22 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen you say "best changes", presumably you mean changes that are selectively advantageous. Now, what determines whether a change is selectively advantageous?
Accidental, all changes are if I understand it outside of natural selection supposedly keeping the best changes.
Kelly
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrWell simple survival of the fittest. In the same species itself this operates.
When you say "best changes", presumably you mean changes that are selectively advantageous. Now, what determines whether a change is selectively advantageous?
Suppose you had a monkey with a small modification.Now this mutant monkey the change helps it either to
1. escape enemies better.
2. find its own food better.
3. reproduce at a more optimal rate(if it reproduces more than this finding food becomes tougher and tougher till starvation sets in and this particular monkeys become extinct.Or if it reproduces less it cannot compete well with members of its species which reproduce at a higher rate and these get replaced).
then it survives better than members of it species and gradually( over a period of millions of years) this species becomes predominent.
That is why evolution is such a slow process.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by druidraviThat doesn't sound like a very accidental process to me.
Well simple survival of the fittest. In the same species itself this operates.
Suppose you had a monkey with a small modification.Now this mutant monkey the change helps it either to
1. escape enemies better.
2. find its own food better.
3. reproduce at a more optimal rate(if it reproduces more than this finding food becomes tougher and tougher til ...[text shortened]... rs) this species becomes predominent.
That is why evolution is such a slow process.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrAll changes which are produced are accidental. Only the changes which might benefit that particular species are carried through by the long process called evolution others are discarded.
That doesn't sound like a very accidental process to me.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by druidraviNo. Not all changes are accidental. Only initial changes (e.g., changes resulting from genetic mutation) are accidental. The fact that a change is reproduced in subsequent generations is not random, but lawful. The point is that accidents, random processes provide the fuel for evolutionary change, but this doesn't entail that evolutionary changes are wholly accidental. As can be seen from your post, there are reasons why some changes persist and become endemic in a species.
All changes which are produced are accidental. Only the changes which might benefit that particular species are carried through by the long process called evolution others are discarded.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by druidraviHaving a little to do with design I believe the complex nature of
All changes which are produced are accidental. Only the changes which might benefit that particular species are carried through by the long process called evolution others are discarded.
life basically suggests to me that accidental changes are not
adequate to achieve the functionally complex living systems we
see today.
Kelly
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayLife when it first started was very simple.It took millions of years to acheive the present complexity.
Having a little to do with design I believe the complex nature of
life basically suggests to me that accidental changes are not
adequate to achieve the functionally complex living systems we
see today.
Kelly
Can anyone tell me when exactly(in millions) did life first start?.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrI disagree, all changes happen in DNA and remain, so what can rewrite
No. Not all changes are accidental. Only initial changes (e.g., changes resulting from genetic mutation) are accidental. The fact that a change is reproduced in subsequent generations is not random, but lawful. The point is that accidents, random processes provide the fuel for evolutionary change, but this doesn't entail that evolutionary changes are whol ...[text shortened]... seen from your post, there are reasons why some changes persist and become endemic in a species.
the genetic code? Can changes in our environment do it fast enough?
Can changes in diet do it fast enough? Why would we see all these
changes? If the mutations in the genetic code isn’t accidental than
there is some cause, a cause that we need to identify. If the changes
are simply accidental variations within the genetic code that remain,
we must rule out saying there are changes that are not accidental.
This again presupposes that evolutionary changes have take place
from a simple beginning to the vast array of living systems we see
today. Which I do not accept to be up front about it.
Kelly
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by druidraviDepending on how "exactly" you require, that's a firm "maybe". 🙂
Can anyone tell me when exactly(in millions) did life first start?.
Somewhat over 3,000 (millions), but I'm not sure I can get a lot more exact than that. Multicellular life goes back somewhere around 600 millions.
Best Regards,
Paul
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayHow does any of this contradict what I posted above? I'm claiming that alterations to the genetic code (what I called initial changes) are accidental. Didn't you read that part of my post?
I disagree, all changes happen in DNA and remain, so what can rewrite
the genetic code? Can changes in our environment do it fast enough?
Can changes in diet do it fast enough? Why would we see all these
changes? If the mutations in the genetic code isn’t accidental than
there is some cause, a cause that we need to identify. If the changes
are simply a ...[text shortened]... ast array of living systems we see
today. Which I do not accept to be up front about it.
Kelly
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayLooking at the exchange between KellyJay and bbarr, it looks a lot like Kelly is using a very different definition of "accident". Kelly's concept of "accident" appears to be anything that does not involve conscious and intentional design. Is my reading correct?
Having a little to do with design I believe the complex nature of
life basically suggests to me that accidental changes are not
adequate to achieve the functionally complex living systems we
see today.
My impression is that this definition is a lot more demanding than the definition used by most people. For example, I think most people would say that it is not an "accident" that casinos win money from their clientele at, say, roulette. Sure, there is plenty of randomness involved, but the distribution of results is such that the randomness will produce a virtual certainty that the casino will win money over the longish term.
Similarly, the randomness of mutation is necessarily distributed so that the probability of "increasing complexity" is nearly certain over a long time period. A good, popular treatment of why that must be can be found in Stephen Jay Gould's book Full House. It's not fully rigorous, but gives a decent hint at the math involved.
IMHO, a process that is (nearly) certain to produce one kind of result rather than another is not properly labeled "accidental" whether or not it is stochastic. Even the standard properties of classical physics reduce to stochastic processes at the quantum level, and no one (that I know of) calls them "accidental".
Best Regards,
Paul