The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Science:
Physics

Nothing adds up

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#16New Post! Mar 04, 2009 @ 12:44:49
Animals and plants are NOT conscious of evolution,
nor are mammals or anything for that matter.
...except humans who artificially breed certain types of animals and plants using its principles.

Its is not a process that needs conscious will, it is simply blind natural selection. Those that live better are more likely to pass on their genes. simple as.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#17New Post! Mar 05, 2009 @ 00:14:13
I am at a loss here, despite trying to specifically indicate the real problem, the detail is swiftly swept under the carpet with the black box replies of the nature seen so far.

I don`t mind the confusion between natural progressional evolution where stages can easily be explained. I don`t mind the brilliant analyses that DNA is not perfectly copied.

After a while though I was hoping someone could actually grasp exactly what I was trying to contemplate.

The sea-horses did not need to evolve camourflage unless the risk of predadtion was increasing, if the predation was increasing a simpler defence such as poison, which would not take long, would have been far better instead of a highly complicated coral pattern being copied which would take millions of years.

Ok so some sea-horses that are roughly pinkish do better as a starter. Now this shade has to get lighter in parts and darker in others otherwise too light and too pink and they become more noticeable.

Hiding in only pink coral might then be passed on to generations so we have pinkish sea-horses that hide in the said coral.

The odd growth possible helps.

This does not represent a perfect copy of the particular variety of coal I am talking about.

It is nothing like it! At this stage, even what we got takes a long time, where the sea-horses going in the wrong direction at any stage make them easy prey instead of more difficult prey so they are getting wiped out more quickly.

At each genetic mutation there are a million ways to get it wrong and only one way to get it right.

This is not the same for the evolution of an eye.

The eye is very simplistic and any eye is better than no eye so the eyes can take as long as they like to become better eyes.

The sea-horse coral copy cat does not have the luxury of getting it wrong but will take a million times longer to get it perfectly right.

So the experts have fossils for these sea-horses so can date how long it took to get the perfect copy?

No, they have a few isolated fossils at various stages and assumed it was a natural progression governed by chance as per the standard theory.

This is not me questioning the survival of the fittest or the origin of the species as I am happy with that, it is the specifics of perfect copy within that standard theory that I question because everyone using standard theory just sits back and accepts perfect copy and I do not see anyone questioning the probability of pure chance to get perfect copy.

Everyone thinks that all the wrong mutations along the line mean those species are eradicated, I am saying the permutations over such a long time as is required for perfect copy would lead to extinction by default before the perfect copy could save the species.

I am saying at any time a million sea-horse would evolve with a wrong shade making them easy prey against maybe a few who were sort of closer to a better copy.

This is a disaster waiting to happen, as a sea-horse you cannot afford to be a test run for any mutation that comes your way.

If no one can see the difficulty in getting perfect copy and the length of time taken works totally against survival of the fittest then that is fine.

Simple evolution as posted is not what I am on about.

Simply saying this can happen without actually giving any reasoning for how the species survive the vast odds that favour wrong mutation rather than right mutation for perfect copy then fine.

I have pinkish sea-horses, a million, hiding in pinkish coral which helps then mutations to all million sends them off into all different cours and shades and growths of all possible kinds.

Nearly all will mutate in the wrong direction unless there is a mechanisim driving the mutation in the right direction.

It is amazing when we are only just finding out that genetic mutations cause serious faults that were once considered a deliberate behaviour of the free will of the individual that so many are not willing to contamplate a reason for perfect pattern genetic engineering.

john
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#18New Post! Mar 05, 2009 @ 04:07:18
@jck200 Said

I am not particularly interested in evolution and for the most part am happy with the main contentions but every so often I see something on a science programme that causes me some grief.

It is the absolute staggering detail in the most humble of insects and flowers that allows for a perfect solution to the very problem it has overcome.

Flowers in some respects cause more problems than insects because flowers have no idea what the problem is.

The total time needed to create these evolutions which must start with a very minor change to one or a few flowers and then needing a miracle for those few to survive and create the next slight change exactly in the right direction when blinded to the task in hand does not add up mathematically.

Like i said it is not just one flower or one insect it is millions.

Each one performing an incredible procedure for survival that defies belief and the road that has had to take to get to that position before going extinct creates a monumental obstacle to the claim it is pure chance.

This is just my observation, if someone simply wants to regeretate standard evolutionary theory then that is rather pointless as my views go far beyond simpky accepting this.

john



Well, evolution through natural selection can account for the diversity and survival ability of all carbon-based life on Earth, as long as the process is given sufficient time - which it has. Besides, do you have a better explanation?

Also, why is this in the Physics forum?
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#19New Post! Mar 05, 2009 @ 04:12:51
Wait, I think I now understand your problem, and it arises from a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not guided towards the best method of survival and reproduction. It is random, so it does not produce the obvious solution to a creature's environmental challenges, it just produces any solution that works.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#20New Post! Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:28:31
@jck 200 Said


if the predation was increasing a simpler defence such as poison, which would not take long, would have been far better


This is only true if the species was in a condition that poison was a viable mutation,
Evolution is more a 'tinkerer' in an animals traits, it doesn't make whole new things. It can only use what it's got and mutate a small amount away from that,take humans it would be easier for us to change colour than develop poisoned quills, this is because the intermediate steps have to be there first, they can sometimes not even have anything to do with poison, but unless an animal had developed a certain amount, perhaps due to entirely different circumstances it wouldn't be close enough to poison for it to emerge.

@jck 200 Said



At each genetic mutation there are a million ways to get it wrong and only one way to get it right.


Everyone thinks that all the wrong mutations along the line mean those species are eradicated, I am saying the permutations over such a long time as is required for perfect copy would lead to extinction by default before the perfect copy could save the species.


But it only takes the few that get it right to spread their genes,
not all mutations that are not beneficial will be killed, they simply stand less of a chance.
more of the positive trait will be passed on in successive generations, and so on and so on, eventually the pinker shade will be the norm and the others will die out.
This is however a gradual process and there will in reality be no time when there are fully pink ones and fully, lets say brown ones, the populations would of evened out.

@jck 200 Said

I have pinkish sea-horses, a million, hiding in pinkish coral which helps then mutations to all million sends them off into all different courts and shades and growths of all possible kinds.

Nearly all will mutate in the wrong direction unless there is a mechanism driving the mutation in the right direction.


It doesn't matter how many mutate in the wrong direction, what matters only is if the ones that mutate in the 'right' direction have a greater chance of passing on their genes.
Once that happens then statistically greater change covering the whole species is inevitable if conditions stay the same.

hope that helps.

i recommend watching this video, it gives a nice account of evolution, using colour.

[yt]SeTssvexa9s [/yt]
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#21New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 00:07:18
Seriously, what I am getting is nothing to do with the actual mathematics.

The few that get it right have a million times better chance of getting it wrong on the next tiny mutation and hardly any chance of getting it more right when considering perfect replication of a certain specific coral making them and the next much smaller generation wide open to extinction.

The fish I saw replicated exactly a highly complex leaf with specific markings and edges.

The time to mutate a fin into a leaf is long enough but to get an exact copy of a certain leaf cannot be done by chance alone.

If the species require a large amount to get it wrong leading to their demise then the few that get it right reach a critical level where they can no longer survive as a species.

Each minute change allows the majority to get it wrong by chance leading to very few getting it right and those become an endangered species at every small stage.

You cannot keep allowing the reduction when the odds favour getting it wrong when requiring a million mutations.

The fact is the fish replicated the leaf perfectly so evolution worked but to think it was pure chance as with simpler evolutionary tracts is not understanding the enormous odds against perfect copy at each generation.

What people are saying is the damge caused to the many who get it wrong benefit the few but what I am saying is the many are being driven to extinction at each stage and the odds on each small group getting it right surving anyway is minute as well.

It is numbers at each stage that is the mathematical problem.

Just because a few got it right does not allow them to survive over a million years when each generation is costing the majority to become extrnct.

By the way developing a poison is simple as this is just a mutation of natural stuff any living thing has anyway.

Plus developing a posion defence does not endanger the majority as it will not affect them if they have not got a poison perfect.

Lock you in a small room and ask you to make a perfect copy of the painting I just did and you will never do it.

No one seems to understand the complications with getting perfect copy and the damage done to the majority while trying to get it right.

All I am getting is simplistic theory here repeated over and over.

Simplistic evolution will not work for perfect copy which the living thing has no idea what that should be.

Small fish cannot survive on small numbers generation after generation due to damge to the majority getting the wrong mutation.

Getting 90% right and then the other 10% actually making the fish more vunerable is useless and chance alone would actually mean that would happen generation after generation.

john
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#22New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 00:22:18
@jck200 Said

Seriously, what I am getting is nothing to do with the actual mathematics.

The few that get it right have a million times better chance of getting it wrong on the next tiny mutation and hardly any chance of getting it more right when considering perfect replication of a certain specific coral making them and the next much smaller generation wide open to extinction.

The fish I saw replicated exactly a highly complex leaf with specific markings and edges.

The time to mutate a fin into a leaf is long enough but to get an exact copy of a certain leaf cannot be done by chance alone.

If the species require a large amount to get it wrong leading to their demise then the few that get it right reach a critical level where they can no longer survive as a species.

Each minute change allows the majority to get it wrong by chance leading to very few getting it right and those become an endangered species at every small stage.

You cannot keep allowing the reduction when the odds favour getting it wrong when requiring a million mutations.

The fact is the fish replicated the leaf perfectly so evolution worked but to think it was pure chance as with simpler evolutionary tracts is not understanding the enormous odds against perfect copy at each generation.

What people are saying is the damge caused to the many who get it wrong benefit the few but what I am saying is the many are being driven to extinction at each stage and the odds on each small group getting it right surving anyway is minute as well.

It is numbers at each stage that is the mathematical problem.

Just because a few got it right does not allow them to survive over a million years when each generation is costing the majority to become extrnct.

By the way developing a poison is simple as this is just a mutation of natural stuff any living thing has anyway.

Plus developing a posion defence does not endanger the majority as it will not affect them if they have not got a poison perfect.

Lock you in a small room and ask you to make a perfect copy of the painting I just did and you will never do it.

No one seems to understand the complications with getting perfect copy and the damage done to the majority while trying to get it right.

All I am getting is simplistic theory here repeated over and over.

Simplistic evolution will not work for perfect copy which the living thing has no idea what that should be.

Small fish cannot survive on small numbers generation after generation due to damge to the majority getting the wrong mutation.

Getting 90% right and then the other 10% actually making the fish more vunerable is useless and chance alone would actually mean that would happen generation after generation.

john


You're misunderstanding evolution.

First off the fact that a few get a 'positive' mutation does not mean the ones that don't are doomed to be eaten, the change will be quite small and sometimes the ones with the positive mutations will still get eaten.
All it means is that the likelyhood of the few with positive mutations getting eaten is SLIGHTLY less, looking at any individual you wouldn't even notice this but taken as a whole and over many generations this TINY improvement leads to these positive genes being passed out through the whole species.

Obviously this effect is more powerful if you start off with a smaller group, such as a group of one species isolated geographically from the others and exposed to new dangers, but only slightly new dangers or the species will not be able to cope and become extinct.
like 99% of all species that have ever existed.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#23New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 01:21:00
@alexkidd Said

You're misunderstanding evolution.


Story of this guy's scientific life, isn't it?
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#24New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 02:18:10
alex,

So my friend how does perfect copy happen?

The genes are blind so your calculation is that every tiny mutation eventually leads to the perfect copy of a highly complicated leaf from a fin?

You are sat in a room for millions of years trying to make a perfect copy of a painting I have done without a clue as to what your trying to do and you say eventually you will make a perfect copy by chance.

I say you got no chance no matter how many millions of years you take.

See the mistake people make is that all lottery combinations must come up eventually when that is not the case at all.

See, once half the combinations come up the chances favour the same ones repeating and as you get closer to the 14 million the odds on the few that have not come up versus the ones that have come up mean they might never come up.

The more tiny mutations you get that go right the greater the chances that they will not get it right any further.

This is where the misunderstanding seems to be.

The first mutation is simple and the next a little harder and it keeps getting harder and that is after very few as you say tiny mutations and then it becomes impossible.

I have no idea how but I am convinced that information about the thing to be copied perfectly must be imparted to the genetic material somehow.

Even with such information the time required would only just allow for the perfect copy to be of any use to allow the species to expand because of the disguise.

It hardly matters that no one else thinks there is any possibilitiy that information is exchanged because if it was they would know nothing about any such thing, obviously not even having considered it, not reading it from any text book.

On this site I am looking for and encouraging original thinking, the idea that repeating what one has read about without question is little more than an excercise that can be done just as easily by copying and pasting other peoples work.

The replies are very basic and constitute a basic idea about basic evolution when I am questioning extreme complicated evolution.

This stuff about only needing a few small mutations and a long time and everything is hunky dory is nowhere near the mark concerning my specific point regarding how a perfect copy can ever be made.

Nature has a standard model which is used every time and that is the simplisit most economical method.

DNA is the simplist most economical method and the main part is used for all life forms.

Hydrogen is used for star formation and the other atoms are created from that.

Simple and economic.

Perfect copy is not simple and not economic and that is not right for nature unless it has a simplistic method for getting perfect copy.

Things that work are not the luck of the draw.

john
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#25New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 02:23:24
In reality, there aren't any "perfect" copies. There are approximations and good copies, but no perfect copies. There are clear differences in virtually all mimics in nature.

And, yes, "very good" copies can - and do - come from successively better repetitions.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#26New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 14:32:11
@jack 200 Said

alex,

So my friend how does perfect copy happen?

The genes are blind so your calculation is that every tiny mutation eventually leads to the perfect copy of a highly complicated leaf from a fin?

You are sat in a room for millions of years trying to make a perfect copy of a painting I have done without a clue as to what your trying to do and you say eventually you will make a perfect copy by chance.

I say you got no chance no matter how many millions of years you take.

See the mistake people make is that all lottery combinations must come up eventually when that is not the case at all.

See, once half the combinations come up the chances favour the same ones repeating and as you get closer to the 14 million the odds on the few that have not come up versus the ones that have come up mean they might never come up.

The more tiny mutations you get that go right the greater the chances that they will not get it right any further.

This is where the misunderstanding seems to be.

The first mutation is simple and the next a little harder and it keeps getting harder and that is after very few as you say tiny mutations and then it becomes impossible.

I have no idea how but I am convinced that information about the thing to be copied perfectly must be imparted to the genetic material somehow.

Even with such information the time required would only just allow for the perfect copy to be of any use to allow the species to expand because of the disguise.

It hardly matters that no one else thinks there is any possibility that information is exchanged because if it was they would know nothing about any such thing, obviously not even having considered it, not reading it from any text book.

On this site I am looking for and encouraging original thinking, the idea that repeating what one has read about without question is little more than an exercise that can be done just as easily by copying and pasting other peoples work.

The replies are very basic and constitute a basic idea about basic evolution when I am questioning extreme complicated evolution.

This stuff about only needing a few small mutations and a long time and everything is hunky dory is nowhere near the mark concerning my specific point regarding how a perfect copy can ever be made.

Nature has a standard model which is used every time and that is the simplicity most economical method.

DNA is the simplest most economical method and the main part is used for all life forms.

Hydrogen is used for star formation and the other atoms are created from that.

Simple and economic.

Perfect copy is not simple and not economic and that is not right for nature unless it has a simplistic method for getting perfect copy.

Things that work are not the luck of the draw.

john



What do you mean by perfect copy?

Your analogy of a painting doesn't fit, it implies the belief that both sets of genes are made from scratch and all the parts of the copy fall in place trying their best to look like the original.

This doesn't happen.
It simply is not how genes or cells or dna replicate.

You do not seem to be asking about 'complex' evolution, how animals grow camouflage is pretty basic and heavily centered around natural selection as opposed to more complicated evolutionary concepts such as gene flow.

I'm not sure what you mean by perfect copies,
Camouflaged animals are no more perfect copies of their parents as you are of yours,any deviation away from the leaf shape in the animal you are discussing would result in a negative effect on its chances of survival.
This keeps all such animals basically 'in-tune' with their surroundings.

I fail to see your point, nor why you appear quite condescending considering we are indeed discussing the very basics of evolutionary theory.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#27New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 20:57:54
alex,

You are right you do not see my point.

Perfect copy represents a perfect copy of a leaf that cannot be differentiated until pointed out.

The fact that this happens over and over is not the point.

To use simplistic survival of the fittest is not the point.

To state simplistic mutations lead to perfect complex copy is the point.

As no one knows whether there is or is not a connection to any information exchange then no one is in any position to claim there is no exchange.

Claiming something to be true when there is obviously no way of knowing it to be true is what I am getting here.

What I am actually saying is the extended odds that increase with each tiny mutation gives a mathematical probability of zero when applied to perfect copy over any length of time.

That is my conclusion not something that I know to be true, the best anyone else can do is conclude that their mathematics can perform a lot better than mine when calulating the odds at each stage.

Anyway if all the posts simply repeat basic evolutionary theory then that is nothing like what I am talking about, my consideration was a closer look at complex evolution and to ask whether there could be a possibility that information could be exchanged.

The leading experts in basic theory on here have said no exchange cannot happen, how anyone can say that with certainty is beyond me.

Of course should in the future the theory be updated to include exchange the same experts will be on here touting that instead but such is life. Those that live by the theory die by the theory.

I am not sure whether anyone quite understands original thought, someone elses thoughts are not quite what it means.

john
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#28New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 21:05:32
jck200, please name one organism which has made a perfect copy of another's appearance.

Just one.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#29New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 21:41:23
@jck 200 Said

alex,

You are right you do not see my point.

Perfect copy represents a perfect copy of a leaf that cannot be differentiated until pointed out.

The fact that this happens over and over is not the point.

To use simplistic survival of the fittest is not the point.

To state simplistic mutations lead to perfect complex copy is the point.

As no one knows whether there is or is not a connection to any information exchange then no one is in any position to claim there is no exchange.

Claiming something to be true when there is obviously no way of knowing it to be true is what I am getting here.

What I am actually saying is the extended odds that increase with each tiny mutation gives a mathematical probability of zero when applied to perfect copy over any length of time.

That is my conclusion not something that I know to be true, the best anyone else can do is conclude that their mathematics can perform a lot better than mine when calculating the odds at each stage.

Anyway if all the posts simply repeat basic evolutionary theory then that is nothing like what I am talking about, my consideration was a closer look at complex evolution and to ask whether there could be a possibility that information could be exchanged.

The leading experts in basic theory on here have said no exchange cannot happen, how anyone can say that with certainty is beyond me.

Of course should in the future the theory be updated to include exchange the same experts will be on here touting that instead but such is life. Those that live by the theory die by the theory.

I am not sure whether anyone quite understands original thought, someone else's thoughts are not quite what it means.

john


could you please define your terms!
what do you mean by 'exchange'?

and what do you mean by 'perfect copy'?

I fail to see any suggestion of why you think evolution cannot do this just that you say it can't according to some abstract law of probability of your own invention, which is ok, but explain to me please why the 'standard' theory of evolution cannot explain camouflaged animals?
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#30New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 22:41:19
alex,

The case for evolution is clear, delving into certain specific forms of evolution and thinking it is ok because these things can happen over time results in acceptance when a little consideration might be more helpful.

There are numnerous examples of perfect copy but I used only the fin of a particular fish and a certain pink sea-horse.

The fish has a predator that farms prey by biting only their fins so many fish go around quite happily with bitten fins.

This fish however has developed a fin that is larger and exactly the same size as a sea plant, not only that the leaf has specific serrated edges and a complex pattern and this has been copied exactly on the fin tail of the fish.

The fish hides in this plant, not in any other plant and has not copied any other plant leaf.

Given not all species of this fish has mutated by chance along the same lines the number of mutations being confined to this one fish is also a problem.

At each point along the long road the few fish that survive have less chance in numbers in getting the next bit right and less chance of getting it right and a greater chance of getting it wrong.

It is the small number of survivors coupled with the small chance those numbers have of getting even the smallest next step right that is the cause of my post.

Considering these fish are only having their tails bitten and not being eaten the odds favour those who do not have any leaf mutation at all.

Every step along the line seems to indicate the few would not increase in numbers during the full transformation as getting it wrong would make them more obvious than tho
ose that did not mutate at all.

This is not camourflage it is an exact replica of a leaf.

Anyone who thinks all the leaves are perfect copies of each other is mistaken there are variations and this fish is easily a perfect variation so as to make it a perfect copy.

I think having watched the tv programme and suddenly seen this for myself naturally led to me thinking just how this could happen by chance.

It is like me having many different coloured beads and lining them up and someone trying to make a perfect copy blindfolded.

The first few guesses by chance can easily match mine but the odds increase dramatically with each correct guess that the next guess will be wrong.

The fish, the few that survive each time mind you guess all sorts of colours for the next bit which leads to them being easy to spot because of that one wrong colour among a green plant meaning all predators can now spot them.

This goes on and on at each stage.

You end up with a fewer and fewer survivors due to error.

It is easy to discard this and say yes but a few will always survive each stage but you are dealing with very small numbers who never make a mistake.

Small numbers over generations lead to extinction and that is solid evolutionary theory.

The mathematic are not difficult.

Why would nature allow a mutation taking about a million years and many generations to perfect leave it to chance?

There has to be an edge, unlike developing an eye or a thumb perfect copy, for camourflage is not something that can afford mistakes along the way.

john
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Fri Dec 30, 2011 @ 20:50
4 406
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Sat Feb 21, 2015 @ 02:45
9 1905
New posts   Technology & Internet
Wed Sep 02, 2009 @ 10:11
0 449
New posts   Video Games
Tue Dec 30, 2008 @ 18:07
4 385
New posts   Technology & Internet
Sun Mar 30, 2008 @ 21:40
7 611