Date: August 23rd, 2019 10:53 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
The pre-cambrian creatures just had to simply mutate their DNA, landing on the one-in-ten-trillion-trillion-trillion chance that a new protein would be useful, and early enough in fetal development, and do that a gazillion times for enough proteins to develop some useful new adaptation that branched off a new species, all the while avoiding the trap that nearly all mutations are fatal before reproduction occurs?
And this explosion of mathematically near-impossible mutations all happened in a geological blink-of-an-eye, and among thousands of species? Everyone just won the lottery just before the Cambrian period and sheep with weirdly large intestines and misformed feet suddenly became horses, instead of dying?
Date: August 23rd, 2019 10:55 AM Author: heady lettuce mood
Early life simply occurred after a serious of random fortuitous mutations that caused an explosion of life, which in turn caused more mutations and evolution. This is observable fairly quickly, in just a few generations. Not difficult to grasp.
Date: August 24th, 2019 11:42 AM Author: fluffy property
This. Also OP missing the point that there are trillions of worlds in the universe attempting the same thing, and one of them worked and yielded us. Had it not happened here, it might have happened elsewhere, and we would be there observing OP saying the same dumb polisci shithead words.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 10:56 AM Author: demanding anal station masturbator
the only way I can wrap my head around it is by focusing on the enormous scale of time we are talking about here. Otherwise yes the probability that good mutations suddenly appear but then also are able to spread (despite fact that these good mutations only give marginal benefit in the face of chance in wild nature)
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:01 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
Gelernter et al, say that despite the immensity of time, the math doesnt work out. There still wasnt enough time. Scrambling DNA sequences for a single protein, with say 10000 characters, each spot picked from 20-something amino acids, are astronomically likely to be gibberish or result in death. To hit a good one - and then a combination of good ones that may or may not result in an advantageous mutation, it would take longer than the 50 million years or so the geological record constricts us to. (Some geologists say its even as narrow as 10 million).
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:18 AM Author: Umber Corner Coldplay Fan
The problem I have is that protein searches don’t need to be uniform random across all amino acids. Yes, if linking 1000 random amino acids was the process used, then it’s impossible. But nature is pretty awesome, and I wouldn’t be shocked if finding new proteins by perturbing existing ones or if there is some sick natural algorithm used.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:48 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
this is compelling. but it's already stepped away from "random mutation" into some code-behind-the-code. for "nature" to employ a narrowing tool to avoid the bad math of pure random selection, it's already displaying what could be termed "intelligence".
Date: August 23rd, 2019 12:00 PM Author: Umber Corner Coldplay Fan
This is sort of the motivation for why Wolfram went nuts with cellular automata. What looks like chaos or randomness that’s beyond the scope of human intelligence may make sense within a simple natural algorithm.
Date: August 25th, 2019 12:41 AM Author: seedy obsidian brunch
It's always seemed the other way around to me. Like I read about this prehistoric creature called pakicetus, which was basically a dog that could swim really well. This thing supposedly evolved into whales, orcas etc within 50 million years. That never seemed to me like enough time for a dog to turn into a blue whale. Glad someone is finally calling fraud on this.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 10:58 AM Author: Orchid frum stage
Evolution is like the ultimate scientific theory for liberal artists/psuedointellectuals/reddit atheists because there are no maths or even science really. I have never seen a discussion/debate about evolution that doesn't either:
1. Beg the question, or use it as a rationalisation for itself
2. Differentiate the obvious micro-evolution for birds in the galapagos or human dick sizes versus the massive leap in logic required in order to form the human eye or Monkeys arising from nothing in the era subsequent to the dinosaurs in mere millions of years (not billions or trillions, which would at least make sense).
3. Avoid referring to using the word "evolution" in place of God/intelligent design. i.e., "Humans have incisors to bite into food because of Evolution."
Jewishness, and Yahweh's omnipotence, will be proven correct in the long run imho. Seriousness aside, there is an impetus behind things that has alluded lazy scientists hitherto.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:02 AM Author: heady lettuce mood
I mean the LORD and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I've heard a lot of evolutionary arguments for gayness. And evolution aside, there are a lot of good arguments for it.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:07 AM Author: heady lettuce mood
It doesn't. Plus, the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. Yes, we are extremely different from monkeys but a chimp and human genome are 99.9% the same.
In any case, evolution is OVER because 1) we can now edit human DNA at the germ line, adding or removing or editing any gene and so we now have a power that is utterly incomprehensible and society is woefully unprepared to deal with and 2) we will soon be using technological upgrades to transcend this biological substrate that took millions of years to evolve but will become about as relevant as a first gen iPod in just a few decades.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:10 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
im telling you, critics explain the math even for dumbs like me. landing on a viable protein through randomly mutating DNA, which orders the amino acids, is dealing with exponential numbers in the trillions-trillions-trillions. And winning that lottery just gets you one good protein. That then has to combine with other lottery winners to form some adaptation at just the right moment in gestation to change the animal's form. And that change is almost certainly likely to cause early death.
Hitting all the right combos on one species, such that it evolves to a brand new species, would be astounding. To do so as a way to explain the origin of ALL these cambrian species is unreasonable. Even a hundred million years doesnt give you enough generations, mathematically. And the cambrian explosion of species didnt have half that time.
Darwin knew nothing about cellular development and DNA code, obviously. His theory only works for local mutations, like longer beaks. Not for horses arising out of frogs.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:13 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
that was the most flippant phrase in my post. What do you say to the claim that, now being able to do the math in how many correct amino acids you'd need to randomly land on to form a useful protein, it's apparent that there wasnt enough time to explain the appearance of new species of animals?
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:15 AM Author: heady lettuce mood
There are things that are far less likely than your amino acid mutation, that have happened. Many, many things. Like, for example, the universe existing in a way where life could exist to begin with.
Also, your claim is bunk. There was plenty of time. Do you get how much can happen in billions of years?
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:24 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
lol u have no knowledge of this.
there were not billions of years to get it done and that is the main point. We know when these creatures didnt exist and then existed.
these species originated between the pre-cambrian and cambrian, and the window of their origins is disputed to be between 10M and 70M years.
the whole criticism is saying "you probably couldnt duplicate this bookshelf of text with the time limit we have", and youre saying, "YES WE COULD... if we had a lot more time". No shit.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:29 AM Author: wonderful frozen theatre
who the fuck knows. it's enough to say that darwin's guess was akin to saying, "poof, this indescribably mathematically unlikely event just happened, carry on fags". Maybe it did, or maybe aliens did land, who the fuck knows, one is as believable as the other
Date: August 24th, 2019 11:59 AM Author: Exciting Topaz Box Office
Funny you bring up the eye. Vertebrate eyes are terribly designed and don't really make sense unless you view it as the result of billions of years of guesswork, especially considering there are better designs (like what we see in giant squid).
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:14 AM Author: checked out chud
"macro-evolution" isn't falsifiable and is in the same category as evolutionary psychology - something that can be inferred to a certain confidence level and if true, successfully explains the world around us, but is far from actual "science" and certainly not concrete fact
micro-evolution is real science and we can directly observe it
Date: August 23rd, 2019 12:05 PM Author: provocative indigo legend range
Plenty of evidence of transitional species. Neanderthal were close enough to breed with. Denisovans too. All three were clearly descended from a common ancestor.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 7:07 PM Author: Sapphire juggernaut casino
No, the issue is that people like you, who have already made up their mind, will always want more until we have a complete fossil record for all life on this planet.
Date: August 24th, 2019 11:50 AM Author: fluffy property
This. Nearly every fossil is a fossil of a transitional species. It's just that when you discover a new species, the gap between that one and the next one becomes a new "missing transitional species"
It's the continuum hypothesis in action: there's always another point between two points in a continuously-valued set
Date: August 23rd, 2019 11:35 AM Author: Umber Corner Coldplay Fan
He’s having a legit discussion that’s currently an open research topic. Are you just one of those people who doesn’t understand shit, but sucks up to rich people?
Date: August 23rd, 2019 7:23 PM Author: Umber Corner Coldplay Fan
Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters will produce Shakespeare. But monkeys covering every inch of the earth’s surface for the entire existence of this planet across all 10^24 number of planets in the universe won’t even write one line of a sonnet
Date: August 24th, 2019 6:36 PM Author: Umber Corner Coldplay Fan
What the fuck does that have to do with the Cambrian period? Are you implying some proteins formed in some other iteration of the universe showed up on earth during that time?
Date: August 23rd, 2019 7:00 PM Author: Sapphire juggernaut casino
Also, there is an extensive fossil record despite all the things that prevent fossils from surviving. ID has tried poking holes, but evolution is still by far the best theory. People have been attacking it for a long time, and they can't seem to make a legitimate dent.
Date: August 24th, 2019 11:55 AM Author: fluffy property
But that's not what the theory says. Instead it says that you throw them until they approximately something insanely simple that can replicate, and then only the things GOOD at replicating keep replicating. JFC the state of xo in 2019.
Date: August 23rd, 2019 7:08 PM Author: Sickened gay coffee pot
you neglect the anthropic principle. given that we're here we must have gotten here somehow.
the only question is why we find ourselves on a planet where life developed so quickly against the odds you describe, instead of one that is billions of years older. the answer may lie in the great filter. it may be far likelier for consciousness to evolve quickly than for a planet not to be destroyed - or at least to remain a hospitable place for life - for eons
Date: August 24th, 2019 11:53 AM Author: Sickened gay coffee pot
well, they do lead to a reductio ad absurdum of sorts, similar to the skeptic's argument from error in epistemology. not sure why YOU think they're bullshit though
Date: August 24th, 2019 2:21 PM Author: Splenetic psychic institution
I do so because its proponents, who say that it's no less likely for such a brain to come into existence fully loaded with a lifetime's worth of memories than for such a brain to be the result of slower moving evolutionary processes, are implying that one way only happens to be faster, despite that time itself is irrelevant given an infinity with which to work.
Date: August 24th, 2019 5:11 PM Author: Sickened gay coffee pot
you suggested that time being infinite makes it irrelevant to do a comparison of odds of different hypotheses (e.g. are there greater odds that we are boltzmann brains or 'real'?).
this is like saying there are equally many even integers as integers. sure it's mathematically true. but within any finite subset of consecutive integers there will always be about twice as many integers as even integers. bousso uses a similar idea to measure the odds of shit happening in an infinite and ever-expanding multiverse
Date: August 25th, 2019 11:15 AM Author: Splenetic psychic institution
I take time as a measure of the change that a thing realizes in its relative spatial position or its internal disposition. Without change there is no time. Mine is admittedly a mystical view in which the proverbial tree that falls in a forest only makes a sound if there is sufficiently proximate something capable of registering changes in the rates of vibration had by the air molecules. These molecules would not even be affected if nothing else were there to perceive that potential affect.
What's left out and assumed away by almost every explanation of evolution is the high likelihood of lamarckism, i.e., the inheritance of certain beneficial acquired characteristics. We're all taught in 3rd grade it's totally false. However there is plenty of science to the contrary.