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

Nothing adds up

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#31New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 22:52:02
@jck200 Said
Why would nature allow a mutation taking about a million years and many generations to perfect leave it to chance?


Nature is not a person. Nature does not have desires.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#32New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 23:04:46
@jck 200 Said

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 numerous 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 camouflage 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 camouflage is not something that can afford mistakes along the way.

john


first.
There is obviously a benefit to having fins, you don't live long without them if you're a fish. Other predators will catch you pretty easily.

second.
The longer you keep them the better chance you have of passing on your genes.

so.
Anything that makes your fins a lesser target for this particular predator is a positive mutation in this context. Any move towards a point that will help your fin to be mistaken for a leaf lessens the chance a predator will bite it off.
Having fins means more offspring which means more offspring with a similar type of fin to you.
And we begin again....etc..etc..etc..

You end up with something that looks a lot like a leaf, a 'perfect copy' which is what i think you mean by that term.

I'm unsure about what exactly you're not getting about this.

I'd like to also point out that your analogy of lining up beads and a blindfolded person copying them also does not apply.

What might be more fitting would be you lining up beads and a computer program placing beads down randomly and being told each time whether it's right or wrong compared to yours and allowed to do this indefinitely.
skottie On September 23, 2009

Deleted



, Texas
#33New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 23:05:12
@jck200 Said

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



Nature does not 'know' what it is doing.

There are lots of species of animals, fish and insects that are extinct. (more than we will ever know) More are going extinct all the time.

If there was a watch full eye, where did all of these extinct species go?

Did 'your' nature decide they are not worthy to be here?
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#34New Post! Mar 06, 2009 @ 23:56:35
alex,

A computer programme being told whether it is right or wrong is exactly what I am talking about.

The fish is not being told when it gets it wrong and no matter how right it gets it the chances it will get it dratically wrong is almost certain at some point.

You tell me with a million beads of different colours and a computer programme coming up with random guesses can and will keep coming up with the wrong guesses over and over and may never get it right.

The pc does not have to survive predators in the meantime does it?

john
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#35New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 00:03:23
skottie,

Nature has managed to get this far and if you think it is because it does not know what it is doing then fine.

An asteroid hits the earth and poisons the atmoshpere and waters and still nature manages to get it back on track.

An ice age wipes out 95% of life and still nature gets it back on track.

The nature of things is that everything is working not nothing at all working.

Put a boss in charge of a large company who does not know what he is doing and nothing will work.#

Extinctions are perfectly in order when the situation calls for extinction.

Left to you I suppose we would not have any mass extinctions because you do know what your doing?

I would love to see that scenario!

john
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#36New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 00:07:07
@jck 200 Said

alex,

A computer programme being told whether it is right or wrong is exactly what I am talking about.

The fish is not being told when it gets it wrong and no matter how right it gets it the chances it will get it drastically wrong is almost certain at some point.

You tell me with a million beads of different colours and a computer programme coming up with random guesses can and will keep coming up with the wrong guesses over and over and may never get it right.

The pc does not have to survive predators in the meantime does it?

john



The fish is told whether he gets it wrong.
By the likelihood of him getting eaten.

If it's incorrect that fish along with his particular genes are eliminated from the pool.

"no matter how right it gets it the chances it will get it drastically wrong is almost certain at some point."

we are talking about more than one fish here...
The fish that has say, the half formed leaf-fin may indeed produce children that are less like the leaf, these will be less likely to survive, rooting out negative mutations.
The offspring he has that are more like the leaf will have an even greater chance of survival.

Also we are using an analogy here talking about one specific fish, in reality this is a complex exchange across many many fish over many many generations.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#37New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 00:33:47
alex,

Yes the fish is being told when it gets it wrong unlike the computer example you gave the fish pays for the mistake with its life.

A half formed leaf from a base of very few fish with this allows any number of wrong directions and only one right direction.

Somehow you seem to think finding this one and only correct direction is simplistic at each and every tiny stage.

This has nothing to do with always having a few fish with the right mutation, it is convenient to say all the wrong mutations would not wipe out those fish because it suits simple theory.

I am not saying the mutation does not take place, I am not saying a fin cannot mutate to make a perfect copy of a certain leaf...it has already done this.

I am saying that the basic understanding that only a few fish need to survive and any wrong mutations will be eaten out of the way does not answer the question.

There are countless defences the fish can take and yet to single out this specific long winded complicated leaf idea just does not make sense.

By the time this fish completed a perfect copy a new predator could have evolved that fed on such leaves.

There is no sense at all to it.

Unless there is a mechanisim that reduces the chance factor so the completion can be done in far less time.

Would you paint a wall with a brush with one hair on it that was as thin as the a human hair?

john
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#38New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 00:53:01
@jck200 Said

alex,

Yes the fish is being told when it gets it wrong unlike the computer example you gave the fish pays for the mistake with its life.


Yes it does, but the computer in my analogy didn't represent a fish, it represented natural selection.
in my analogy every wrong answer represented a fish or a group of fish being eliminated from the gene pool.

@jck200 Said

A half formed leaf from a base of very few fish with this allows any number of wrong directions and only one right direction.


perhaps not only one right direction, there may be a few different paths to reach similear results, but basically yes a step in the right direction will win out over the countless steps in opposite directions because the one who is most likely to survive will be the one with the positive mutation.
and therefore pass on this positive mutation to its offspring.

@jck200 Said

This has nothing to do with always having a few fish with the right mutation, it is convenient to say all the wrong mutations would not wipe out those fish because it suits simple theory.


How would fish being born with negative mutations affect the survivability of the fish with positive mutations?

@jck200 Said

I am not saying the mutation does not take place, I am not saying a fin cannot mutate to make a perfect copy of a certain leaf...it has already done this.

I am saying that the basic understanding that only a few fish need to survive and any wrong mutations will be eaten out of the way does not answer the question.


Simple, yes it does.
keep in mind that most fish will be neutral in all this untill they breed with a fish harbouring the positive mutation and thereby have children which are more likely to survive and so more likely to have their own offspring.
This is how the mutations spread throughout the population.

@jck200 Said

There are countless defences the fish can take and yet to single out this specific long winded complicated leaf idea just does not make sense.

By the time this fish completed a perfect copy a new predator could have evolved that fed on such leaves.

There is no sense at all to it.


exactly, no sense,
nobody guiding the process, there could of been many routes taken, but only one happened, it depends on which mutation occured and what situation the animal was in.

something could have and could still evolve to eat those leafy-fins off, it it does then hard luck for leafy-fin fish.

@jck200 Said

Unless there is a mechanisim that reduces the chance factor so the completion can be done in far less time.

Would you paint a wall with a brush with one hair on it that was as thin as the a human hair?

john


The evolution of the leaf-fin does not have to be complete in order to be beneficial.

I wouldn't choose to paint a wall with a human hair,
But thats irrelevant, choice has nothing to do with evolution.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#39New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 01:32:21
alex,

1. If fish were elliminated at every wrong answer all fish would be ellimnated as it is completely out of the question for any fish to get every mutation correct.

2. The chances of being right leave very few fish and this at every stage makes them more likely to become extinct than the countless getting it wrong, simple mathematics.

3. Again your maths is wrong, with countless wrong mutations numbers alone will prevail.

4. Your maths is wrong, with countless wrong mutations a fish with a correct mutation is more likely to breed with a fish with the wrong mutation which favours the wrong mutation in numbers.

5. Well as any mutation has no sense where is the sense in just following one specific mutation, why not try growing a beard and a million other far sighted mutations that would not exactly do any harm.

If you do not question evolution then nothing will be questioned by you, that leaves me to do the questioning by default. It would not do if no one asked any questions.

john
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#40New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 02:03:55
@jck200 Said

1. If fish were elliminated at every wrong answer all fish would be ellimnated as it is completely out of the question for any fish to get every mutation correct.


No, the fish with the positive or neutral traits would be left.
the analogy wasn't perfect, i don't agree with most analogies in terms of evolution really because they always seem to be redundant because they refer to inanimate objects that can not reproduce or diversify.

but anyway,
Why would any one fish need to get all mutations 'correct' there is no end goal of being correct, only what helps it to survive.
also were talking about gradual change accumulating over many many generations over whole species, not one single fish.

one fish couldn't evolve anymore than i could.

@jck200 Said

2. The chances of being right leave very few fish and this at every stage makes them more likely to become extinct than the countless getting it wrong, simple mathematics.


Just because there are few of them does not make them more likely to die out,
why would a fish with a slightly better mutation be more likely to be eaten than one without?
in reality he would be less likely to be eaten.


@jck200 Said

3. Again your maths is wrong, with countless wrong mutations numbers alone will prevail.


The negative or neutral mutations are not in cohorts to eliminate the positive ones, they are not in competition with each other in that way, their only competition is in avoiding predators and finding food and mates, the fish with the positive mutation is able to do all these things better so therefore has improved survivability.

think about it for a second, take it to extremes even.
in a race of fish all suffering from this fin eating predator and one was born with a fully evolved leaf-fin all of a sudden (wouldn't happen but humour me) would he survive better or would he 'be outnumbered' and therefore die off?
being outnumbered is irrelevant you see? he lives better with less danger of attack and is most likely going to reproduce a lot passing on his trait to some of his kids.

the exact same thing is happening with only a tiny benefit instead of a massive one.


@jck200 Said

4. Your maths is wrong, with countless wrong mutations a fish with a correct mutation is more likely to breed with a fish with the wrong mutation which favours the wrong mutation in numbers.


Nope, he's more likely to breed with a fish who has only neutral mutations, but if he did breed with a fish who had a negative mutation then that does not mean that the positive mutation would be bred out, the opposite actually.

For this you need to understand a little of how genes are passed on, but a gross simplification for right now would be that some of their off spring would carry the positive trait and some would carry the negative. those who displayed the negative would again be likely eaten and those who displayed the positive have a better chance on average of survival. and so go on to pass on the genes again, multiplying.



@jck200 Said

5. Well as any mutation has no sense where is the sense in just following one specific mutation, why not try growing a beard and a million other far sighted mutations that would not exactly do any harm.


Well first off there is no conscious effort to 'follow' anything,
why wouldn't the fish grow an ink shooter to escape prey? or a pair of hands so he can punch them away and tie his shoelaces should he gain some feet too?
simply because the steps to begin such a process were not rewarded with improved survivability.

@jck200 Said

If you do not question evolution then nothing will be questioned by you, that leaves me to do the questioning by default. It would not do if no one asked any questions.

john


question everything i always say,
nothing wrong with that, but try and accept evidence when it comes your way too.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#41New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 04:30:06
@jck200 Said

alex,

1. If fish were elliminated at every wrong answer all fish would be ellimnated as it is completely out of the question for any fish to get every mutation correct.


The vast majority of the fish produced through breeding have no significant genetic variations.

Of the ones that do, the vast majority are variations that make them worse and they die off.

However, every now and then one has a mutation that makes it stronger or more adapted to its environment. It breeds and its children have the same mutation. This is how beneficial mutations become more prevalent.

You're assuming that every fish has some significant genetic mutation. this is wrong.
skottie On September 23, 2009

Deleted



, Texas
#42New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 17:51:29
@jck200 Said

skottie,

Nature has managed to get this far and if you think it is because it does not know what it is doing then fine.

An asteroid hits the earth and poisons the atmoshpere and waters and still nature manages to get it back on track.

An ice age wipes out 95% of life and still nature gets it back on track.

The nature of things is that everything is working not nothing at all working.

Put a boss in charge of a large company who does not know what he is doing and nothing will work.#

Extinctions are perfectly in order when the situation calls for extinction.

Left to you I suppose we would not have any mass extinctions because you do know what your doing?

I would love to see that scenario!

john


john

if you are going to use a company as a comparison, then nature the the most diversified company ever. nature has it's hands in everything. no wonder it can survive.. when you have so many different options, some of them are going to keep going.

fyi, you do not have to have a global extinction for a single species to die off. it happens on small scales

since you say nature 'knows' what it is doing, why are any species gone? and do not fall back to your lame reason of mass extinction. i am talking about one species.. where is natures plan there?

i don't want to see a scenario with you in charge john. it would be the end of every thing.

skottie
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#43New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 23:04:28
alex,

That made me smile..."just because there are few of them..."

You do understand these few fish have a lot of predators not just the one who eats fins?

Then work it out if there are only a few hundred with better mutations and thousands without the better mutation generation after generation what is going to happen.

Anyway, evolution is simple if you accept it is all down to chance you have nothing left to think about.

.........

Right my friend let us try to look at it back to front in case you can grasp the problem.

All the fish now have the perfect copy, as it happens today they all have.

The fish though do not know what the copy is or whether it is perfect so chance mutation accoding to you must continue as the genes cannot exchange information as you so kindly keep telling me so the genes are hopeless at understanding anything.

When I say all the fish have mutations of note this is over millions of years just like your simplistic notion of evolution so over time they do all get significant change.

Amazingly suddenly and inexplicably the gene does by some miracle know the fin is perfect.

According to everything you said the genes cannot know and must therefore carry on mutating and the only way they can mutate from perfect is to get it all wrong again, that is brilliant that is, I wonder why I never thought of that myself.

Naturally you would now like the penny and the bun because this does not suit the simplistic theory at all.

john
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#44New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 23:19:24
@jck 200 Said

alex,

That made me smile..."just because there are few of them..."

You do understand these few fish have a lot of predators not just the one who eats fins?



Anyway, evolution is simple if you accept it is all down to chance you have nothing left to think about.

.........

Right my friend let us try to look at it back to front in case you can grasp the problem.

All the fish now have the perfect copy, as it happens today they all have.

The fish though do not know what the copy is or whether it is perfect so chance mutation according to you must continue as the genes cannot exchange information as you so kindly keep telling me so the genes are hopeless at understanding anything.

When I say all the fish have mutations of note this is over millions of years just like your simplistic notion of evolution so over time they do all get significant change.

Amazingly suddenly and inexplicably the gene does by some miracle know the fin is perfect.

According to everything you said the genes cannot know and must therefore carry on mutating and the only way they can mutate from perfect is to get it all wrong again, that is brilliant that is, I wonder why I never thought of that myself.

Naturally you would now like the penny and the bun because this does not suit the simplistic theory at all.

john



What you said there is bang on, mutations do continue, we are all still evolving and even those fish with seemingly 'perfect' copies of the leaves are still evolving.

Of course if anyone deviates from the leaf pattern he is punished with diminished survivability and therefore he doesn't get a chance to breed as much and therefore his genes and his non leaf-like traits don't get propagated throughout the species.

If lets imagine the fin eating predator went extinct then a move away from the leaf fin *might* be beneficial and then it might be carried on.

@jck 200 Said

Then work it out if there are only a few hundred with better mutations and thousands without the better mutation generation after generation what is going to happen.


what will happen is that after each generation more and more of the species will be carrying the positive genes,
Positive genes will certainly be spread over the entire population eventually because as the fish with the good genes multiply and multiply, mating with the 'normal' or neutral fish the neutral population decreases and the positively mutated genes are passed on geometrically.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#45New Post! Mar 07, 2009 @ 23:42:03
alex,

Ah well, while some small numbers get it right they are already mutating away from right to wrong so even the ones getting it right get it wrong before the others catch up.

The only way is for the small numbers getting it right first would be to stop mutating away from right but they can`t do that unless there is exchange.

We have a marathon race and the only way the first few runners past the finish can be caught by all the others is if they stop at the finish.

Now I have pointed out more than the odd problem with getting perfect copy and anyone having the simplistic view of evolution will not exactly be in any position to consider perfect copy and certainly would be at a loss to contemplate exchange of information but as a lateral logical thinker I found it interesting coming up with something original to say.

Evolution in general is not a great interest of mine like the universe or the brain but it has been a pleasant distraction.

One thing we both know is of course that you cannot be certain there is no exchange of information, you cannot know something you don`t know and there is no way of knowing whether you don`t know or not.

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   Society & Lifestyles
Thu Feb 16, 2012 @ 14:07
197 10696
New posts   Homes & Real Estate
Tue Oct 04, 2011 @ 13:55
24 14187
New posts   Movies
Mon Jul 12, 2010 @ 05:01
4 599
New posts   Photography
Sat Sep 27, 2008 @ 17:28
9 717
New posts   Relationships
Wed Aug 30, 2006 @ 06:50
14 1396