of the atmosphere exerted huge selective pressures in favor of hemoglobin or something like it. This is not a random process but neither is it a teleological one.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:04 pm
Exactly. The oxygenation of the atmosphere exerted huge selective pressures in favor of hemoglobin or something like it. This is not a random process but neither is it a teleological one.
Your most impressive affirmation is that evolution isn't random without further explanation.

When I fill in a Euromillions it's random, unless something prevents me from choosing certain numbers or acts so as I choose some numbers.

Could you give some details on non-randomness in evolution?

If you consider that without oxygenation hemoglobin would be useless is selective pressure, I agree but the term might be deceptive.

Do you agree it's quite convenient, if not visionary, that bacteria showed up to produce enough oxygen to create a breathable atmosphere?

uwot
Posts: 4595
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:06 pm

PauloL wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 pm
Do you agree it's quite convenient, if not visionary, that bacteria showed up to produce enough oxygen to create a breathable atmosphere?
Well, the usual explanation is that some organism that could thrive in the environment did so. Its waste was toxic to its peers; they died and others that could thrive in the new conditions had their moment. It is convenient for the organism that fits the niche, but 'visionary' requires something with vision.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:08 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:06 pm
Well, the usual explanation is that some organism that could thrive in the environment did so. Its waste was toxic to its peers; they died and others that could thrive in the new conditions had their moment. It is convenient for the organism that fits the niche, but 'visionary' requires something with vision.
True.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:29 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:06 pm
PauloL wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 pm
Do you agree it's quite convenient, if not visionary, that bacteria showed up to produce enough oxygen to create a breathable atmosphere?
Well, the usual explanation is that some organism that could thrive in the environment did so. Its waste was toxic to its peers; they died and others that could thrive in the new conditions had their moment. It is convenient for the organism that fits the niche, but 'visionary' requires something with vision.
Bacteria had been around for billions of years before phytoplankton, essentially the first plants or proto-plants. The latter triggered the the Great Oxygenation Event aka The Great Dying aka The Permian Extinction. The oxygen the phytoplankton was toxic to the anaerobic bacteria that covered the Earth at the time.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:50 am

PauloL wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:04 pm
Exactly. The oxygenation of the atmosphere exerted huge selective pressures in favor of hemoglobin or something like it. This is not a random process but neither is it a teleological one.
Do you agree it's quite convenient, if not visionary, that bacteria showed up to produce enough oxygen to create a breathable atmosphere?
Breathable for who, organisms that could not survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere, didn't and the atmosphere did favor other organisms. It's all a craps shoot, but it's not random, and it wasn't visionary.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:31 pm

thedoc wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:50 am
PauloL wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:04 pm
Exactly. The oxygenation of the atmosphere exerted huge selective pressures in favor of hemoglobin or something like it. This is not a random process but neither is it a teleological one.
Do you agree it's quite convenient, if not visionary, that bacteria showed up to produce enough oxygen to create a breathable atmosphere?
Breathable for who, organisms that could not survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere, didn't and the atmosphere did favor other organisms. It's all a craps shoot, but it's not random, and it wasn't visionary.
Right; and, of course, far from being "convenient," still less "visionary," the oxygenation event was a castastrophe for life; indeed it's also called the "oxygen catastrophe" and the "oxygen crisis." It caused one of the greatest mass die-offs in world history! PauloL could easily learn this for himself with the minutest research (Google?) but prefers, as a creationist, to remain willfully ignorant.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:36 pm

It's seems thedoc is both a theist and yet also accepts and understands evolutionary theory. This reconciliation of theism and evolution is a problen for so many other theists (and scientists too), because why? :?

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:56 pm

davidm wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:36 pm
It's seems thedoc is both a theist and yet also accepts and understands evolutionary theory. This reconciliation of theism and evolution is a problen for so many other theists (and scientists too), because why? :?
Too many people see the Bible, (especially the old testament) as a literal account of history and science rather than mythology. I read the Bible as telling me what God did but Not how God did it, How God did it, is what science tells me. I also believe that there have been a lot of additions to the Bible that are not God's word but Men of the time projecting their own prejudices onto God and letting God take the blame.

FYI, I also have a reasonable understanding of Relativity, Cosmology, Paleontology, Science Fiction, and Zen Buddhism, and a few other topics. My grandson once told me he wanted to be a Paleontologist, and I first told him that he needed to learn how to spell it, he had to work on that for awhile.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:17 pm

thedoc wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:50 am

Breathable for who, organisms that could not survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere, didn't and the atmosphere did favor other organisms. It's all a craps shoot, but it's not random, and it wasn't visionary.
Breathable for us, and not only us. Something non-random presupposes some force, even if only a driving force. Otherwise filling in Euromillions wouldn't be random.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests