Evolution
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Stryder are you shooting for a discussion or looking for a forum to describe your complete understanding of evolution?
I would suggest if you want discussion to break it down a bit. Personally I think molecular evolution is the most interesting as it gives all the potential for the evolution on our size scale. You seemed to over simplify that part a lot. It's where most of the complexity of how evolution actually acheives diversity comes in and there is a lot more to it than you said.
Cool topic and interesting comments though.
I like programming and CS too. writing a genetic algorithm gives interesting insights into the process.
The things I would briefly emphasize are these:
Reproduction is necessary because thermal effects necessitate mistakes. Nothing can remain ordered forever under these perterbations.
Reproduction in light of these mistakes creates new differently organised systems that sometimes work better and sometimes work worse.
If everything in an organism works and is necessary then there is no room for adding new function. So shit gets duplicated and broken so badly that it starts working with a new function.
the question then becomes what does it take to get reproducing order given the laws of physics and a bunch of atoms. (one might also wonder if the laws of physics evolved themselves and could have been different then they are. if so what sets of physical laws are stable and do most of them permit life?)
I would suggest if you want discussion to break it down a bit. Personally I think molecular evolution is the most interesting as it gives all the potential for the evolution on our size scale. You seemed to over simplify that part a lot. It's where most of the complexity of how evolution actually acheives diversity comes in and there is a lot more to it than you said.
Cool topic and interesting comments though.
I like programming and CS too. writing a genetic algorithm gives interesting insights into the process.
The things I would briefly emphasize are these:
Reproduction is necessary because thermal effects necessitate mistakes. Nothing can remain ordered forever under these perterbations.
Reproduction in light of these mistakes creates new differently organised systems that sometimes work better and sometimes work worse.
If everything in an organism works and is necessary then there is no room for adding new function. So shit gets duplicated and broken so badly that it starts working with a new function.
the question then becomes what does it take to get reproducing order given the laws of physics and a bunch of atoms. (one might also wonder if the laws of physics evolved themselves and could have been different then they are. if so what sets of physical laws are stable and do most of them permit life?)
I originated this thread for discussion on evolution (And any point through out it's history), also any conclusions to how a chain reaction was started.
(also so that very long posting, stays on the internet in someone and sparks wondering thoughts and expanded explainations)
I suppose you could say this thread is in it's first Evolutionary stages, and peoples inputs an opinions will cause the interesting bits to be discussed and the bits that seem tedious, boring and droll disappear from discussion.
So feel free to "Evolve the thread".
(also so that very long posting, stays on the internet in someone and sparks wondering thoughts and expanded explainations)
I suppose you could say this thread is in it's first Evolutionary stages, and peoples inputs an opinions will cause the interesting bits to be discussed and the bits that seem tedious, boring and droll disappear from discussion.
So feel free to "Evolve the thread".
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
I wasn't really questioning what you posted. There was a lot of good stuff there. I was just reacting to the fact that such a long post is hard to respond to as there are many different things one might want to say.
I'm sorry you responded to my reaction and not my ideas. Any response to them?
I'm sorry you responded to my reaction and not my ideas. Any response to them?
Scilosopher
I appologise I didn't reply to your responses content rather than reaction. You are right, my Post was long, and admittedly I should have broken it down piece by piece. (Of course each piece in their own rights would be a thread on their own)
So I'll respond to your content, At first its similar to my material (which sometimes people have to read three of four times to digest or get a clue as to what I'm trying to explain) from what I understand of your content, your speaking of a Molecular ballad.
I suppose you could speak of a Radioactive decay as a "De-evolutionary state", since when something becomes critical in a radioactive process, it can shake an electron or two loose, which in turn can cause a chain reaction to other atoms of that same chemistry.
In turn that means eventually you have a completely different set of materials (i.e. Es Einsteinium) of course Es is when those free floating electrons have been transposed to a material that is undergoing an unstable period, and with the electrons it stablises. (I can't remember for how long)
But then there are materials created that now lack a few electrons and are downscaled, But it would provide Two evolutionary paths created from a pure material base.
This could be called Evolution and De-evolution, although De-evolution means in this case your reverting to a lower Periodic position.
To look at a biological representation, take for instance man's Appendix, What ever task it once did, man no longer needs so it's "De-evolution" occurs where it regresses to a former state.
Of course that means that life revolves around Quid pro quo, where preportion of us is Evolving another preportion is following a De-evolutionary path.
I appologise I didn't reply to your responses content rather than reaction. You are right, my Post was long, and admittedly I should have broken it down piece by piece. (Of course each piece in their own rights would be a thread on their own)
So I'll respond to your content, At first its similar to my material (which sometimes people have to read three of four times to digest or get a clue as to what I'm trying to explain) from what I understand of your content, your speaking of a Molecular ballad.
I suppose you could speak of a Radioactive decay as a "De-evolutionary state", since when something becomes critical in a radioactive process, it can shake an electron or two loose, which in turn can cause a chain reaction to other atoms of that same chemistry.
In turn that means eventually you have a completely different set of materials (i.e. Es Einsteinium) of course Es is when those free floating electrons have been transposed to a material that is undergoing an unstable period, and with the electrons it stablises. (I can't remember for how long)
But then there are materials created that now lack a few electrons and are downscaled, But it would provide Two evolutionary paths created from a pure material base.
This could be called Evolution and De-evolution, although De-evolution means in this case your reverting to a lower Periodic position.
To look at a biological representation, take for instance man's Appendix, What ever task it once did, man no longer needs so it's "De-evolution" occurs where it regresses to a former state.
Of course that means that life revolves around Quid pro quo, where preportion of us is Evolving another preportion is following a De-evolutionary path.
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
stryder
You really like radioactive decay analogies, huh? (I've noticed you discussing it in a number of posts)
I would tend to differentiate evolutions of some process in time, like radioactive decay or whirls of turbulence in a laminar flow moving into a turbulent regime from biological evolution.
The key difference is the ability to replicate the order or information and have active growth. I suppose there may be dead systems like harmonic oscillation that spread info too though. Supposedly a room full of pendulum clocks will synchronize over time and that evolution has some similarities.
That's why I was stressing reproduction. It is at the heart of evolution. Any system that can reproduce itself with mistakes will evolve over time in a generative way (except of course if there are no other nearby options that can also reproduce in which case the mistakes are just destructive and not generative).
Any other system will simply evolve in the sense of changing over time. These evolutions are interesting too, and do also move through stages of varying degrees or order.
The important differences are certainly subtle and hard both to grasp and discuss (I keep wanting to make claims on the biological side and realizing they are not really founded). Both systems if not gaining energy (maybe in the form of work) from exterior sources will reach equilibrium and in essence die. The course of the change in time can continue to generate behavior not seen previously for indefinite periods of time.
But reproduction and the transfer of actual information that allows a more active role in finding energy and maintaining the order is certainly unique to life. As well as the tendency over time to diversify and generate alternate strategies to do so.
I just realized that another important thing to stress is the role of separation in life. Creating boundaries like the cell wall. The individual.
ok that was a bit long ... I'll follow my own advice and shut up.
You really like radioactive decay analogies, huh? (I've noticed you discussing it in a number of posts)
I would tend to differentiate evolutions of some process in time, like radioactive decay or whirls of turbulence in a laminar flow moving into a turbulent regime from biological evolution.
The key difference is the ability to replicate the order or information and have active growth. I suppose there may be dead systems like harmonic oscillation that spread info too though. Supposedly a room full of pendulum clocks will synchronize over time and that evolution has some similarities.
That's why I was stressing reproduction. It is at the heart of evolution. Any system that can reproduce itself with mistakes will evolve over time in a generative way (except of course if there are no other nearby options that can also reproduce in which case the mistakes are just destructive and not generative).
Any other system will simply evolve in the sense of changing over time. These evolutions are interesting too, and do also move through stages of varying degrees or order.
The important differences are certainly subtle and hard both to grasp and discuss (I keep wanting to make claims on the biological side and realizing they are not really founded). Both systems if not gaining energy (maybe in the form of work) from exterior sources will reach equilibrium and in essence die. The course of the change in time can continue to generate behavior not seen previously for indefinite periods of time.
But reproduction and the transfer of actual information that allows a more active role in finding energy and maintaining the order is certainly unique to life. As well as the tendency over time to diversify and generate alternate strategies to do so.
I just realized that another important thing to stress is the role of separation in life. Creating boundaries like the cell wall. The individual.
ok that was a bit long ... I'll follow my own advice and shut up.
Hi!
I'm quite interested in evolution.
Do you have any idea how the molecules form something like us?
I do not think you give a clear answer on many questions.
You always do not explain the hows in your questions or maybe just I can't understand it.
________________________________________________
Relax.................
I'm quite interested in evolution.
Do you have any idea how the molecules form something like us?
I do not think you give a clear answer on many questions.
You always do not explain the hows in your questions or maybe just I can't understand it.
________________________________________________
Relax.................
Hi!
Also if I want to tell people about evolution, how should I declare it?
e.g. (anything wrong if I say it like this?)
Evolution is due to the competition between different species and the interaction between the species and the environment. For those which can adapted to the environment better, they will survive and reproduce and for those which are weaker, they will extinct. Mutations lead to offsprins with different characteristics and if the new characteristics are beneficial they will survive, otherwise they will die. This is the survival of the fittest.
Also if I want to tell people about evolution, how should I declare it?
e.g. (anything wrong if I say it like this?)
Evolution is due to the competition between different species and the interaction between the species and the environment. For those which can adapted to the environment better, they will survive and reproduce and for those which are weaker, they will extinct. Mutations lead to offsprins with different characteristics and if the new characteristics are beneficial they will survive, otherwise they will die. This is the survival of the fittest.
Unfortunately i cant believe in best possible guesses at this time so the whole evolution theory goes tits up when asked why are we the only species to evolve a conscious mind even though we've only been here a fraction of the time compared with other species?
Iv said before im not a religious nutter who wont accept that there might not be a heaven and hell just i think heaven and hell are more plausible then evolution after looking at current data.
For the record i dont believe there's a heaven or hell either.
Iv said before im not a religious nutter who wont accept that there might not be a heaven and hell just i think heaven and hell are more plausible then evolution after looking at current data.
For the record i dont believe there's a heaven or hell either.
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Dreamsa
Nobody understands evolution and biology completely. We are beginning to understand biology and evolution much better, but only evolution in the context of the current state of affairs.
Nobody has a plausible beginning to life, though there are some interesting theories involving separation of self from nonself involving spontaneous formation of vesicles and membrane bilayers.
Your definition is basically correct, but I would also say that internal duplication of regions of DNA within the organism is important. A dnd explore new functions without depriving the organism of the useful function it has been filling.
Also, a single molecule is tough to improve through mutation alone. The analogy typically given is a bullet shot into a car engine is unlikely to make an improvement. That's why we have sex. You need a variety of workable versions of a given molecule that can be tested in lots of combinations. Some sets will have improved logic that benefit the system they're involved in.
It's interesting to note that all of the combinations of human genes possible cannot have been ever been tested. Using a conservative estimate of 30,000genes with 2 versions of each, the possible number of combinations is 2^30,000 ~ 8x10^9030. I don't have a reasonable feel for how big the population was historically, but even at an average of a million which is likey to be a bit high it would take 8x10^9024 years ... that's a lot of years ... even at billions it would take 8x10^9021 years and that's probably longer than the universe is supposed to have been around (I don't have good estimates for that either).
Nobody understands evolution and biology completely. We are beginning to understand biology and evolution much better, but only evolution in the context of the current state of affairs.
Nobody has a plausible beginning to life, though there are some interesting theories involving separation of self from nonself involving spontaneous formation of vesicles and membrane bilayers.
Your definition is basically correct, but I would also say that internal duplication of regions of DNA within the organism is important. A dnd explore new functions without depriving the organism of the useful function it has been filling.
Also, a single molecule is tough to improve through mutation alone. The analogy typically given is a bullet shot into a car engine is unlikely to make an improvement. That's why we have sex. You need a variety of workable versions of a given molecule that can be tested in lots of combinations. Some sets will have improved logic that benefit the system they're involved in.
It's interesting to note that all of the combinations of human genes possible cannot have been ever been tested. Using a conservative estimate of 30,000genes with 2 versions of each, the possible number of combinations is 2^30,000 ~ 8x10^9030. I don't have a reasonable feel for how big the population was historically, but even at an average of a million which is likey to be a bit high it would take 8x10^9024 years ... that's a lot of years ... even at billions it would take 8x10^9021 years and that's probably longer than the universe is supposed to have been around (I don't have good estimates for that either).
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Benji,
whoops didn't realize I posted a fragment first ... my browser ipped and took me to a page saying I couldn't post 2 messages in 30 seconds and then I finished the message (in more than thirty s) and posted it...
whoops didn't realize I posted a fragment first ... my browser ipped and took me to a page saying I couldn't post 2 messages in 30 seconds and then I finished the message (in more than thirty s) and posted it...
Last edited:
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Benji,
I don't think anyone has ever shown that other mammals aren't conscious.
If an organims has a successful niche it definitely won't evolve something complicated like consciousness while being selected to remain well suited to that niche. Our niche was our ability to think and with what we're doing to the earth no other animal has a chance to reach the level we have.
Dolphins sound like they're pretty intelligent and social. Maybe being in the sea they have escaped more of our havoc and had a better chance.
I don't think anyone has ever shown that other mammals aren't conscious.
If an organims has a successful niche it definitely won't evolve something complicated like consciousness while being selected to remain well suited to that niche. Our niche was our ability to think and with what we're doing to the earth no other animal has a chance to reach the level we have.
Dolphins sound like they're pretty intelligent and social. Maybe being in the sea they have escaped more of our havoc and had a better chance.
Hi!
I think mammals and many other animals are conscious but only we do not understand them.
Also I want to ask how are different organs evolved?
________________________________________________
scilosopher,
Therefore there are still many details involving life and
evolution still uncertain, right?
We are just starting to gain the knowledge then!
I think mammals and many other animals are conscious but only we do not understand them.
Also I want to ask how are different organs evolved?
________________________________________________
scilosopher,
Therefore there are still many details involving life and
evolution still uncertain, right?
We are just starting to gain the knowledge then!
Dreamsa ...
With patience, you can communicate with quite a few ... though rather superficially.
Had a female pigeon that was great except that I could never get it through her little
skull that she shouldn't follow me into town. She'd fly along with me when I was on
my motorcycle. Great fun and talk about getting stares from the cagers coming from
the opposite direction.
Take care.
With patience, you can communicate with quite a few ... though rather superficially.
Had a female pigeon that was great except that I could never get it through her little
skull that she shouldn't follow me into town. She'd fly along with me when I was on
my motorcycle. Great fun and talk about getting stares from the cagers coming from
the opposite direction.
Take care.
Dreamsa ...
Oldest son brought her home as a chick and I guess she just thought she was
one of the family. Made a great 'watch pigeon'. Her cage was at the top of the
second floor stairs and if anyone other than family went upstairs she'd have a fit.
Take care.
Oldest son brought her home as a chick and I guess she just thought she was
one of the family. Made a great 'watch pigeon'. Her cage was at the top of the
second floor stairs and if anyone other than family went upstairs she'd have a fit.
Take care.
The planets were formed from the accretion disk that surrounded the infant Sun and which was also absorbing matter from this same disk. The theory that the planets were spun off the sun is no longer creditable.
The reason that the Earth is hot is due to radioactive decay of elements within it.
All elements, except Hydrogen some Helium and small quantities of Lithium and Beryllium (I think) which were formed at the time of the BB, are formed in supernova and thus were already in the accretion disk.
The magnetic poles are created from the iron core of the Earth spinning at a different rate than the outer layers thus forming a kind of dynamo.
I am open to correction on any of these points of course.
Last edited: