All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by twhitehead
My response was:

So we have:
X many right ways. (mutations or other events leading to a life form surviving)
Y many wrong ways. (mutations or other events leading to a life form dying out)

Now taking your previous statement:
[b]given the enormous amount of variables to just occur not only in the right sequence, but at the right time and so on ation will occur and spread through the population is very close to 1? A near certainty.

[/b]The trouble with this is you are not in the ball park with what we
are discussing! It isn’t 1 out of 100, and it isn’t going to be “a gene”,
it is going to all of them have an opportunity to leave the reservation
of being healthy part of the normal process of life progressing as it
has been programmed to do. and turning into something else good or
bad for that individual or cluster of individuals within a species that
all got the same mutation at once if that can be called random. Once
mutations occur good or bad; the next round of mutations may bring
things back to the way they were or not, either way you have several
of these mutations all taking place at once, and if they are random,
than there will be no rhyme or reason for them and their outcomes
they will either be good or bad just to continue life let alone build
something new.

With this process, you want me to accept that more than a few
different species can acquire eyes, even of various types, with most
of them getting two eyes on their heads in relatively the same
location, pretty much hooked up close to the same way regardless
of the body types: insects, reptiles, mammals, birds, fish and so on!
That to me doesn't sound like a process that only gets random
changes over time to pushes those changes into the filter of natural
selection for building new organs and sophisticated systems like
the nervous system or the circular system. If man were building
all life forms in factories it would take a lot of work to get all the
different types of life to spec knowing the different environments
each life form was going to be presented with.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sorry it´s the middle of the night and I can´t sleep for the second night running 🙁 so don´t expect me to answer everything completely. I´ve put headings in bold to indicate what point I´m replying to.

[b]1.0E15
The astronomy reference was hyperbole - if you can name a terrestrial vertebrate species with that many individuals in it then I´ll ...[text shortened]... ng due to a mutation. Especially the Paleopolyploidy page is nice as it shows how they spot it.[/b]

….1.0E15
The astronomy reference was hyperbole - if you can name a TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE species with that many INDIVIDUALS in it then I´ll take it back.
..… (my emphasis)


This is in response to my question:
“why isn’t 1 quintillion not a “meaningful” number outside astronomy?”

But this question was in response to your assertion:

….You have a population of 1 quintillion individuals versus one with the beneficial GENE - this just isn’t a meaningful number outside astronomy.
..… (my emphasis)

Which means this response doesn’t make any sense to me because I naturally thought you were talking about ‘GENES’ and NOT ‘INDIVIDUALS’!
If you have a stable population averaging 10,000,000 individuals at any one time over 10,000,000 generations and each one of them had, on average, just 0.01 new mutations (i.e. one in 100 of them has a new mutation) then that’s still 1,000,000,000,000 new mutations over 10,000,000 generations.

…Horizontal gene transfer
No, the point there was that it occurred to me after I´d posted that you probably can have a unicellular species that has that many members.
..…

What does the number of members got to do with it?

…What I meant was the way you start of with a mutation in one individual (although it can happen multiple times, e,g, see the Wiki page on sickle cell anemia) and it spreads out through the entire population. The problem with the analogy is that this involves REPLACEMENT of the individuals in the population,
..… (my emphasis)

I don’t understand what you mean here:
“REPLACEMENT of the individuals in the population”?
Aren’t all of the individuals in the population “replaced” anyway? -I mean, if a given individual doesn’t die of anything else first then it would normally die of old age etc -I mean, no individual is immortal, right?
So what do you mean by “REPLACEMENT” of the individuals in the population in this context?

….Evolutionary determinism
Ouch - didn´t realise that existed in biology - what I meant was that some of the points raised by the natural selection advocates read as if evolutionary outcomes are somehow inevitable
.…

Is there any particular reason for you to believe that it is impossible for some of the outcomes of evolution to be inevitable? After all, natural selection is at least partly a non-random process -it has some predictability. I can be quite sure that natural selection would NOT, for example, select those zebra that have their head missing -or have their head back to front etc.

….The fact that the theory - as far as I understand it - does not explain everything does not mean that it is impossible for an updated natural selection theory to explain it.
…

Agreed -and well put 🙂

…. However, there are more fundamental issues, such as how and why tissues became differentiated in the first place - you can probably get a heart by a series of point mutations. But why select for tissues?
…

I don’t see what the problem is here -why wouldn’t natural selection select for differentiation of tissues if doing that helps individuals survival?

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point would be when looking at the race, if you cannot get out
of the starting block you don't get to run.
Kelly

That “point” of yours has already been shown to be a bad analogy for the reasons I very CLEARLY just gave in my post -read my post again. -have you got any intelligent counter arguments against what I actually said in my post?

Simply repeating the same “point” over and over again (as you often do) when it has already been apparently debunked will get you nowhere -you need to give counter arguments if you are to make progress here.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….1.0E15
The astronomy reference was hyperbole - if you can name a TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE species with that many INDIVIDUALS in it then I´ll take it back.
..… (my emphasis)


This is in response to my question:
“why isn’t 1 quintillion not a “meaningful” number outside astronomy?”

But this question was in response to your assertion: ...[text shortened]... atural selection select for differentiation of tissues if doing that helps individuals survival?[/b]

Lets just forget about the number squabble. My fundamental point in all this was that there are big dangers in invented ¨thought experiments¨ to try to illustrate points as it´s easy to forget some aspect which ends up undermining the entire argument. Proof by example is a logical fallacy anyway.

Replacement of individuals:
Yes, maybe that wasn´t clear. I was trying to explain the limitations of my own analogy. In diffusion of heat across a metal the individual atoms are not replaced. A new gene in a population of bugs spreads through the population due to individuals with it being fitter and therefore having a marginally higher reproduction rate. The analogy breaks down due to this.

Inevitability
If something is physically impossible then it just plain won´t happen - I agree. This is a negative - you are saying what cannot happen. It is hard to impossible to predict positives. Once an adaptive change has started then it might be possible to predict the outcome (see example below). But, suppose a species becomes extinct and some other species moves into the niche. It is not, in general, possible to say what adaptations the species will adopt in order to exploit the niche better.

Tissues
The descendant of an animal with only one type of cell has to have two or more types of cell, not die as a result, and be able to pass on this property to the next generation. Possibly with only one of the tissue types involved in reproduction, but still having to code for the other type. Once it´s started the specialization is clearly potentially very advantageous but there is the initial barrier to overcome.

A couple of examples
An example of an organ forming from the fossil records is the middle ear. The bones in our middle ear, which we use for hearing, are used by reptiles to eat with. Once this change has started you could possibly predict the outcome, but being able to say that this is inevitable from the initial common ancestor of diapsids and synapsids is somewhat harder.

Even if you can do some sort of brute force calculation of the results of all possible mutations and further mutations you have to work out which ones are going to survive and which ones are going to be wiped out due to sheer bad luck like having a ¨well we thought it was extinct¨ volcano as an ecological niche.

This is all made tougher still as an adaptation can change use. The inner ear bones are a good example, as are feathers. It is believed that what birds use for flight started out as a display mechanism in dinosaurs.

Originally posted by twhitehead

2. All life forms die eventually.

I´m not absolutely sure this is true. When the sun turns into a red giant, or if the earth gets sucked into a black hole or something yes. However, take a single celled species which reproduces asexually. Either you can regard the act of reproduction as destroying the initial cell, or you can regard one or both of the daughter cells as being the parent cell, in which case it is, to all practical purposes, immortal.

Aging is an adaptation, it´s not inevitable, there is an advantage for sexually reproducing species if previous generations are killed off. This keeps the population turning over. If we only ever died by accident, or disease, then either we´d get an over-population disaster or our reproductive rates would be very low and then any environmental change would be a potential extinction event - the species couldn´t adapt quickly enough. Of course, from the point of view of the individual it isn´t great, but that´s not what counts.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
That “point” of yours has already been shown to be a bad analogy for the reasons I very CLEARLY just gave in my post -read my post again. -have you got any intelligent counter arguments against what I actually said in my post?

Simply repeating the same “point” over and over again (as you often do) when it has already been apparently debunked will get you nowhere -you need to give counter arguments if you are to make progress here.

No, LOL but is it funny you would suggest such a thing. Simply due
to the fact you don't like the analogy does not mean it was shown
as bad. The starting point is part of the race, getting out of the
block is part of the race; a false start disqualifies you from the event
itself. Your avalanche analogy is different than the race, the race is
not only the run, but the start is just as much a part of the whole
process as crossing the finish line.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
I´m not absolutely sure this is true. When the sun turns into a red giant, or if the earth gets sucked into a black hole or something yes. However, take a single celled species which reproduces asexually. Either you can regard the act of reproduction as destroying the initial cell, or you can regard one or both of the daughter cells as being the paren ...[text shortened]... Of course, from the point of view of the individual it isn´t great, but that´s not what counts.

You have to look at the process as it is described from beginning to
end as well, where ever people believed life started, be it in a small
pond, a lake, in a piece of dirt, where ever! From that point on, that
life will require all the conditions it found itself would have always
be within the band with of being in proper conditions for sustaining
it; moreover, if the theory is correct conductive for change over time
as well. A single hard change like an ultra cold winter, or summer
being to close to a volcano eruption could kill it all off it wasn't
suited for it, a lack of food supply, a nasty mutation and so on all
could end the process at the beginning. Then you have to keep
getting these changes in the mutations not so bad as to kill off life,
but mutate in ways to make the life more and more complex over
time all the while having the environments sustain it with food and
the proper conditions. Besides getting all the right changes taking
place in the random mutations in an order that would cause it to
evolve properly we have to throw into the mix all the outside
forces also being just right.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, LOL but is it funny you would suggest such a thing. Simply due
to the fact you don't like the analogy does not mean it was shown
as bad. The starting point is part of the race, getting out of the
block is part of the race; a false start disqualifies you from the event
itself. Your avalanche analogy is different than the race, the race is
not only t ...[text shortened]... but the start is just as much a part of the whole
process as crossing the finish line.
Kelly

It is possible to have a race with a running start.

I owe you a couple of responses, but they´ll have to wait as I need to get on with some work!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have to look at the process as it is described from beginning to
end as well, where ever people believed life started, be it in a small
pond, a lake, in a piece of dirt, where ever! From that point on, that
life will require all the conditions it found itself would have always
be within the band with of being in proper conditions for sustaining
it; ...[text shortened]... ve properly we have to throw into the mix all the outside
forces also being just right.
Kelly

….You have to look at the process as it is described from beginning to
end as well, where ever people believed life started, be it in a small
pond, a lake, in a piece of dirt, where ever! From that point on, that
life will require all the conditions it found itself would have always
be within the band with of being in proper conditions for sustaining
it;
..… (my emphasis)

That would ONLY be true for the first life but not true once it has spread all over the place. Very often conditions are generally NOT right for life -hence mass extinctions. But even when conditions are generally NOT right for life, there has to be only one lucky life form that just happens to be in the right place of the world (which isn’t very improbable once life has spread across the globe) where conditions are not so bad for life to scrape by and then eventually recover once conditions improve.

….A single hard change like an ultra cold winter, or summer
being to close to a volcano eruption could kill it ALL off it wasn't
suited for it, a lack of food supply, a nasty mutation and so on all
could end the process at the beginning.
..… (my emphasis)

What nonsense!
If that was true then why don’t we ever see that happening today?
Has a mutation or a volcanic eruption ever been observed to kill off ALL life that exists today? -answer, no. Volcanic eruption generally have their bulk of their killing power being LOCAL and, as far as we know, have never eliminated ALL life while “nasty” mutations are constantly being weeded-out by natural selection.

…Then you have to keep
getting these changes in the mutations not so bad as to kill off life,
..…

Again, this is because debilitating mutations are constantly being weeded-out by natural selection.

…Besides getting all the right changes taking
place in the random mutations in an order that would cause it to
evolve PROPERLY….
..… (my emphasis)

You mean there exists some mysteries “order of mutations” that would cause life to evolve in some mysterious sense “IMPROPERLY”!? 😛

What is the difference between “the proper” and “the improper” way for life to evolve?
-can you give an example of this? -unless you are talking about the possibility of a life form evolving with a less than perfect design in which case, no argument there! For that is one of the predictions made by the theory of evolution (due to it being a blind process) that has been confirmed by the evidence.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton

Has a mutation or a volcanic eruption ever been observed to kill off ALL life that exists today?

Well clearly not as we need to be alive to make observations. But it is at least theoretically possible that all life on earth was completely wiped out at a very early stage, and then abiogenesis happened again later. The event that is believed to have formed the moon (a collision with a mars sized object) would have killed anything on the planet at the time.

I don´t think that that affects your point much. It messes Kelly´s up as there is no reason that abiogenesis could not have happened multiple times. It may be a lot easier than one might think for abiogenesis to occur given suitable reducing conditions.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It is possible to have a race with a running start.

I owe you a couple of responses, but they´ll have to wait as I need to get on with some work!

I'm pressed for time too, no worries. It may be I don't make it here
after some time passes.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….You have to look at the process as it is described from beginning to
end as well, where ever people believed life started, be it in a small
pond, a lake, in a piece of dirt, where ever! From that point on, that
life will require all the conditions it found itself would have always
be within the band with of being in proper conditions for theory of evolution (due to it being a blind process) that has been confirmed by the evidence.

"What nonsense!
If that was true then why don’t we ever see that happening today?
Has a mutation or a volcanic eruption ever been observed to kill off ALL life that exists today? -answer, no. Volcanic eruption generally have their bulk of their killing power being LOCAL and, as far as we know, have never eliminated ALL life while “nasty” mutations are constantly being weeded-out by natural selection. "

[/b]I believe I limited my remarks to the myth that life sprang up from
non-living material and at some point was limited in size and variety
to where ever the starting point was. With respect to a volcanic eruption
and similar events, life gets destroyed, as a matter of fact depending
on how an area gets affected all life in that area can die. If the beginning
of life were to get slammed by something like volcanic heat, poisonous
gases, harsh winters, and lack of food supply I'd say your evolutionary
process would have to defeat the odds of occurring from scratch over and
over again, until the starting point of life found itself in a place where
it could grow and spread without being killed off by what was around it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….You have to look at the process as it is described from beginning to
end as well, where ever people believed life started, be it in a small
pond, a lake, in a piece of dirt, where ever! From that point on, that
life will require all the conditions it found itself would have always
be within the band with of being in proper conditions for theory of evolution (due to it being a blind process) that has been confirmed by the evidence.

…Then you have to keep
getting these changes in the mutations not so bad as to kill off life,
..…

Again, this is because debilitating mutations are constantly being weeded-out by natural selection.

[/b]Natural selection is just life playing out; it isn't magical, if something
really bad happens in a mutation depending on how wide spread, it is
all she wrote. If something else changes like temperatures, it too can
take life that was once well suited for an area and kill it off. I even
wonder now how life survived changing seasons early on, it isn't like
sub-zero wind or super hot conditions could make any new life very
comfortable, let along the swings of conditions seasons present.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….You have to look at the process as it is described from beginning to
end as well, where ever people believed life started, be it in a small
pond, a lake, in a piece of dirt, where ever! From that point on, that
life will require all the conditions it found itself would have always
be within the band with of being in proper conditions for theory of evolution (due to it being a blind process) that has been confirmed by the evidence.

…Besides getting all the right changes taking
place in the random mutations in an order that would cause it to
evolve PROPERLY….
..… (my emphasis)

You mean there exists some mysteries “order of mutations” that would cause life to evolve in some mysterious sense “IMPROPERLY”!?

What is the difference between “the proper” and “the improper” way for life to evolve?
-can you give an example of this? -unless you are talking about the possibility of a life form evolving with a less than perfect design in which case, no argument there! For that is one of the predictions made by the theory of evolution (due to it being a blind process) that has been confirmed by the evidence.

[/b]Yes, if life evolved improperly for example if blood clots occurred all the time
except the time they are required, for as long as they are required you
have dead end results, if your heart evolved in such a way it blew up or sprung
a leak because of the blood pressure you’d have dead end results, if your
veins and arteries didn’t run blood through your system like it is required
you would have dead end results, if your body didn’t retain its form but
from time to time put some of your internal organs on the outside, or neglect
to give you a brain; there would be dead end results. Blind processes with
out quality control mechanisms are not prone to always getting it right more
times than not.

You are giving credit to a blind, thoughtless process that has no desire to get
it right any more than it does to do it wrong, to absolutely not only sustain life
over time in whatever the environment it found itself in, but become more
functionally complex over time while it is doing it.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well clearly not as we need to be alive to make observations. But it is at least theoretically possible that all life on earth was completely wiped out at a very early stage, and then abiogenesis happened again later. The event that is believed to have formed the moon (a collision with a mars sized object) would have killed anything on the planet at th ...[text shortened]... e a lot easier than one might think for abiogenesis to occur given suitable reducing conditions.

agreed 🙂